L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Bhadrappa (D) By Lrs vs Tolacha Naik

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

6. An order was passed in the proceeding under Section 5 of the Act to the effect that the alienation had been effected within the period of prohibition. The appellant took the stand that the land was not a free grant land. It was a grant for upset price. The authorities concluded that it was a free grant. The writ petition was dismissed.

(1A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly.] (2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under section 5A, any order passed under sub-sections(1) and (1A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

9. In view of the position of law indicated in the connected Civil Appeal No.7782 of 2001 this appeal is sans merit.

10. Above being the position, there is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
V. Siva Kumar & Ors vs Secretary, Ministry Of Defence & Ors

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short the Tribunal). By its order dated 18.2.1999 the Tribunal had directed that seniority list of Store keepers was to be prepared on the principle that ; (1) the OM dated 7.2.1986 is prospective in nature and not retrospective; (2) the employees recruited after 1.3.1986, even though they were not empanelled and selected earlier to 1.3.1986, their seniority will be in accordance with the aforesaid OM as they were appointed to the service after 1.3.1986 and the impugned seniority list was to be amended with consequential benefits in terms of these principles.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 21.10.1991 another seniority list was issued showing the appellant and proforma respondent Nos. 45 to 55 below respondent Nos.4-44 and they were pushed down by about 240 places.

On 27.12.1996 revised seniority list was issued purportedly in line with the judgment in OA No. 673 of 1992. On 12.3.1997 appellants Nos.1, 4 and 7 were appointed as store keeper on the basis of the revised seniority list. On 13.2.1997 Division Bench of the Tribunal allowed OA No.1323 of 1993 relating to the Central Excise department. On 3.7.1997, OA No. 843 of 1997 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad challenging the revised seniority list dated 27.12.1996 and the promotion order dated 12.3.1997. In February, 1998 appellant Nos. 2,3,6,8 and 9 were promoted as store keepers on the basis of the revised seniority List dated 27.12.1996.

3. A Division Bench of a Tribunal held in O.A. No. 843 of 1997 by order dated 18.2.1999 that the Full Bench while hearing the R.A. No. 103 of 1993 in OA No.1019 of 1992 did not address itself to the question of persons selected prior to 7.2.1986 and appointed subsequent to 7.2.1986. However, relying on the judgment of another Division Bench in OA No.673 of 1992 it was held that OM dated 7.2.1986 is prospective which upset the seniority of the appellants. On 17.3.1999 appellants filed writ petition No. 5540 of 1999 challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal in OA No. 843 of 1997. By order dated 3.3.2000 writ petition was dismissed holding that the Full Benchs decision of the Tribunal applied to the facts of the case.

13. Recruitment action obviously would mean an action taken for recruitment. That being so, the impugned judgment of the High Court is clearly untenable and is set aside.

14. The appeal succeeds but without any order as to costs.
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Madhukar Rao

The facts of the case are taken from Civil Appeal No.5199 of 2001, the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madhukar Rao, which was the leading case before the High Court. On March 12, 1997 at about 3.30 a.m., in course of checking a Sub-Inspector of Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing Registration No.MH.31-H/6919, carrying 206 kgs. of antlers. The vehicle was owned by Madhukar Rao, the respondent, but he was not in it at the time of checking. The Excise Sub- Inspector informed the officers of the Forest Department who registered a case being Offence No.6527/97 under Sections 39, 42, 43, 44, 49(Kha) and 51(Kha) of the Act. The four persons occupying the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle and the antlers were seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, was duly informed about the institution of the case on March 13, 1997.

The respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, moved the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur on May 12, 1997 for its release on Supurdnama. On behalf of the respondent it was stated that he was not an accused in the case and he had no concern with the commission of any offences. It was further stated that his neighbour Shri Lohiya, one of the accused in the case, had borrowed the vehicle on the pretext of going to see his ailing father. The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama by order, dated May 12, 1997.

Against the order of the Magistrate, the State Government filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Raipur. In the revision, it was stated that the Magistrate had erred in allowing the release of the vehicle in disregard of Section 39(d) of the Act in terms of which the seized vehicle became the property of the Government and hence, the court had no power to release it on Supurdnama. It was further contended that the power of release under Section 451 of the Code could be exercised only in respect of vehicles seized by a police officer. The Sessions Judge by order, dated June 5, 1997 allowed the revision, relying upon a Bench decision of the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.P.A.No.152 of 1996. (Here it is stated on behalf of the State that the S.L.P. filed against the order in the L.P.A. was dismissed by this Court in limine).

We thus find no merit in any of the submission made on behalf of the appellants. The High Court has taken a correct view that warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, all the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.
Mazhar Hassan vs Gangu Singh & Ors

The material facts read and may be stated thus. One Hetram was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. His heirs Smt.Ram Murti Devi and her four sisters were able to obtain a decree of eviction against the respondents in a suit (being Suit No.161) filed by them under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act. The decree insofar as the disputed plots are concerned, was affirmed up to the High Court in Second Appeal and a cross appeal filed by the parties. The decree holders filed an execution application on May 21, 1965, which was registered as execution case No.21/69. The application was, however, dismissed by order, dated July 26, 1969 because the decree was put to execution beyond the period of limitation. After the rejection of their execution application, Smt.Ram Murti Devi and others executed a sale deed, dated April 13, 1970 of a number of plots including the disputed plots in favour of one Ali Hasan (the deceased father of the present appellant). On the basis of the sale deed, Ali Hasan was able to get his name mutated in the revenue records by an order passed ex- parte. Later on, there were disputes between Ali Hasan and the respondents in regard to possession over the disputed plots and the dispute gave rise to proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. Those proceedings were concluded by order, dated September 11, 1972 by which the disputed plots were released in favour of the respondents.

In light of the discussions made above, we find that the order of the High Court is quite unsustainable. We accordingly set aside the order of the High Court and restore the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ... vs P. Mary Manoranjani And Another

3. The Corporation requested the State of Andhra Pradesh to grant exemption in regard to requirements of sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the regular posts, pursuant whereto G.O. Ms. No.27 M.A. (Q) dated 16th January, 1991 was issued, stating :-

17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that she did not have any legal right to continue in the said post. The direction of the High Court to consider her case in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16th Januay, 1991 is eminently unsustainable as the said government order would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Emp. State Insurance Corporation vs H M T Ltd & Anr

2. Respondent is an 'employer' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(17) of the Act. Indisputably, prior to issuance of the notification dated 27.3.1992, the wage ceiling of the employees was restricted to Rs.1,600/- per month. The same was increased to Rs.3000/- per month with a view to bring them within the purview of the Act.

4. Writ appeals were filed by the 'employees' through their respective Trade Unions. While admitting the said appeals, the interim order operating during the pendency of the writ petition was allowed to continue. The said writ appeals were also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by reason of a judgment and order dated 11.7.1995, inter alia, on the premise that there was no impediment for the respondent herein to deposit the contributions of the employees concerned.

6. A writ petition filed by the respondent herein questioning the validity of the said notice dated 9.6.1998 was dismissed by an order dated 25.3.2000. A review petition was filed by the appellant herein which was also dismissed on merits.

22. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was not wrong in opining that Section 85-B provides for an enabling provision. What, however, cannot be appreciated that is such a construction itself would lead to the conclusion that the High Court is entitled to substitute its view in place of the statutory authority. In our considered view, therefore, the matter should be considered afresh for determination of quantum of damages etc. in the light of the observations made hereinbefore.

23. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Benjamin vs State Rep. By Insp. Of Police

4. Enmity between the parties is admitted. There were instances to show that the accused had been causing various kinds of mischief. The incident in question occurred on 26th November, 1994. Two years prior thereto, accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted the deceased and PW-4, Viyakula Mary. Four months thereafter, the appellant (accused No.1) is said to have caused damage to the pipeline of the water of the house of the deceased. A few months before the incident in question, allegedly the haystack of the deceased was put on fire. 3

7. PW-1 went to Nilakottai police station. A First Information Report was lodged at about 1.00 A.M. on 27th November, 1994. The Investigating officer reached the place of occurrence at about 2.00 A.M. He recovered blood stained earth and a blue shawl. Inquest of the dead body was conducted between 3.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. He had also examined some witnesses being PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 6. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. Autopsy was conduced at about 11.15 a.m. on 27th November, 1994. The following anti mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased :-

8. The learned Sessions Judge relying on or on the basis of the material brought on record accepted the deposition of PW-1, Kolandaisamy. All the other accused were held guilty of the charges leveled against them. On an appeal preferred by the accused before the High Court, it while upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant herein, it recorded a judgment of acquittal so far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. It was opined that accused No.2 being father in law of he appellant, might not have any motive to cause the murder of the deceased. Besides, no incised injury has been found on the deceased. As regards accused No.3, it was held that there was no cogent material to connect him with the crime.

14. PW-1, although may be a son of the deceased, but it is difficult to disbelieve his statement that he had witnessed the occurrence. 8

19. For the reasons abovementioned we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Uttam Vishnu Pawar

5. The facts given in C.A. No. 1021/2002 (State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Uttam Vishnu Pawar) are taken into consideration for disposal of these appeals.

6. The respondent-Uttam Vishnu Pawar filed Original Application No. 930/1999 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai and sought a direction that his services which have been rendered by him in the earlier department may be counted for computing the period of 12 years service for Time Bound Promotion as per Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14th March, 2000 allowed the claim of the respondent and held that the services rendered by the incumbent in the previous department shall be counted in computing the period of 12 years for Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the State of Maharashtra-appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay after hearing both the parties affirmed the order of the Tribunal dated 14.3.2000.

7. The respondent herein was working as a Telephone Operator in Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter he made a request for his transfer from Mumbai Zone to Kolhapur Zone. The request of the respondent was acceded to and he was transferred on his own request from Mumbai Zone to Kolhapur Zone and he lost his seniority in Mumbai Zone and he joined in Kolhapur Zone on 14.6.1990 as a Junior Clerk at zero seniority. Thereafter, the State Government passed a Resolution dated 8.6.1995 giving a Time Bound Promotion to the persons who are stagnated in the Group C and D cadres for a long period. As per the said Resolution those persons who have put in 12 years of service and who fulfill other conditions laid down in the said Resolution were eligible for the next higher scale of pay. We are not concerned with the other conditions laid down in the Resolution dated 8.6.1995. We are only concerned with the limited question that whether the respondent is entitled to count his service rendered in the Mumbai Zone when he was transferred to Kolhapur Zone for purposes of computing 12 years of service so as to enable him to get the benefit of this Resolution. The Tribunal granted the benefit of past service to the respondent and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

10. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

C.A. No. 515/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) 12097/2006) C.A. No. 3083/2006, C.A. No. 2917/2006 and C.A. No. 518/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) 20630/2006)

11. For the reasons stated herein above, these appeals are also dismissed.

No order as to costs.
Regional Manager Uttaranchal Rd. ... vs Than Singh & Anr

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The inspector made an entry for closing of ticket issuance and he also directed the employee to make an entry in respect of the 23 passengers in the way bill. Proceedings were initiated against the erring employee and his services were terminated on the basis of the materials collected during departmental enquiry. A reference was made under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) at the prayer of the respondent. The Tribunal came to hold that the order of termination was legal and justified and the concerned workman was not entitled to any relief. It is to be noted that the enquiry officer had in the enquiry report noted that the conductor had issued the tickets later though there were no entries in the way bill.

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any orders as to costs.
Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd vs Kripa Pandey

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the said High Court. Before the High Court challenge was to the award of the Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No.41/85. The respondent had raised a dispute, inter alia, alleging illegal termination. According to him he was working in the appellants factory continuously from 1.8.1983 to 12.8.1984 and he was removed from service on 21.9.1984 without any reason. Following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication:

During the aforesaid period the said Contractor who was authorized to engage contract labour under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short Contract Labour Act) by licence deed dated 13.3.1982 engaged the respondent as a tractor driver. It was the case of the appellant that at no point of time respondent was employee of the appellant and there was no relationship of employer and employee between them. No appointment letter was ever issued to the respondent by the appellant. The respondent used to get salary from the Contractor. After construction of the work was completed in 1984, the appellant did not require services of the contractor and in turn the contractor did not require the services of the employees including respondent engaged by it.

8. Few dates need to be noted.

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Shaikh Majid And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

3. As noted above, on the basis of information given by Krishna, (PW-4) case was registered under Sections 307,147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC. Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was filed. At this juncture, it is to be noted that another FIR was lodged at about 6 p.m. by appellant accused No.1 against Krishna (PW4) and others. Charge sheet thereafter was filed. Undisputedly, there was order of acquittal in the said case. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence adduced, held present appellants guilty of offence committed punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also found guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 324 in relation to the injury caused to Krishna PW4. As noted above, appellant- Shaikh Majid was also convicted under various other provisions. The stand of the appellants before the High Court was that the evidence of the so called eye witnesses PWs. 4, 5, 6 & 7 was not consistent. Only one blow was given and that in course of a sudden quarrel, injuries were sustained by the accused persons. The prosecution has, therefore, suppressed the truth. The plea was not accepted and as noted above their appeal was dismissed.

15. The above position is highlighted in Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 4 SCC 653).

16. It cannot be said that whenever a single blow is given, that would not attract Section 302 IPC.

17. In the instant case considering the background facts and the nature of the weapon used i.e. small knife the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC. Accordingly the conviction is altered, custodial sentence of ten years would suffice.

18. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Ramakrishna Rao (Dead) By Lr vs Rai Murari

2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant, with the prayer to direct the defendant, respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court allowed the appeal. The High Court in the Second appeal as noted above dismissed the same but directed payment of certain amounts by the appellants to the respondent. The directions in this regard read as follows:

4. No one appears for the respondent.

5. A review petition was filed highlighting these aspects by the appellants, but the same came to be rejected by the High Court. Since the High Court proceeded on totally untenable premises and recorded findings which are contrary to materials on record and findings recorded, the direction for refund of money is clearly indefensible and is set aside.

6. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs Mehbub Alam Laskar

2. He allegedly withdrew some amount from the Government Fund (to which he was entitled to) and deposited it in his personal bank account. An enquiry in that behalf was conducted behind his back and on the basis of the result thereof, his probation was terminated, stating:

As the said representation was not being responded to within a reasonable time by the respondents, he filed a writ petition before the High Court which was marked as Writ Petition (C) No. 3136 of 1999. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court directing the appellant to consider his representation keeping in mind the decision of the High Court in the case of Ajay Gupta being Civil Rule No. 5582 of 1995 wherein an order of reinstatement had been passed.

4. The said representation of the appellant was rejected by an Order dated 13.10.1999 stating that the case of Ajay Gupta which was the subject matter of above-mentioned Civil Rule, was not similar, stating; 7. In view of the above explained facts, it is submitted that your case cannot be treated as similar with that of Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, his services were terminated during the probation period after conducting preliminary inquiry. Later, he refuted the allegations against him and appealed to the disciplinary authority. Though his termination was well within the rules of the Sangathan and also as per the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter, it was decided to give him a chance as per principles of natural justice. However, on further inquiry, he was found to be guilty of misappropriation and the termination of his services was found justified.

5. The legality/validity of the said Order was questioned by the respondent by filing another writ petition before the High Court which was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 480 of 2001. By reason of a judgment and order dated 9.4.2003, the said order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed, holding :

17. We, however, are of the opinion that the respondent should not be granted the entire backwages. He will be entitled to back wages only from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, namely 9.4.2003. In view of the aforementioned directions, we are of the opinion that no further order is necessary to be passed in the contempt matter.

18. Civil Appeal No. 1125 of 2006 is, therefore, allowed and Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006 is dismissed. No order as to costs.