L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. ...

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

3. The premises of the respondent-company was inspected by the Insurance Inspector of the appellant-Corporation on 13.06.2000, wherein it was found that the respondent had not paid any contribution on the interim wages paid by it to its employees 5 during the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2000. The contention of the respondent was that it was not required to pay any contribution on the interim relief paid by it to its employees in view of office memorandum dated 19.08.1998. Since the contribution was not paid by the respondent, as mentioned supra, a notice dated 18.07.2000 was issued by the appellant to the respondent to pay contribution of the afore-mentioned amount for the afore-mentioned period. The notice of demand dated 02.11.2000 was also served on the respondent demanding an amount of Rs.2,58,061.50 with interest thereon.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya vs Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya ...

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

1. They had absolutely no grievance about the delay in bringing them on record. It is the second respondent who is fighting both the appellants and the 1st respondent who wants to derive a technical advantage by this procedural lapse. If the trend is to encourage fairplay in action in administrative law, it must all the more inhere in judicial approach. Such applications have to be approached with this view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in Court. Undoubtedly, justice according to law; law to be administered to advance justice.”

In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 and bring them on record, subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code, as well as under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be decided during the trial.

October 3, 2017.
The State Of Himachal Pradesh Chief ... vs M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Senior ...

2. The core facts that will be necessary to be noticed are as follows:

3. On 28th January, 1994 (before commencement of commercial production) the respondent – writ petitioner was informed by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) that the power required by its cement unit (i.e. 21000 KW) can be made available subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid letter (dated 28th January, 1994). By the said letter the respondent – writ petitioner was informed that Peak Load hours restrictions will be imposed between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. for the summer months (April to October) 5 and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. for the winter months (November to March). Thereafter, it appears that in exercise of powers under Sections 49 and 59 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board brought into force a schedule of electricity tariff known as “Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Schedule of Electricity Tariff, 1994 w.e.f. 31st May, 1994. Clause

4. On 23rd August,1995, the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Board issued an Office Order according sanction in favour of the respondent – writ petitioner for running of its cement manufacturing unit during the evening peak load hours subject to the conditions enumerated in the said Office Order (dated 23rd August, 1995)

The consumers availing special dispensation or exemption during evening peak load hours stipulated under Part-I General of this notification shall be billed at extra charges of Rs.1/- per unit over and above the normal tariff. For this purpose, time of the day (T.O.D.) meters shall be provided. Till such time, these meters are provided, the monthly peak load exemption charges shall be Rs.70/- per KVA of exemption/relaxation sought.”

12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the respondents – writ petitioners are not entitled to reimbursement towards PLEC paid by it during the period of four years commencing from the date of commercial production i.e. 26th September, 1995. We order accordingly and direct that in the event any reimbursement had been 22 made the same be returned forthwith by the respondents – writ petitioners to the appellants with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.

13. Consequently and in the light of the above, the order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.

(NAVIN SINHA) NEW DELHI OCTOBER 4, 2017 23
Shyam Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. The Appellant-Shyam Sharma was convicted by the Sessions Judge, under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo additional imprisonment of five months.

5. The appellant has already been imprisoned for about four months. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period 4 already undergone by the appellant-Shyam Sharma. Ordered accordingly.

6. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Sukhendu Das vs Rita Mukherjee

1. The Appellant and the Respondent are District Judges working in the State of West Bengal. Their marriage was performed on 19th June, 1992 as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). A girl child was born out of the wedlock on 14th April, 1993. There was matrimonial discord between the Appellant and the Respondent and they were living separately since the year 2000. The Appellant filed an application under Section 27 of the Act seeking a divorce.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeal is allowed and the application for divorce filed by the Appellant under Section 27 of the Act is allowed.
Plastiblends India Limited Through Its ... vs Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax Range ...

3) Coming to the Assessment Year 1997-98, from which Assessment Year the dispute has arisen, the annual accounts prepared by the assessee for the year disclosed that it earned a net profit of Rs.1,80,85,409/-. This was arrived at after charging depreciation of Rs.64,98,968/- in 5 accordance with the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 1997-98 determining the gross total income at Rs.2,46,04,962/-. The gross total income included profits and gains derived from business of undertakings I and II at Daman aggregating to Rs.2,46,04,962/- which profits were eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. After reducing the gross total income by the deductions available under Section 80-IA, the total income was computed at Rs. Nil. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 computing the gross total income at Rs.34,15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit and gains of business. After reducing the gross total income by the brought forward loss of Rs.98,47,170/-, he determined the business loss to be carried forward to Assessment Year 1998-99 at Rs.66,25,587/-.

(Emphasis supplied)”

19) Having interpreted the provisions of Section 80-IA in the aforesaid manner, it is not necessary to go into the other question, viz., whether Explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Act is declaratory in nature or it is to be applied prospectively. Judgments cited by both the sides on this aspect, therefore, need not be dealt with.

20) Result of the aforesaid discourse would be to hold that there is no merit in any of the appeals filed by the assessees which are accordingly dismissed.

OCTOBER 9, 2017.
Santosh vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. The appellant is one of the accused in Crime No. 63 of 2016 registered at Goregaon Police Station, Goregaon, Maharashtra for offences under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegation is that he received misappropriated food-grains meant for public distribution. In the order dated 07.10.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, as per order dated 24.10.2016 was Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA also of the same view, although the same court had initially Date: 2017.10.13 11:27:53 IST Reason: granted interim protection. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is 1 before this Court.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2017, the Petitioner was arrested and released on bail after completing necessary formalities.

3. Since there is no cooperation by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. For proper completion of investigation the custody of the petitioner is very much necessary. ..”

10.The appeal is disposed of as above.

OCTOBER 10, 2017.

Ms. Nikita Kabra Jaju, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv.

Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of. As far as the deposit of Rs. 46,67,489/- made in this Court (along with accrued interest) is concerned, further orders, if required, will be passed subject to the orders, if any, passed by the trial court.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file) 6
P. Karuppaiah (D) Through Lrs. vs General Manager, Thiriuvalluvar ...

2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so also the controversy involved in the appeal as would be clear from the narration of relevant facts hereinbelow.

5. The appellant was working as a Driver in the employment of the respondent. The respondent dismissed the appellant from service because he was found involved in one murder case and was prosecuted for the said offence.

14. Be that as it may, the writ Court and the appellate Court yet examined the question in its writ jurisdiction and finding no merit therein declined to award any back wages. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the two Courts below and accordingly uphold the orders impugned herein calling no interference.

15. Indeed, the appellant should feel satisfied that he was able to secure reinstatement in service despite his involvement in a murder case. The appellant should be content with what he has got. 6

16. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

October 12, 2017 7
Life Insurance Corp. Of India vs Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltd

3. The respondent No.1 filed suit No.894 of 1986 against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.06.1979 by which the appellant is said to have agreed to sell the suit property to respondent No.1 and in the alternative directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,75,021.05 with further interest on the sum of Rs.4,52,778/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till payment or realization. According to the appellant, the said agreement has been rescinded on 28.11.1984. The respondent No.1 is said to have assigned the interest to respondent No.2, their sister concern.

In light of the above principles, considering the case in hand, in our view, the application filed for impleading respondent No.3 as Plaintiff No.3 was not filed within reasonable time. No explanation is offered for such an inordinate delay of 27 years, which was not kept in view by the High Court.

16. As pointed out earlier, the application was filed after 27 years of filing of the suit. Of course, the power to allow the amendment of suit is wide and the court should not adopt hyper technical approach. In considering amendment applications, court should adopt liberal approach and amendments are to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations. We are conscious that mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the amendment. But in the case in hand, the parties are not Page No. 12 of 13 CA NO. ...... OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NO. 614 OF 2015 rustic litigants; all the respondents are companies and the dispute between the parties is a commercial litigation. In such facts and circumstances, the amendment prayed in the Chamber Summons filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC ought not to have been allowed, as the same would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. In our view, the impugned order, allowing Chamber Summons No.187 of 2014 filed after 27 years of the suit would take away the substantial rights of defence accrued to the appellant and the same cannot be sustained.

17. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Chamber Summons No.187 of 2014 in Suit No.894 of 1986 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

October 24, 2017 Page No. 13 of 13
The State Of Maharashtra vs Bandu @ Daulat

8. Accordingly, we restore conviction of the respondent under Section 376 IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He may be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

384.” 5 CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014

12. The directions of Delhi High Court and setting up of special centres for vulnerable witnesses as noted above are consistent with the decision of this Court and supplement the same. We are of the view that all High Courts can adopt such guidelines if the same have not yet been adopted with such modifications as may be deemed necessary. Setting up of one centre for vulnerable witnesses may be perhaps required almost in every district in the country. All the High Courts may take appropriate steps in this direction in due course in phases. At least two such centres in the jurisdiction of each High Court may be set up within three months from today. Thereafter, more such centres may be set up as per decision of the High Courts.

A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts for necessary action.
Sedco Forex International Inc. Thr. Its ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Meerut

5) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision brings out the following salient features thereof:

(emphasis supplied)”

50) It is stated at the cost of repetition that, in the instant case, the amount which is paid to the assessees is towards mobilisation fee. It does not mention that the same is for reimbursement of expenses. In fact, it is a fixed amount paid which may be less or more than the expenses incurred. Incurring of expenses, therefore, would be immaterial. It is also to be borne in mind that the contract in question was indivisible. Having regard to these facts in the present case as per which the case of the assessees get covered under the aforesaid provisions, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the assessees. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion drawn by the AO, which is upheld by all other Authorities is correct, though some of the observations of the High Court may not be entirely correct which have been straightened by us in the above discussion. For our aforesaid reasons, we uphold the conclusion. Resultantly, all the appeals of the 46 assessees are dismissed.

OCTOBER 30, 2017.
Chand Devi Daga . vs Manju K. Humatani .

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:

3. Smt. Chandra Narayan Das filed a criminal revision before the     Additional  Sessions   Judge,  Durg   which   was   dismissed   by VIIIth   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Durg   vide   judgment   dated 20.11.2015.   Criminal   Misc.   Petition   against   the   said   order dated 20.11.2015 was filed in the High Court of Chhatisgarh by Smt. Chandra Narayan Das. The High Court on 18.02.2016 issued notice   in   the   Criminal   Misc.   Petition.   After   issuance   of notice   the   petitioner,   Smt.   Chandra   Narayan   Das   died   on 02.04.2016.   An   application   was   filed   by   the   legal   heirs   of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das   praying them to be substituted in place   of   the   petitioner.   The   application   was   opposed   by  the appellants.   The   High   Court   vide   its   order   dated   02.02.2017 allowed   the   said   application   and   permitted   the   legal representatives of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das to come on record for prosecuting the Criminal Misc. Petition. Aggrieved by the 3 said judgment, the appellants have come up in this appeal.

7. There   is   no   dispute   regarding   facts   and   events   in   the present   case.   The   original   complainant   died   during   the pendency of the Criminal Misc. Petition before the High Court which   was   filed  challenging  the  order   of   the   Sessions   Judge rejecting   the   criminal   revision   against   the   order   of Magistrate dismissing the complaint.

13. This Court had occasion to consider Sections 256 and 302   in  Balasaheb   K.   Thackeray   &   Anr.   Vs.   Venkat   @   Babru, (2006)   5   SCC   530.  In   the   above   case   complaint   was   filed under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code 1973 against the order of issue of process in the High Court which was dismissed. SLP  was filed in this Court in which notice was issued and during   the   pendency   of   the   appeal   it   was   noted   that complainant   had   died.   It   was   contended   that   the   complaint be dismissed on the ground that complainant is dead. This Court   in   the   above   context   referred   to   Sections   256   and

15. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that High Court did not commit any error in allowing the legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute the Criminal Misc. Petition before the High Court. We do not find any error in the order of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
Ankur Kapoor Thr. Gpa vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

3. Facts leading to this appeal are as under:

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal awarded compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Thousand only) along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition to the appellant.

10. Thus, on all counts, the appellant is awarded, in total, a compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs only), instead of Rs.8,80,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Eighty Thousand only) awarded by the High Court, along with uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till 9 its realization. It is also directed that the payment of compensation with interest shall be made to the appellant within three months from today. Needless to mention that any amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted. The findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court regarding composite negligence and liability to pay will remain undisturbed.

11. The instant appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

NOVEMBER 06, 2017.
Amol vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The Tribunal, on verification of the records found that the application was under the quota reserved for Ex-Servicemen. The appellant obtained only 46.25% marks. It appears that the appointment was offered to the appellant under the category of 'Scheduled Castes'. The appellant was offered appointment on the basis of application and on the basis of marks secured by him for the 'Ex-Serviceman' category.

5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

2. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

4. There shall be no orders as to costs.

NOVEMBER 07, 2017.
National Institute Of Medical Science ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

5. Pursuant to the directions given by the High Court on 18 th July 2003, the State Government constituted an Expert Committee which gave a report that makes for some very sad reading. However, the Expert Committee also gave as many as 15 valuable suggestions for restoring the catchment areas to their original shape and use. These suggestions were accepted by the High Court and directions issued to the State Government to consider the recommendations of the Expert Committee and chalk out a plan to take effective steps to restore the catchment areas. Three months time was granted to the State Government to give concrete and positive shape to the suggestions.

12. However, before detailing the steps concerning NIMS, it must be stated that the Government of Rajasthan prepared an Initial Action Plan in July 2012 followed by a report prepared by a Technical Committee on 9th January 2013 on Less/no inflow in Ramgarh Dam (District Jaipur) Despite Average and Above Average Rainfall and Remedial Measures to Restore Inflow.

19. Feeling aggrieved by the notice, NIMS preferred Appeal No. 37 of 2012 before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. After hearing NIMS, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 12th October 2012. This led NIMS to prefer S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16836 of 2012 in the High Court. This writ petition was clubbed along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2012 and both were dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 1st November 2012.

Conclusion

38. Under the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the petitions but with costs of Rs.10 lakhs per petition for the brazen 4

(i) pasture land;

(ii) to (xiv) xxxx Provided that …..

SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc. Page 16 of 19 encroachment. The amount should be deposited by NIMS in the Registry of this Court within six weeks.

39. In our opinion, merely dismissing the petitions would serve no useful purpose since it appears to us that NIMS is a rather powerful and influential entity. We say this because it has been able to successfully frustrate its eviction and demolition of the construction for at least one decade. Even before us an attempt was made to take an adjournment so that it could possibly use its influence over whoever it may be to get some favourable executive orders.

43. We are giving these peremptory time bound directions in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge felt it appropriate, while dismissing the writ petitions filed by NIMS, to grant interim relief limited to only 7 days. More importantly, we are of opinion that the possibility of water being now made available to Jaipur City in due course of time takes far greater precedence over the interests of NIMS and those associated with it.

44. The petitions are dismissed with the above directions.