L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya vs Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya

3. The appellant and the respondent were married on 07.05.1998. A girl child was born out of the said wedlock and she is now aged about 18 years. Due to strained relationship, the parties are living separately. The appellant-husband has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Mumbai, which was subsequently transferred to Etawah District Court, Uttar Pradesh. The Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant by judgment dated 09.11.2009. The 2 appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the District Court by the judgment dated 29.11.2012. The High Court also dismissed the second appeal preferred by the appellant-husband. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

5. When the matter was pending before this Court, the parties were referred to mediation and the parties have amicably settled the matter. The parties have also filed a separate application agreeing for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent invoking the powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. As per the settlement between the parties, the appellant-husband has agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) to the respondent-wife (paid today by way of post-dated cheque No. 000278 drawn in favour of respondent-wife viz. Neelam Singh dated 11th May, 2019 drawn on Bank of Baroda) in full and final settlement of her claims towards monthly maintenance past, present and future and in full quit of all other claims. Additionally, the appellant has agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- by way of FDR in the name of the daughter payable within a period of three months from today. He has also agreed to contribute another one lakh at the time of solemnization of the marriage of the daughter. The parties have also agreed that all the pending 3 cases between the parties shall be withdrawn or they will agree for quashing the respective cases.

7. The petitioner-husband had agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs only) to the respondent-wife viz. full and final settlement of all her claims towards monthly maintenance past present and future, stridhan, belongings and any other claim whatsoever.

7. So ar as other cases are concerned, as and when the application is made before the concerned Court, the concerned Court shall pass the appropriate orders in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

9. The Registry shall draft the decree accordingly.

10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani

2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue has been raised, is as follows:

2.4. The Respondent – Complainant made a representation to the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited from the date of payment of each instalment, till the date of refund.

The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006 allowed the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from the date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the date of realization. The Board was also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent – Complainant. 3 It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days from the date of the Order.

2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Appellant – Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) 6 of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P. No. 1362 of 2016.

Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. 7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition 10 AIR 1987 Pat 33.

16 u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.

8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, the National Commission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/­ (which included an amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board). The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of Rs. 3,937/­ twice, by first including it in the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/­; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amount of Rs. 3,937/­, which would amount to a double payment.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which has rightly set aside the Order passed by the National Commission on the ground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings.

17 The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Jiten K. Ajmera vs M/S Tejas Co Operative Housing Society

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under:

The flat owners formed the Respondent – Housing Society viz. M/s Tejas Co­operative Housing Society. 2.2. The Respondent – Housing Society filed Consumer Complaint No. 570 of 2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Sub­ District. It was alleged that the Appellants/Opposite Parties had failed to supply service amenities to the members of the Respondent – Housing Society, failed to 2 obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, and execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the society.

The District Forum partly allowed the Consumer Complaint vide Order dated 27.02.2013. It was declared that the Appellants had failed to supply the service amenities to the Respondent – Housing Society, and obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, and execute the Conveyance Deed. The District Forum directed the Appellants to obtain the Occupancy Certificate for the building within 3 months from the date of judgment. If the Appellants failed to obtain the Occupancy Certificate within the period specified, they would be liable to pay Rs. 500/­ per day to the society.

The Appellants requested for permission to produce two documents which had come into existence after the filing of the Appeal i.e. (i) Letter dated 08.08.2013 from their Architect to the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) enclosing the plans of all the floors, and requested for issuance of the Occupancy Certificate; (ii) Reply by the MCGM dated 26.08.2013, wherein it was stated that as per the visit done, there was unauthorized enclosure of elevation features by occupants which was violative of the last approved plans dated 02.07.2001. The Appellants were 4 directed to remove the unauthorized structures along with compliance of requisite conditions. 2.5. The State Commission vide Interim Order dated 10.12.2015 held that these documents were not necessary, and rejected the Application. 2.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Interim Order dated 10.12.2015, the Appellants herein filed Revision Petition No. 175 of 2016 before the National Commission. The National Commission in para 11 of its Order dated 16.03.2018 held that it is an admitted fact that the additional documents sought to be produced by the Appellants did not exist while the matter was before the District Forum. The National Commission merely held that the additional information sought to be introduced does not satisfy the pre­conditions under Section 107(1)

The Civil Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the State Commission to take the additional documents on record, and decide the Appeal on merits in accordance with law. The State Commission is further directed to decide the Appeal expeditiously since it is pending since 2013. 7 Ordered accordingly.
Bhivchandra Shankar More vs Balu Gangaram More

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as under:-

9. The facts are not in dispute. The suit for partition was filed by respondents No.1 to 13 in the year 2007. It was decreed ex- parte on 04.07.2008. The appellant and respondents No.14 and 15 filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 15.10.2008 6 and the said application was dismissed on merits by the order dated 06.08.2010. Challenging the said order, the appellant and respondents No.14 and 15 preferred an appeal on 03.09.2010. About three years after its filing i.e. on 11.06.2013, the said appeal was withdrawn and on the next day i.e. on 12.06.2013, the appellant and respondents No.14 and 15 filed appeal challenging the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007 along with an application to condone the delay of four years, ten months and eight days.

18. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 97 CPC where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree. The object is that the questions decided by the court at the stage of passing preliminary decree cannot be challenged at the time of final decree. If no appeal had been preferred against the 13 preliminary decree, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs being a suit for partition, the appellant would be deprived of the opportunity in challenging the decree on merits. In the interest of justice, the appellant and respondents No.14 and 15 are to be given an opportunity to challenge the ex-parte decree dated 04.07.2008 on merits, notwithstanding the dismissal of their application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the time spent in pursuing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is to be taken as “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in filing the first appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

20. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2014 passed by the High Court in WP No.3290 of 2014 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal against the judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007 is condoned and the appeal filed by the appellant and respondents No.14 and 15 shall stand restored. The first appellate court shall take the appeal titled “Shri Bhivchand Shankar More & Ors. v. Shri Balu Gangaram More & Ors.” on file and proceed with the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not 14 expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

May 07, 2019 15
Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman ... vs Tamilarasi (Dead) By Lrs.

5. The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit against the original respondent (defendant) for her eviction from the suit property. The respondent contested the suit.

28. Yet, the other reason is that the respondents are only required to reply while opposing the second appeal to the question formulated by the High Court under sub­section (4) and not beyond that. If the question of law is not framed under sub­section (4) at the time of admission or before the final hearing of the appeal, there remains nothing for the respondent to oppose the second appeal at the time of hearing. In this situation, the High Court will have no jurisdiction to decide such second appeal finally for want of any substantial question(s) of law.

30. If, however, the High Court is satisfied after hearing the appellant at the time of admission that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, then such appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine without any notice to the respondents after recording a finding in the dismissal order that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of sub­section (4). It is needless to say that for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to assign the reasons in support of its conclusion.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we cannot sustain the impugned judgment which, in our view, is not in conformity with the mandatory 12 requirements of Section 100 of the CPC and hence calls for interference in this appeal.

16. The appeal thus deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh in accordance with law. The High Court will frame proper substantial question(s) of law after hearing the appellant and if it finds that any substantial question(s) of law arises in the case, it will first formulate such question(s) and then accordingly decide the appeal finally on the question(s) framed in accordance with law.

17. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in this appeal, but only formed an opinion to remand the case due to the infirmity noticed in the manner in which the second appeal 13 was decided. The High Court will, therefore, decide the second appeal uninfluenced by any of our observations made in this order.

18. Since the matter is quite old, we request the High Court to decide the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

May 07, 2019 14
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

3. The first appellant was the then Member of Rajya Sabha and expelled Member of AIADMK Political Party. The third appellant is the husband of the first appellant. A complaint was filed by one Banumathi who was then working as maid in the house of the appellants in the year 2011 alleging that she was sexually harassed while she was working in the house of the appellants. Based on the said complaint, a criminal case was registered against all the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 in All Women’s Police Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 344, 354(A) and 506(i) IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition 2 of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The first appellant denied all the allegations and claimed that the same was result of political vendetta against her.

May 07, 2019 22
State Rep By Inspector Of Police Central ... vs M Subrahmanyam

6. FIR No.RC 35(A)/2002­CBI/ACB/VSP (CC­03 of 2005) was registered against the respondent on 01.11.2002 under the Act. Charge­sheet was filed on 05.04.2005. On 07.01.2008, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 242 3 Cr.P.C. to bring on record the authorisation for investigation issued to Shri V.K. Reddy. On 11.03.2008 it was dismissed on the ground that no proper explanation had been furnished for not filing the same along with the charge­sheet. Subsequently, on 21.06.2013, the authorisation was again sought to be brought on record by the prosecution invoking Section 173(2)(5)(a) of the Code giving rise to the impugned orders.

13. But the matter shall not end there. As noticed, the charge­ sheet was submitted on 05.04.2005. No explanation has been furnished as to why the prosecution exhibited such laxity in seeking to bring the authorisation order on record nearly three years later on 07.01.2008. If that were not enough, after rejection of the same on 11.03.2008, the prosecution again remained silent till it filed the fresh application under Section 173(2)(5)(a) as late as on 21.06.2013, with no explanation furnished for the same. We have no hesitation in observing that considering the matter from the administrative perspective, a lapse on the first occasion may be an inadvertent error but the repeat of the same lapse raises serious doubts and issues whether it was inadvertent or deliberate. The present was a case relating to corruption in public life by a public servant owing allegiance to the Constitution. The charge­sheet was 8 filed in 2005. The trial has successfully been thwarted at a very nascent stage for long years. The possibility, in the facts of the present case, cannot be entirely ruled out of a deliberate omission, to favour an accused.

5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and opine that the appeal deserves to be allowed for reasons enumerated hereinafter.

12. The appeal will, therefore, have to be allowed and the prosecution is permitted to bring the order of authorisation for investigation on record, which we do hereby order.

14. We therefore direct that a senior officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam shall hold an inquiry and determine the circumstances under which the initial lapse took place, and the reason for delay in approaching the court. The inquiry shall also encompass the passage of nearly 5 years after rejection of the same, and the belated attempt in 2013 only. Responsibility must be fixed in the report and adequate disciplinary action be initiated and concluded against the concerned persons in accordance with law. Compliance report shall be filed before this Court along with conclusions of the inquiry and action taken, within a period of three months from today.
Jaswant Singh vs Jaspal Singh

2. Digitally signed by The brief facts leading to this appeal are that Jaspal Singh, SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.05.07 16:33:31 IST Reason: Plaintiff No.1 in the present suit, i.e. O.S. No. 388 of 1986 1 (Respondent No.1 herein), had been residing in West Germany (as it then was) and had authorised Kidar Singh son of Hem Raj to do all acts and to file or defend any suit regarding the suit property vide special power of attorney. The present suit was filed by Kidar Singh on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 for declaration that the decree dated 29.07.1983 in Civil Suit No. 18 of 1983 titled as Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. Jaspal Singh, decided by the Sub­Judge, IInd Class, Panipat, holding Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the present suit (the appellants herein) to be the owners in possession of the suit land, was illegal, null and void, and not binding on Plaintiff No. 1, and that the registered sale deed dated 05.06.1984 in respect of the suit land executed by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 to 10 in the present suit is legal and binding on all persons including Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The consequential relief of injunction was also sought for. Though Plaintiff No. 1 at some point got the present suit dismissed as withdrawn, Defendant Nos. 4 to 10 were later transposed as plaintiffs, and Plaintiff No. 9 impleaded, and proceedings in the suit continued. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well 2 as by the Second Appellate Court. This appeal is presented before us as against the concurrent findings of three courts.

6. Be that as it may, since we find that all the three Courts have concurrently and rightly concluded in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently decreed O.S. No. 388 of 1986, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

May 07, 2019.
Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi vs Gangumalla Appa Rao (Since Dead) By Lrs.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

2.3 The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A4. The defendant examined 5 witnesses including herself as DW1 and marked Exhibit X1 through DW3. It appears that during the course of trial, as it was the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff had no money to pay the balance sale consideration and therefore the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the sale consideration into the Court to verify his bona fides. That the 5 plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration within the extended time granted to him on a petition.

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals fail and deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. We confirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985, confirmed by the High Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Shio Shankar Dubey vs The State Of Bihar

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.05.1980, one Raj Ballam Rai, informant alongwith his brother Raj Keshwar Singh came to Sasaram Court. 

3. At 9:30 am, the police official namely, S.N. Singh of Sasaram Police Station arrived at the place of occurrence to whom Raj Ballam Rai gave a fardbeyan. On the basis of fardbeyan given at the place of occurrence by informant, First Information Report was registered against 05 accused. 2

4. The prosecution, to prove its case, produced 15 witnesses. PW11, informant, fully supported the prosecution case. PW13, Ragho Ram Singh, who was also an eyewitness, supported the prosecution case. PW5 was another eyewitness, who saw 04 of the accused running away from the spot. Formal witnesses were also produced by the prosecution. On the spot seizure was also made by one Siddhanath Singh, Inspector of Police, which seizure also contained copy of four applications, which were typed at District Court, Sasaram and were being carried by the deceased alongwith him in a diary, which applications were marked as Ext.3/2 to 3/5.

6. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 14.09.1990 convicted 04 accused, (one of the accused namely, Doodnath Dusadh having died during the pendency of trial. The appellant No.1 – Shio Shankar Dubey, accused No.3, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/148 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant No.2 – Ram Pravesh Dubey, accused No.4, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/147 I.P.C. The third appellant, i.e., Jamadar Dusadh, accused No.1 was convicted under Sections 302/147 and 379 I.P.C. Four accused, who were convicted filed criminal appeal in the High court, which has been dismissed. One Ramnandan Dusadh also having died during pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the three surviving accused are in the appeal before this Court.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”

21. The prosecution case in the present case being fully proved against the accused, the eyewitness 17 account of PW11, who was accompanying the deceased has given the eyewitness account of the entire incident. The names of all the five accused and role attributed to them have been promptly recorded by the police officials within half an hour of the incident on the spot. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence. Both the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the appellants and sentencing them. We do not find any error in the judgment of courts below. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.