L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Sobina Iakai & Ors

2. The facts of both these appeals are identical, therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1394 of 2001 are recapitulated.

7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition ignoring the specific terms of the insurance policy and averments of the written statement filed by the appellant company. The Tribunal also ignored the settled legal position as crystallized by a series of judgments of this Court. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the execution of the claim petition and directed the appellant company to pay the same within a period of two months, failing which additional interest @ 15% shall be paid till the final payment of the compensation is given to the claimant.

19. In order to curb this widespread mischief of getting insurance policies after the accidents, it is absolutely imperative to clearly hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time.

20. In view of our foregoing conclusion, these appeals have to be allowed and we order accordingly. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta vs South India Television (P) Ltd

3. The above arguments of the importer were rejected. The show cause notice and the demand levied was confirmed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the matter was carried in appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that xerox copies of the export declarations, even though procured from Hong Kong customs will not make such declarations genuine declarations. According to the Tribunal, the origin of the goods was from China/Tiwan, therefore, there was a possibility of the export declaration price being on the higher side (over invoiced). This was in view of the fact that in some of the above countries, the goods are subsidized by the concerned Governments. Huge subsidies are given based on the export declaration price. Similarly, incentives are also given in that regard. This possibility has not been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Even according to the adjudicating authority, the Hong Kong supplier might have inflated the price in order to earn export incentives and if that be the case then according to the Tribunal, the export declaration made by the Hong Kong supplier cannot be made the basis for increasing the value of the goods in India. Further, according to the Tribunal, in the present case, the importer has relied upon instances of import of identical goods at identical rates by other importers from the same supplier (namely, M/s Pearl Industrial Company, Hong Kong) during the aforesaid period. The Department had accepted those rates. This evidence led by the importer herein has not been rebutted. It had not been discussed by the adjudicating authority. In the circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the importer. Hence, this civil appeal has been filed by the Department.

9. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and accordingly Civil Appeal No. 1137/2002 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5517/2004 and 5518/2004

11. Accordingly, both these Civil Appeal Nos. 5517 and 5518 of 2004 filed by the importers are dismissed with no order as to costs.
National Council For Civil Liberties vs Union Of India & Ors

2. The prayers indicate that the writ petitioner is basically concerned with the alleged acquisition and supply of arms, explosives, detonators, gelatin sticks and bullets by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and their support groups naxalite organizations. Further allegations have been made with regard to supply and free usage of arms and explosives with a view to obstructing the progress of projects of national importance.

3. On 7th July, 2006, when the Writ Petition was moved, this Court did not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.4-Smt. Medha Patkar and respondent No.7-Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. Presumably the Court was not entirely convinced of the allegations against Smt. Medha Patkar and hence no notice was issued to her. Consequently, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, no one appeared on her behalf or on behalf of the CBI while the respondent No.6 Rahul Banerjee, appeared in person.

16. Reference was also made to annexure R-4 which was a report of an unprovoked attack on the respondent No.4 and her followers by the members of the Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha, Congress and National Council for Civil Liberties activists led by one Amit Thakkar and Shri V.K. Saxena. The demonstrators hurled abuse at Smt. Medha Patkar who was requesting them not to disturb the meeting. When Smt. Mallika Sarabhai tried to intervene, she too was threatened.

26. Ms. Jaising submitted that this was a case of suggestio falsi et suppressio veri (A suggestion of falsehood and suppression of truth) and the writ petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.

36. In our view, the materials in the writ petition consist only of vague allegations without any proper foundation. No case has therefore been made for a direction to the CBI to investigate into the said allegations.

37. Having regard to the view taken by us we do not intend to separately deal with the decisions cited on behalf of the respective parties.

38. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-.
Controller Of Defence ... vs Dhani Ram & Ors

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that they should be considered for regularization and should be paid minimum of pay scale. The respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the office of the Controller of the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95. The nature of the engagement was casual/seasonal depending upon the availability of the work.

7. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents. In the writ petition taking the stand that the writ petitioners were not covered by the scheme of regularization as they did not fulfil the prescribed criteria, they were not entitled to grant of temporary status. The High Court, however, disposed of the writ petitions holding that they were to be considered for regularization. A review petition was filed taking the stand that in view of this Court's judgment in Union of India and Anr. v. Mohan Pal and Ors. (2002 (4) SCC 573) the writ- petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The High Court, however, dismissed the review petition.

14. Above being the position, the High Court's orders are clearly unsustainable, and are set aside. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
Ram Sunder Ram vs Union Of India & Ors

7. The court of inquiry deliberations was held by the authority between the period commencing from 16.08.1988 and 12.12.1988. On 06.10.1988, the appellant was detained for interrogation under custody. During interrogation, the appellant made confessional statement of receiving illegal money of Rs. 12,500/- from one Shri Rajendra Singh, owner of Pansari Shop, for sale of 87 MT Gas through BPLs and Kerbside Pump, kept by Dvr. Gde 11 Ramakant Prasad of A Coy 5033 ASC Bn (MT). The appellant later on deposited Rs. 5,200/- out of Rs.12,500/-.

9. The appellant, having been found guilty of prejudicial act to good order and military discipline, was charged under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 [for short the Army Act]. On 08.08.1989, Major H. S. Dhillon, Presiding Officer, Summary of Evidence, sent a letter to the appellant and LDC J.P. Singh directing them to be present on 9th August, 1989 at 1000 Hrs. for recording summary evidence. The evidence was collected by the court of inquiry against the appellant and some other Army Officials. On 03.07.1991, the appellant was informed by respondent No. 5 that while working with A Coy 5033 ASC Bn (MT), the appellant received Rs. 12,500/- as illegal money from Shri Rajendra Singh, owner of Pansari shop and converted the said amount to self use, well knowing it to be from sale of 87 MT Gas through BPLs and Kerbside Pump, kept by Dvr. Gde 11 Ramakant Prasad of A Coy 5033 ASC Bn (MT). He was, therefore, asked to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the notice as to why his services should not be terminated for the lapse committed by him. After the appellant showed cause on 13.08.1991 which was found unsatisfactory, the respondent No.5 discharged him from service on 09.09.1991.

10. The appellant challenged the order of discharge from service in the High Court of Calcutta. The learned Single Judge, as stated above, set aside the said order of discharge inter alia on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant with 25% of his arrear salaries as per the last pay drawn. Further, it was observed that the Army Authority was not prevented from taking appropriate steps against the appellant in accordance with law, if they so advised and technicalities alone ought not to stand in the way in that regard. In writ appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge came to be set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was accordingly dismissed.

22. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of the Division Bench is affirmed. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs.
Manjula Sinha vs State Of U.P. & Ors

3. On the basis of complaint filed, proceedings were initiated. The legality of proceedings was questioned before the High Court by a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). The main stand before the High Court was that even on a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that alleged commission of offence was not made out so far as the appellant is concerned.

12. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

13. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1714 of 2006)

14. Leave granted.

15. Application filed before the High Court related to alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. Undisputedly the charge sheet has been filed and the same was not in question. Charges have also been framed and, therefore, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise.

16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Karnataka Industrial Areas ... vs Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. Original land holder took back possession forcibly in view of the order of the Karnataka High Court. The writ petition filed by the original land holder was allowed by the High Court leaving the complainant high and dry without land, more so when in September 1994, the KFC cancelled the term loan in view of the fact that no progress was made in the implementation of the project. Since the complainant was keen to go ahead with the project, on collecting some information, it approached the appellant to allot plot No.1-A and 1-B which was lying vacant, which were allotted to the complainant in 1995. But it seems that bad luck had not stopped chasing the complainant. As soon as the allotment in respect of plot no.1- A and 1-B were made on a resumed plot, the original allottees moved the High Court making the complainant a party before it. However, after protracted litigation, the writ petition was dismissed but in the meanwhile the loans had been cancelled and the complainant was left high and dry. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service.

12. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid circumstances. No order is necessary in the I.A. in view of the disposal of appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
M/S Hmt Ltd vs Commnr. Central Excise & ...

2. The background facts in a nutshell are as under:

3. In the show cause notices, it was proposed to classify the goods mentioned at Sl. Nos. (i) to (iv) under Chapter Heading 8419.10 and Chapter sub-heading 8419.90 (for the parts) and the machine at Sr. No.(v) under Chapter sub-heading 8413.19 and parts thereof as 8413.99. It was proposed to classify the goods at Sr. No. (vi) under Chapter sub-heading No.8421.10 and parts thereof under Chapter sub-heading No.8421.90 and the items at Sr. No. (vii) under Chapter sub-heading 8422.80 and parts thereof under Chapter sub-heading 8422.90. All the machines according to the show cause notice are used as Heat Exchangers i.e. they are used for chilling, cooling and pasteurising purpose by process involving a change in temperature and as per the functions performed by these goods with respect to Chapter 84 of Explanatory Notes. It was, therefore, proposed to classify them in the aforesaid manner. The assessee submitted its reply and supported its classification. After considering the show cause notices, reply and personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs confirmed the demand and made the following classifications.

8. The CESTAT upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal.

(I) Milking machines: xx xx xx "(II) Machines for Processing Milk ..The majority of machines for processing milk depend essentially on the principle of heat exchange and are therefore excluded (heading 84.19) e.g. apparatus for pasteurization, stassanisation or sterilization; apparatus for condensing or drying milk; milk coolers.

The heading further excludes:

14. Even on a bare perusal of the Note No. 2 to Chapter heading 84.34 and HSN Explanatory Notes shows that the view of the CESTAT is on terra firma. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. V. Carrier Aircraft (2006 (6) SCALE 564) it was held that the view of the Tribunal in classification matters unless patently wrong should not be interfered with. Above being the position, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Ishwar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

2. After the notice was issued by this Court on the instant Special Leave Petition on 18th of August, 2006, the petition again came up for hearing on 23rd of April, 2007 when the following order was passed:

3. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant and the inquiry officer returned a finding of guilt against him. The disciplinary authority, relying on the said finding of the inquiry officer, agreed with the same and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant.

8. In view of the order passed by this Court, the order of dismissal passed against the appellant is liable to be set aside and delay in filing the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal must be condoned. Accordingly the order of dismissal from service is set aside and the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as of the High Court stands set aside and consequent thereupon the original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal also stands allowed. The appeal is thus allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Maulana Naseeruddin Mohd. Haneefuddin vs State Of Gujarat

Request for further remand was rejected and the appellant was sent to judicial custody. Charge sheet qua the appellant was filed in Special POTA Court on 27.1.2005. The appellant moved an application for bail being Crl. Misc. Appln. No.762 of 2005. However, it was rejected by the learned Special (POTA) Judge, vide order dated 24.5.2005. Questioning the same, appeal was filed before the High Court.

8. In the FIR name of the present appellant-Maulana Naseeruddin was not indicated. Charge sheet was filed before the POTA Court on 10.9.2003, where names of 82 persons were indicated; out of them 39 have been arrested and 43 were stated to be absconders. On 28th October, 2003 confessional statements were recorded during appellant's remand and 43 witnesses were examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant was arrested in terms of Section 151 Cr.P.C. and was granted bail in October, 2004. On 21.1.2004 a supplementary charge sheet was filed. Appellant's name was shown in Column 2 as accused No.40 as an absconded accused in addition to those who were originally shown as absconders. The confessional statement was purportedly recorded on 7.11.2004 in Hindi. In between, several applications had been filed but there is no mention about the then so called retraction of confessional statement. On 27.1.2005, additional charge sheet had been filed.

13. Considering the various factual aspects highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court, we do not think this to be a fit case where bail can be granted to the appellant.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, it would be in the interest of all concerned if the trial is completed expeditiously.
Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ...

The appellant in this appeal, as also the appellants in the connected appeal, were candidates for selection to the posts of Munsiff - Magistrate, in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC'), entrusted with the responsibility of selection, issued an advertisement dated 17.5.2001 inviting applications for filling up 116 vacancies of Munsiff - Magistrates. The details of the vacant posts were shown as under :

11. The appellants' grievance that the selection process adopted by RPSC was contrary to the reservations policy contained in Rule 9(3) is justified. But the question is whether the entire selection should be set aside and whether all appellants should be granted relief. On completion of the selection process, 97 candidates were appointed in the year 2002 and have been serving as Judicial Officers for more than five years. There has also been a subsequent selection and appointments in the year 2005. Further all the selected candidates are not impleaded as parties. Even from among the original ten writ petitioners, only seven are before us. On the facts and circumstances, we do not propose to disturb the selection list dated 30.12.2001 or interfere with the appointments already made in pursuance of it. We will only consider whether the appellants before us are entitled to relief. We find that even if the selection list had been prepared by applying horizontal reservation properly, only the appellant (Rajesh Kumar Daria) in this appeal, and appellant Nos.3 and 6 in the connected appeal (Mohan Lal Soni and Sunil Kumar Gupta) will get selected. The other appellants were not eligible to be selected.

12. In view of the above and in view of available vacancies, we deem it just and proper to accommodate those three candidates without disturbing the selections and appointments already made, to do complete justice, in the following manner :
State Of Maharashtra vs Raju Bhaskar Potphode

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing acquittal of respondent-Raju Bhaskar Potphode (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.355 of 1993. Accusations which led to the trial of the accused was that he had on 7.2.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. committed the murder of one Sunil Gore (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by stabbing with a knife.

3. Accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Therefore, trial was conducted. In order to establish the accusations 12 witnesses were examined. It was claimed that PWs 1 to 4, namely, Uday Gore, Arun Raghunath Paranjape, Santosh Lad and Girish Modak were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. During trial, however, except PW-2 others resiled from the statements made during investigation. PW-1 Ravindranath Damle partially supported the prosecution version but claimed that he had not seen the occurrence. PWs 3 and 4 totally denied to have witnessed the incident. The Trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of PW-2 recorded conviction and imposed sentence as aforesaid.

2. The reasons do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The cumulative effect of the infirmities as noticed by the High Court goes to the root of the matter. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
Microwave Project, Kota & Anr vs Ramesh Chand

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

3. On behalf of the applicant it was pleaded that he had been engaged as casual labourer on 8.12.1986 and, therefore, he having worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months could not have been terminated. The appellant took the stand that the respondent was engaged for doing a particular work on a casual labour basis. Since the establishment itself was closed after completion of the work there was no scope for accepting the prayer of the respondent. The Tribunal held that since the respondent worked for 240 days in the establishment of the present appellant, his termination will be bad as there was violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. Removal from service amounted to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Act. With these conclusions it was held that the respondent was entitled to be re-employed to continue to be in service along with the 30% back wages. A writ petition was filed before the High Court. A learned Single Judge by a very cryptic order held that the Labour Court has held that there was violation of the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act and, therefore, there was no legality. The Division Bench came to the similar conclusions.

7. Appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs.
K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr

2. Appellant has been proceeded against for alleged commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. First respondent filed a complaint in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In regard to the liability of the appellant, which is vicarious in nature, the following statement has been made in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition which reads as under:

3. The appellant herein contends that at the relevant point of time, he was not the Director of the Company. Inter alia, on the ground that no cognizance could be taken on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition as the same do not satisfy the requirement of the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment stated as under:-

7. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The order taking cognizance is quashed. The appeal is allowed.

No costs.