L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. Corpn. Ltd. ... vs T.K. Raju

The Management in the said departmental enquiry examined Mr. Jayaraman, Secretary of the Federation. Other distributors being eight in number were also examined. The said witnesses were also cross-examined by the Respondent. An enquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority and the latter by an order dated 5.12.1994 imposed a punishment of dismissal of services upon the Respondent. He performed a statutory appeal thereagainst before the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation who was the designated appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 6.6.1995 stating:

Therefore, the order of removal from service as well as the appellate order are quashed and set aside."

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the quantum of punishment was wholly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the Respondent.

The High Court, therefore, committed an error in passing the impugned judgment which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Union Of India & Anr vs S.C. Parashar

The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi questioning the said order of punishment, which was marked as C.W.P.No.3992 of 1997.

(iii)(a) thereof. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law.

In this view of the matter, indisputably, the respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion after a period of three years. We have, however, been informed that he has since been promoted to the rank of Commandant.

We, therefore, in modification of the order of the High Court that the punishment which could have been imposed upon the respondent herein was reduction of pay for the period of three years with cumulative effect and, thus, if his case is considered for promotion after the said period, no further direction is required to be issued. We set aside the directions of the High Court to the effect :
Indochem Electronic & Anr vs Addl. Collector Of Customs, A.P

On or about 13.9.1990 a letter of complaint was issued by the complainant to the appellants herein inter alia stating that:

Allegedly, on receipt of the said complaint, the defects pointed out in the system were rectified. According to the respondent the system was found to have several defects. Locking arrangement did not work with the result that the respondent had to pay excess amount for two telephone instruments, without getting any utility out of them.

The appellants did not attend to the requirements for giving maintenance and service of the said system. When the warranty period was about to come to an end, the respondent categorically stated that the system had not been functioning for the past 6 months and requested the appellant to extend the warranty period for another 3 to 6 months. Later on, it was further noticed that the night service system had not been functioning properly insofar as outside calls during the closure of the office on holidays, after office hours and on working days were not being received at the reception. Despite night switch having been put on by the telephone operator while leaving his office, calls were not being received in the reception, resulting in snapping/cutting of the communication. Allegedly, the respondent had to seek help of another firm for keeping the system operational. The appellants, however, were insisting on 'annual maintenance services' for attending to the said complaints of the respondent to which the latter did not agree.

In the said proceedings the contention of the appellants, on the other hand, was that during the period of warranty and even thereafter all the complaints had been attended to. The appellants could not maintain a separate service centre at Vizag as the proposal became highly uneconomical and disproportionate to the installations in the region and, thus, they had to cater to the service requirements from their Hyderabad Office with prior intimation to the appellants. The said services had been rendered even on 14.5.91, 14.7.91, 19.8.91 and 18.9.91 without any service charges and although, the respondent did not agree to have an annual maintenance contract for service thereof after the period of warranty expired. As during the period of warranty, the respondent got the system attended to by the local mechanic, the same constituted breach of the contract of warranty.

The appellants, in term of the said findings, were directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,87,559/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the filing of the complaint till the date of payment after taking back the system supplied by it.

An appeal preferred by the appellants herein before the National Commission was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

In view of our findings aforementioned and keeping in view the fact that the State Commission and National Commission cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Dinesh @ Buddha vs State Of Rajasthan

An eight years old girl was sexually ravished by the appellant is what was alleged and for that the appellant faced trial. The victim suffered ignominy on 5.2.1998. The appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Atrocities Act'). The appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the State was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim.

Background facts are essentially as follows:

xxx xxx xxx"
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

(Emphasis ours) After refraining from expressing any final opinion on the applicability of res judicata to assessment orders for successive years, the Court was quite unequivocal in expressing an opinion on the applicability of the principles of constructive res judicata.

We will therefore have to allow the appeals filed by BPL in Civil Appeal Nos. 3329-30 of 2002 and Escotel in Civil Appeal No.2408 of 2002 and remand the matter to the Sales Tax Authorities concerned for determination of the issue relating to SIM Cards in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.

As far as the question whether providing of a telephone connection involves interstate sales, now that it has been clarified that electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies are not goods, the issue is really academic.

For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the questions formulated by us earlier in the following manner:

The writ petitions and appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6301 of 2004) Asstt. Commissioner, Trade Tax & Ors. .Appellants Versus General Manager, B.S.N.L. .Respondent WITH CA Nos.1403/06,1405/06,1406/06,1407/06,1408-1418/2006, CA.No.1420/06,1421/06,1422-1424/06,1425/06 @ SLP Nos.5447/2003 15442-44/05, 15451-62/05,15464/05,17281/05,17286-88/05,22569/05 With Contempt Petn.No.365/04 in WP(C) No.183/03, O R D E R Ruma Pal , Dr. AR Lakshmanan & Dalveer Bhandari Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment delivered by us today in W.P. (C) No. 183/2003 etc. etc. titled Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Contempt Petn.No.365/04 in WP(C) No.183/03, Contempt petition is dismissed.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors

The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:-

In view of the aforesaid, the High Court after having correctly indicated the legal position has failed to apply the same to the factual scenario in its proper perspective. The basic fallacy in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is that they proceeded under the presumption that the select list was in force. The view is clearly wrong. In paragraph 31 of the earlier judgment it was made clear that it was upto the State to take a decision as to whether any relief can be granted to the persons who were selected in respect of the hill cadre. All the posts advertised for the plain cadre have been filled up. Therefore, the State has rightly taken the stand that there was no scope for appointing non-official respondents. Relaxation was given for a period of three years for applicants, when applications are invited for selection by the U.P. PSC or the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission. Obviously, relaxation is to be granted when fresh applications are invited. That is not the case here. Therefore, the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench affirming the same cannot be maintained and are set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.
Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Ors vs Anton Elis Farel & Ors

3. Two other facts to be noted are that according to the plaint, the father, predecessor of the plaintiffs, died in the year 1972 and according to defendants 1 to 3 their predecessor, the other party to the agreement, died in the year 1965.

5. The trial court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In fact, that aspect was not projected before us and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to that aspect any further. The trial court held that the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.12.1964, filed only on 4.4.1994, more than 29 years after the agreement, was barred by limitation. It, therefore, dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. That court, agreed with the trial court in its conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and confirmed the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation. It is this decision of the High Court that is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs. For convenience, the parties are being referred to in this judgment with reference to their ranks in the trial court, namely, as the plaintiffs and the defendants.

15. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the finding that the suit is barred by limitation and the consequential dismissal of it are set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court for a proper trial of all the issues (other than the issue of jurisdiction) arising in the case and for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 17.4.2006 so as to receive further orders as to posting. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Rajbir Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr

3. The appellant, Rajbir Singh, lodged an FIR at 5.10 p.m. on 29.9.2003 at P.S. New Agra, alleging that a day before some brickbats were thrown in the compound of his brother's house from the house of his neighbour Ramraj Rathore. On account of this incident, exchange of hot words took place between his father Hoti Lal and accused Ramraj Rathore, but the matter was pacified due to intervention of some persons of the locality. At about 4.00 p.m. on 29.9.2003 Ramraj Rathore and his relations Geetendra Singh and Prem Narain who were armed with firearms came near the shop of the complainant where his father was standing and all of them exhorted that Hoti Lal should be killed. Ramraj Rathore started firing towards Hoti Lal who after receiving the injuries fell down. Pooja Kumari, a girl belonging to Scheduled Caste community, who had come to purchase some articles from the shop, also sustained firearm injuries and fell down. Both the injured were taken to the hospital but they died on the way. The accused continued to fire from their weapons and tried to kill the complainant and his family members as well. On account of the firing resorted to by the accused, a feeling of terror spread and people started running towards their houses. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the appellant a case was registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC/ST Act') at the police station. The name of Akhilesh Chauhan (respondent no.2) was not mentioned in the FIR. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statement of some persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein his name appeared and the allegation made against him was that after the incident of firing, one of the accused handed over his rifle to him and then he ran away from the spot.

4. After the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) by his order dated 11.5.2004 framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act against Akhilesh Chauhan (respondent no.2). Akhilesh Chauhan then filed a criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court challenging the order by which charges had been framed against him. The High Court by a very brief order set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge and the relevant part of the order passed by the High Court is being reproduced below :

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.7.2004 of the High Court is set aside. The learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, before whom the trial of the other co- accused of the case is pending, is directed to proceed against respondent no.2 after framing appropriate charges and try him in accordance with law. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding the appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Special Judge shall decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and in accordance with law.
Gurpreet Singh Bhullar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

On 22.8.2004, respondent No.5 filed O.A. No.617/PB/2000 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging the Notification dated 9.4.2002 seeking inter alia for issuance of direction to the respondent to consider the claim and to issue notification of appointment of the respondent to IPS on the basis of his name being in the select list for the year 1999-2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 15.9.2004 directed that respondent No.5 herein be given benefit of being placed in the select panel of the year 1999-2000 without taking consideration of the pendency of the criminal case which was registered against him on 18.4.1994. It was further directed that the promotion of respondent No.5 to IPS should remain subject to the outcome of the result of criminal case pending against him. It was further directed that the promotion so made on provisional basis could be cancelled in the event he is convicted in the pending criminal case. Being aggrieved, the Union of India (respondent No.1 herein) filed a Civil Writ Petition No.15847 of 2004 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for quashing the order of the Tribunal. The High Court by its order impugned dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the present special leave petition.

(emphasis supplied) On the aforesaid reasoning the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Counsel also referred to the counter filed by the Special Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3. It is stated that both the appellants are direct recruit DSP's of 1990-91 batch. They have more than eight years of service and were eligible for consideration during the selection committee meeting held on 25.1.2002 for preparation of select list for the year 1999-2000. In view of the categorical stand taken by the Government of Punjab in its counter it cannot be said that the appellants are not within the zone of consideration and that they are not the aggrieved parties.

In the view we have taken, the impugned order of the High Court is not legally sustainable. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Notification dated 30.9.2005 is also quashed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Deepak Chandrakant Patil vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The facts of the case are that on 28.12.1998 accused Arun Marathe, hereinafter referred to as A-1, had gone to see off his daughter at the Parbhani railway station since she was to go on a school trip organized by her school. The appellant herein, namely, Deepak Chandrakant Patil, hereinafter referred to as A-2, was also present at the railway station. The son of the deceased was also a member of the group which was going on a school trip to different places. It appears that A-1 took objection to the fact that no school teacher was accompanying the students. He insisted that school trip should be cancelled as no teacher was asked to accompany the students. It appears that the deceased took exception to the conduct of A-1 and an altercation Page 2581 followed. In that process, A-1 threatened the deceased with serious consequences. Nothing else happened on that day. On the following day i.e. on 29.12.1998, the wife of the deceased namely Surekha Sawargaonkar P.W.15 received a telephone call at about 4 P.M. and the caller identified himself as Deepak Patil, A-2 appellant herein. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant went to the school to find out the address of the deceased and thereafter made a call at about 4 P.M. There is some controversy as to whether P.W.8 went to the school on 28.12.1998 or 29.12.1998. That, however, is not very material because there is direct evidence to prove that on 29.12.1998 the appellant went to the house of the deceased at 10.00 P.M. and asked him to accompany him since he was called by A-1 who wanted to talk to him. This was objected to by the wife of the deceased P.W.15 saying that if A-1 wanted to talk to the deceased he should come to his residence. However, the deceased was persuaded to accompany A-2 to the house of A-1 and they both left for the house of A-1 on the motorcycle of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that an auto rickshaw with three persons sitting in it followed them. These three occupants of the auto rickshaw were later identified as accused Nos. 3 to 5 (A-3 to A-5).

4. The police started investigation and in due course took accused into custody. It is the case of the prosecution that A-3 to A-5 made disclosure statements and got recovered blood stained clothes. The appellant also made a disclosure statement on 4.1.1999 and got recovered blood stained clothes and a Jambia (the weapon of offence).

9. An appeal was preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the remaining accused. The appellant also preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the order of acquittal passed in favour of the remaining accused holding that the view taken by the Trial Court could not be said to be either unreasonable or perverse and in any event did not call for any interference in the appeal against acquittal. So far as appellant is concerned, his conviction has been upheld by the High Court.
State Of U.P. vs Desh Raj

2. The respondent was put to trial under Section 302/376 IPC. The trial court after conclusion of the trial convicted the respondent and sentenced him to RI for life under Section 302 IPC. The respondent was also sentenced to 7 years RI under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred the appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order acquitted the accused, Hence, the present appeal.

15. By now, it is well settled principle that in order to sustain a conviction of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish that the chain of circumstances only consistently point to the guilt of the accused and inconsistence with his innocence. A cumulative reading of the evidence of Pws.2, 5, 6 and 7 together with the medical evidence and non-explanation of the accused scratch marks on his face we are of the view that the prosecution has consistently established the guilt of the accused and inconsistence with his innocence. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in recording the acquittal of the accused. The impugned order of the High Court acquitting the accused respondent is accordingly quashed and set aside.

16. The accused is on bail, his bail bonds and sureties stand cancelled. He is directed to be taken back to custody forthwith. Compliance within one month.

17. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Rajinder Arora vs Union Of India And Ors

Only on 31.3.2005, the order of detention was issued.

Complaint in the matter will be filed only after adjudication. However, detention under the COFEPOSA Act 1974 is not a punitive action and is preventive in nature. Prevention detention under COFEPOSA Act is independent of adjudication and prosecution proceedings."

Admittedly, furthermore, the status report called for from the Customs Department has not been taken into consideration by the competent authorities.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.