L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs State Of Assam & Ors

5. Appellants as also the private respondents amongst others appeared in the interview before the duly constituted Interview Boards. The Selection Committee short listed 1803 candidates in order of merit. The said select list is said to have been published and hung on the notice board of the office of the Director General of Police on 1.2.2000. Appellant's position in the 4 select list was 750. He obtained 32 points in the interview and 92 in the written test, total being 124 marks.

6. Allegedly, on 2.3.2000, the Inspector General of Police requested the Home Department of the Government of Assam to obtain sanction of the State Level Empowered Committee for appointment of 174 Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant whereto the Home Department accorded sanction therefor.

7. Those candidates who were found eligible to be called for physical ability test were asked to appear therein which was held on 19.2.2000. On or about 4.7.2000, 169 candidates who had cleared the physical test/medical test were appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

10. Appellant herein and some other candidates thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court impuging the selection of 84 candidates to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in February 2001.

11. Indisputably, during pendency of the said writ petition, posts were filled up as 75 persons who had been found suitable were offered appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 2.3.2001. The respondents who were 74 in number had accepted the said offer of appointment on 3.3.2001; one of them, however, did not join the post. They were sent for and completed their training. Indisputably, they have been working in the said post. By reason of a judgment and order dated 12.2.2004 a learned Single Judge of the said Court, however, set aside the appointment of 54 candidates, opining :

The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and order dated 10.8.2000, directing :

21. Appellant, in our opinion, having accepted the change in the selection procedure sub silentio, by not questioning the appointment of 169 candidates, in our considered opinion, cannot now be permitted to turn round and contend that the procedure adopted was illegal. He is estopped and precluded from doing so.

This case meets the said criteria.

29. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

January 23, 2009
Mohan Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand at Nainital High Court finding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Two persons i.e. Khemanand and the present appellant filed the appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In appeal, the basic stand taken was that at the first instance the name of the appellant was not stated and, therefore, there was false implication and the conviction should not have been recorded as the evidence is not sufficient to establish the accusations. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed the appeal.

7. The appeal is dismissed.
Bhuribai & Ors vs Ram Narayan & Ors

2. The judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 4.2.2005 in S.A. No. 572 of 2003 has been impugned in this appeal. The parties are descendants of common ancestor Pusau, who partitioned his property including the suit land during his life time. The suit which was filed by the appellants herein in Civil Suit No. 103A of 1997 was for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Plot No. 1 138/6 and 207/1 situated at village Katangi and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents- defendants from interfering in their possession.

5. Whether the aforesaid plot was allotted in partition in favour of the appellants herein is a pure question of fact. The appellants wanted to rely on certain documents of partition in order to contend that the aforesaid plot was allotted in their favour. The concurrent finding of both the courts is that the said claim is based on interpolation in the deed of partition. This is also concurrently found by both the courts below that the appellants herein were never in possession of the said plot. On the other hand, the finding of both the courts below is that the respondents-defendants were in possession of the said plot. All these questions are pure questions of fact. 2

3. Admittedly, it appears from the record that the appellants herein have disposed of plot No. 207/1. The suit is only confined in respect of Plot No. 138/6.

7. We are in entire agreement with the same finding of the High Court and in our view, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Ramchandra Dhondiba Kaware vs State Of Maharashtra

Maruti alerted Shivaji and they chased the accused, but he managed to escape their clutches. Maruti and Shivaji returned to the spot where the victim was lying. They found that his skull had been fractured and a part of his brain was protruding. Three fingers of his right hand were fractured and 2 broken. His head and ears were bleeding. Maruti lodged a complaint with the police. The dead body of Keru was taken for the autopsy. The required panchanamas were drawn up and statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was apprehended and charged for having committed an offence punishable under section, 302 IPC. His trial was committed to Sessions. The Sessions Court after consideration of the evidence on record as noted above convicted the accused.

4. The stand taken before the High Court was re-iterated in the present appeal.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Raj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant. Appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.3053 of 1996. Appellant's case in the writ petition and the writ appeal was that while serving as Rifleman in the Assam Rifles he was removed from service on the ground of desertion and that too without serving any notice to him as required under law and without holding any disciplinary proceedings. The respondent-Union of India took the stand that the writ petitioner and others got themselves involved in some controversies whereupon the writ petitioner was given punishment of quarters guard. Thereafter he submitted a letter of resignation which was accepted by order dated 18.12.1995 to be effective from 29.2.1996. But before that date the writ petitioner deserted whereupon he was declared as deserter and notices were served on him along with others. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant was not removed from service on the ground of desertion but on the ground that he had sought for voluntary discharge from service which was accepted.

7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Annapareddy Aireddy vs Bolla Subba Reddy & Ors

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The Trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The First Appellate Court refused to condone the delay of ninety two days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The said order has been confirmed by the High Court in revision. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

...2/-

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside, delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court is condoned and the matter is remitted to that Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Union Of India Trh. President Of Icar vs R.S. Shrivastava

The disciplinary authority initiated departmental inquiry against the respondent on the ground of violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees. The respondent challenged the same in OA No.1333 of 2004, which was dismissed by Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') vide its order dated 13th December, 2004. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19054 of 2005 filed against the order of the Tribunal was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court with a direction that representation made by the respondent for change of the inquiry officer be decided and till then the inquiry proceedings shall remain stayed. Thereafter, by an order dated 28.11.2005, the competent authority rejected the ....2/-

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders rendered by the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.

Shri A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General stated that Dr. A. Mukherjee, who is presently conducting the inquiry will be changed and some other person will be nominated as the inquiry officer. He also gave out that the respondent will be allowed to avail the services of defense assistant during the course of inquiry. In this view of the matter, we direct that the competent authority shall appoint another inquiry officer within one month from today. The new inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the rules and principles of natural justice and submit report to the disciplinary authority within a period of six months from the date of nomination/appointment. The disciplinary authority shall take final decision in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of inquiry report and pass appropriate order.
Tayyab Ali & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Anr

The Tehsildar, Ghaziabad, by his order dated 30th March, 1999, cancelled the caste certificates issued in favour of the appellants. That order was challenged by the appellants by filing writ petition in the High Court mainly on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice by alleging that their caste certificates were cancelled without issuing notice and affording them opportunity of hearing. They also made a specific prayer for quashing order dated 30th March, 1999. Although the respondent did not controvert the assertions contained in the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition by observing that the petitioners did not challenge order dated 30th March, 1999 despite the fact that copy thereof was supplied to them pursuant to the direction given by it. In our view, the High Court committed serious error in dismissing the writ petition without going into the question of violation of the rules of natural justice.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and order dated 30th March, 1999 passed by the Tehsildar cancelling the caste certificates of the appellants is quashed.

Needless to say that this order shall not preclude the Tehsildar from passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs State Of Gujarat

The complaint was given by Dhulagiri Gumangiri Goswami on 17.5.1999. On the strength of the complaint given by the complainant investigation was carried out. The place where the suicide was committed by the victim was visited and the panchnama of the place of incident was prepared in the presence of the panch-witnesses. Statements of the witnesses from the neighbourhood were recorded. The injured was immediately rushed to the hospital for providing necessary treatment. Muddamal seized was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of detailed analysis. On the death of the victim, the inquest panchnama was prepared and the dead body was sent for autopsy. The appellant was arrested during the course of investigation. On receipt of the report from FSL, the post- mortem report along with other material, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the DP Act. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Santosh Kumar Pahadiya vs Usha Gupta

As undertaken yesterday, i.e., 27th January, 2009, a joint petition of compromise has been filed on behalf of both the parties, perusal of which shows that they have agreed to compromise all the disputes and have also agreed to suffer mutual consent divorce decree. The husband has agreed to pay a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs to the wife in two instalments by way of permanent alimony. He has agreed to pay the first instalment of Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand on 30th April, 2009 and the second instalment on or before 31st July, 2009. Both the parties have agreed in Court that the aforesaid payment shall be made by an Account Payee Draft drawn in favour of the wife upon a Bank at Lahar, District Bhind, within the State of Madhya Pradesh. They have further agreed that, in case any of the instalments is not paid within the aforesaid time, this order may stand recalled. Learned ...2/-

counsel appearing on behalf of the wife stated that the petition filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lahar, may be treated as withdrawn. As regards Criminal Case No.4929 of 2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, within the State of Madhya Pradesh, against the husband and other accused persons, the parties agree that the same may be quashed in view of the compromise.

In our view, the compromise is lawful. The same is taken on record. The civil appeal is allowed, impugned judgments are set aside, the petition for divorce is allowed and mutual consent divorce decree is granted. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.4929 of 2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, within the State of Madhya Pradesh are quashed. It is also declared that the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lahar, shall stand disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that if any of the two instalments is not paid by the husband, then this order shall stand recalled and the special leave petition shall stand dismissed.
Parmanand Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court, challenge was to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (in short the `CAT'). The CAT by the impugned order negatived the claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short `EDBPM'). CAT held that the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted on two grounds; firstly, his land was encumbered and secondly he did not file the original certificates with regard to his qualifications. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the conclusions relating to encumbrance of land are incorrect as the encumbrance was with regard to another plot of land and not relating to the land belonging to the appellant. It was also pointed out that the certificates were produced at the time of hearing of the original application before the CAT. The High Court held that even if the first ground that the land was not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was to be dismissed as all the relevant documents were not produced and respondent No.6 who was appointed had filed all the relevant documents. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Madhumati Atchut Parab vs Rajaram V. Parab & Ors

2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:

10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the view that under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, which is pari-materia with Section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar is conferred with power to decide the question after holding an enquiry whether a particular person is or is not a tenant of the disputed property.

Provided that if upon an application made by the landlord within one year from the commencement of this Act to the Mamlatdar within whose jurisdiction the land is situated:-

15. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the Mamlatdar and the application filed by the appellant before the Mamlatdar stands allowed.

16. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Surendra Kumar Bhatia vs Kanhaiya Lal & Ors

4. Some lands in Sukhalpura village, including 31 bighas in Khasra No.9, were acquired for a housing scheme floated by Rajasthan Housing Board (for short, `the Board') under preliminary notification dated 5.4.1985 and final notification dated 16.10.1985 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' for short). Khasra No.9 was shown as `Sivaya Chak' (government land) in the said notification and possession thereof was delivered to the Housing Board on 13.6.1988.

Re : Question No. (ii) 13

20. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part to the extent mentioned above.
S.P.Raja Shekhar & Ors vs M.Lalitha

The eviction petition filed by the appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide need was dismissed by Rent Controller, Secunderabad. On appeal, Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, after detailed evaluation of the evidence produced by the parties reversed the order of the Rent Controller and granted eviction on the ground that the need of the appellants was bona fide. When the matter was taken in revision, the High Court overturned the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court on the issue of bona fide need, set aside the order of the appellate Court and restored the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the order of eviction passed by the appellate court is restored. The respondent is granted time till 31st December, 2009, to vacate the premises in question upon filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today.

It is directed that in case the respondent fails to vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the decree holder to file an execution petition for delivery of possession and in case such a petition has already been filed, an application shall be filed therein to the effect that the respondent has not vacated the premises in question within the time granted by this Court. In either eventuality, the Executing Court is not required to issue any notice to the respondent. The Executing Court will see that delivery of possession is effected within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the execution petition or the application aforementioned. In case for delivery of possession any armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the Superintendent of Police within forty eight hours from the date requisition is received therefor. It is also directed that in case anybody else, other than the respondent, is found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question.
State Of Kerala & Ors vs V.S.Raveendran

The respondent filed an application dated 30.9.2001 for grant of a FL3 licence for his restaurant. In 2006, he was informed by the Excise authorities that his application could not be considered and granted as per the then existing law. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. Learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by order dated 6.12.2006 with a direction to the Excise Commissioner to consider the eligibility of the respondent with reference to the qualifications required as on the date of the application. That was challenged by the State by filing a writ appeal. The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground of delay. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

3. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. Consequently, we request the High Court to dispose of the State's appeal which has stood restored to its file on merits expeditiously.
State Of M.P vs Kashiram & Ors

7. The evidence of PW5 the victim clearly shows the gruesome nature of the attack and the intention of the accused persons. According to him, accused Ram Singh and Bapulal caught hold of him. He was laid down on the ground and the accused Krishan Lal chopped out the left foot and Ram Singh caught hold of his left leg and Bapulal caught hold of his right leg, Arjun caught hold of his leg and Krishan Lal kept his legs on his left hand and put clothes in his mouth and caught hold of his head. Leela Krishan said that his foot jaw has been chopped off and the heels should also be chopped out. Accused Suraj Singh kept his leg on a log of wood and Leela Krishan chopped out his feet by axe from above the ankle. The trial court noticed that the leg was chopped out between the knee and the ankle. Krishan Lal asked Ram Singh to keep the chopped pieces of the leg in the bag and Ram Singh picked up the pieces of legs and kept them in the bag. Though accused Arjun Singh asked that both his eyes should be taken out, accused Ganga Ram told him that chopping of his one leg was sufficient to cause his death.

16. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on 9 social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

17. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".

20. Looked at from any angle the judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable, deserves to be set aside which we direct. The judgment of the trial court stands restored so far as conviction as well as the sentences are concerned.

21. The appeal is allowed.