L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sau Kusum vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, she filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By an interim order dated 1.04.2005, a Division Bench of the said Court, directed:

7. The said order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was placed before the High Court, and by reason of the impugned judgment the writ petition was dismissed, opining:

7. In view of fact that the appellant's case was not referred to the appropriate Committee, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. It will be open to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the eligibility of the appellant. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith as Assistant Engineer and shall continue to hold the said post till the matter is decided by the Committee. The appeal is allowed on the aforementioned terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

11. In that view of the matter, if it is a fact that the people belonging to the said Caste are recognized as OBC, both in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra being Badhai in the former and Sutar in the latter and keeping in view of the fact that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has found her to be belonging to the Sutar caste, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration.

Therefore, a person claiming benefit would have to show that his ancestors hailed on the date of inclusion of caste in schedule from a place identified in the schedule. In other words, the relevant date is not date of migration but date of inclusion of caste or tribe in the schedule."

15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is directed to be considered afresh by the Caste Scrutiny Committee wherein the appellant may be permitted to adduce evidence inter alia on the question as to when she had migrated. We may further observe that if the appellant is aggrieved 12 by the finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in regard to her parentage, she would undoubtedly be entitled to file a suit for an appropriate declaration.

16. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 16, 2008
Selvi Sundram & Anr vs State Of T.Nadu & Ors

2. The short question which arises for determination in these Civil Appeals concerns challenge to the Constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, by which initially the rate of tax in respect of contract carriage stood increased from Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter to Rs.2000/- per seat per quarter, and subsequently the said rate stood enhanced from Rs.2000/- per seat per quarter to Rs.3000/- per seat per quarter vide Notification No.1184 dated 30.11.2001 with effect from 1st December 2001.

10. In the circumstances we permit the appellants herein to withdraw the Civil Appeals with liberty to file proper writ petition, if so advised. We make it clear that we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is based on the petition originally filed by the petitioners. Subject to above, Civil Appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. We make it clear that if a proper writ petition is filed giving requisite data to the satisfaction of the High Court, then any observation made in the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the appellants. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open.

11. Similar order was passed in a group of cases i.e. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.( i.e. Civil Appeal No.1177 of 2006 etc. disposed of on 28.11.2007).

12. Subject to the above, the Civil Appeals are dismissed with no orders as to costs.
R. Senthilbabu vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr

2. The short question which arises for determination in these Civil Appeals concerns challenge to the Constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, by which initially the rate of tax in respect of contract carriage stood increased from Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter to Rs.2000/- per seat per quarter, and subsequently the said rate stood enhanced from Rs.2000/- per seat per quarter to Rs.3000/- per seat per quarter vide Notification No.1184 dated 30.11.2001 with effect from 1st December 2001.

10. In the circumstances we permit the appellants herein to withdraw the Civil Appeals with liberty to file proper writ petition, if so advised. We make it clear that we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is based on the petition originally filed by the petitioners. Subject to above, Civil Appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. We make it clear that if a proper writ petition is filed giving requisite data to the satisfaction of the High Court, then any observation made in the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the appellants. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open.

11. Similar order was passed in a group of cases i.e. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.( i.e. Civil Appeal No.1177 of 2006 etc. disposed of on 28.11.2007).

12. Subject to the above, the Civil Appeals are dismissed with no orders as to costs. .........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, December 16, 2008
Alka Bose vs Parmatma Devi & Ors

2) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:

On the other hand, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench and hold that the agreement of sale was enforceable and the trial Court has rightly granted decree which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

11) Looked at from any angle, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the order of the Single Judge and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
C. Balachandran & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors

3. Appellants were said to have been appointed by the Kerala Water and Sewerage Authority (for short, `the Authority') on daily wages in connection with carrying out of some projects. Their services were terminated in the year 1987. A writ petition before the Kerala High Court was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22nd May 1987 directing :

"4. The petitioner shall make representations before the Kerala Water Authority detailing their claims within two weeks from this date. Such representations, if any, shall be considered and disposed of by the Authority and the Government after giving the petitioners opportunity of being heard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of the representation. There shall be further direction to allow the petitioners to continue in service till such disposal of the representation."

5. Indisputably, the appellants were not parties in the said matter before this Court. The judgment of this Court was rendered on 19th September 1990. Appellants made representations to the Authority on or about 19th November 1991 purporting to seek compliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jacob (supra) in their favour. Some of the employees who are said to be similarly situated filed a writ petition. Indisputably, the said writ petition was allowed. Certain observations were made therein. An intra-court appeal against the said judgment was filed by the Authority. Before the Division Bench of the said Court, an undertaking was allegedly given by the appellant-Authority that the said writ petitioners would be appointed on regular basis considering their respective qualifications. In the light of the said undertaking, the writ appeal was disposed of directing the 4 writ petitioners to file representations in terms thereof. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said directions, seven persons were appointed in `regular posts as unskilled workers upon creation of supernumerary posts to satisfy the judgment of the High Court'.

6. Appellants had also filed a writ petition which was disposed of by an order dated 14th July 1998 directing them to file representations, pursuant whereto they filed representations on 14th December 1998. However, their representations were rejected by an order dated 16th December 1998 by the Authority.

10. As indicated hereinbefore, an appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by the impugned order.

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

December 17, 2008
U.R.Virupakshaiah vs Sarvamma & Anr

4. Virupakashappa filed a suit for partition claiming share in Survey No.197/2 measuring 11 acres 22 guntas, Survey No.203/3 measuring 3.2 Channapasappa Mallappa Revanna acres, Survey No.203/6 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas and a house property situated at Chikkathotulkere, Tumkur Taluk, District Tumkur in the year 1996. Defendants-Respondents, inter alia, in their written statements denied Revanns Siddappa Chikkasiddappa Shetty Dead and unmarried (Dead) (Dead) and issueless and disputed the said genealogical table. It is profitable to refer thereto :

16. The premise on which, therefore, the High Court reversed the judgment of the courts below was non-existent.

18. The instant case does not come within the purview of the aforementioned dicta. The High Court did not deal with the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission at all. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for 15 consideration of the matter afresh. In the event, the High Court opines that any substantial question of law should be framed suo motu or at the instance of the appellant before it, viz., respondent herein, it shall give an opportunity of hearing to appellant.

19. Appeal is allowed on the aforementioned terms. In the facts and circumstance of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 17, 2008 16
State Of Punjab vs Bahadur Singh & Ors

The First Respondent was appointed on 9.5.1982 in the post of a Driver on a work charge basis. He continued to be employed in the said capacity without being regularized. Respondent No.1 filed C.W.A. No.7389 of 2004 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking regularization of his service. As per the impugned order, the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 12.8.2003 in C.W.P. No.1287 of 2003

5. A Special Leave Petition was preferred thereagainst which was marked as SLP (C) No.24325 of 2003. By an order dated 27.2.2004 notices 4 were issued. It appears that similar matters came up before this Court and a Division Bench in its order dated 26.3.2007 directed as under :

Manmohan Singh and Anr. [2007 (3) SCALE 401]."

11. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court 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 hereinbefore keeping in view the statement made by Mr. Jain that the appointment in the work charge establishment was permissible in law and the recruitments had been made in accordance with law.

12. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned direction. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 17, 2008
M/S Venkatesh Chemi-Colour Co.& Ors vs Hatim Suterwalla & Ors

In Summary Suit No.1721 of 2001 filed by Respondent No.1 herein, leave was granted to the defendants, including the appellants herein, to defend the suit on their depositing sum of Rupees thirty lakhs within a period of four weeks. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court but the time for depositing the amount was extended by four weeks. On 9th April, 2007, the learned Single Judge decreed the suit by observing that the defendants failed to deposit Rupees thirty lakhs, as per order dated 19th October, 2005, passed in Appeal No.744 of 2006. Notice of Motion taken out by some of the appellants for restoration of Appeal No.744 of 2006 and grant of ...2/-

permission to deposit the amount as per order dated 19th October, 2005, with a further prayer to set aside decree dated 9th April, 2007, passed in Summary Suit No.1721 of 2001 was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 20th November, 2008. Against that order, appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29585 of 2008 has been filed.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are allowed, decree passed in Summary suit No.1721 of 2001 is set aside and leave is granted to the defendants to contest the suit.

Needless to say that if the amount is not deposited within the time specified above, this order shall stand recalled and the appeals shall stand dismissed.
T.Sudheer vs M.Prasad Reddy & Ors

The appellant filed a complaint before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission [for short, `the State Commission'] claiming compensation to the tune of Rupees forty lakhs by alleging that his wife died due to negligence of the respondents. By an order dated 20th August, 2006, the State Commission without even adverting to the averments contained in the complaint and the prayer made therein, directed the complainant to present the complaint before an appropriate District Forum. The order of the State Commission has been confirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the National Commission'] by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission and confirmed by the National Commission are set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Commission to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors

4. Appellant herein raised a specific contention that keeping in view the relationship between the deceased and the owner of the motor vehicle i.e. father and son, he was not a third party, stating :-

"5. That section 165 M.V. Act clearly postulates that the insurer is liable to indemnify the risk of the Third party. During the motor vehicle accident and the policy also speaks that in the case of rash and negligent driving the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner. Here in this case 2 the driver of the vehicle is admittedly not a third party and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order under the Motor Vehicle Act.

These decisions, clearly, are applicable to the fact of the present case.

20. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements, we have no hesitation of hold that the insurance company was not liable. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Mohan Meakin Ltd vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Rangar Breweries Ltd., Mehatpur, Distt. Una as well as from its distillery situated at Mohan Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad during the relevant years, viz., 1997-98 and 1998-99.

5. A representation was made by the appellant in respect of the said demands by a letter dated 30.01.1999 inter alia contending that the State of Himachal Pradesh had no jurisdiction to levy such fee. In any event, no services having been rendered to the appellant, quantum jump of the licence fee in the name of such permit fee was not justified.

The said representation of the appellant was rejected by an order dated 10.02.1999.

6. The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment rejected the contentions of the appellant.

The levy, therefore, ex facie could not have been imposed on rectified spirit.

Parameters of Compensatory Tax

27. Even while levying a fee, a quantum jump is deprecated.

28. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant afresh. The parties shall be at liberty to file additional affidavits/ evidence before the High Court, if they so desire.

The appeals are allowed. Respondents shall bear the cost of the appellant. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-. 29

December 18, 2008
Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand

In the said incident, the complainant and Ajay Singh suffered fire arm injuries. When the people started assembling there, accused persons fled away. The motive for commission of the offence was said to be the murder of one Jagdev wherein the complainant and the said Ajay Singh were accused. The first informant was taken to the hospital and died on 25.10.2000. He gave a dying declaration which was treated to be the First Information Report.

3. Indisputably, no chargesheet was filed against the appellants. No cognizance, therefore, was taken against them.

4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 to allow an application for summoning the appellant in exercise of his power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code") , holding: 3

21. Applying the aforementioned legal principles to the fact of this case, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, there was no possibility of recording a judgment of conviction against the appellants at all.

22. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.

December 18, 2008
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rattani & Ors

3. Ordinarily we would have remitted the matter back to the High Court as the appeal of the appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short `the Act) has not been considered on merit, but, keeping in view the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 being mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased having been awarded a total amount of compensation of Rupees one lac forty thousand only, we chose to hear the parties on merit.

4. The accident took place on 15th May, 2002 when deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith other injured persons, were travelling as members of a marriage party in a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-39-9869. Indisputably it was a goods vehicle. The first information report was lodged in relation thereto wherein the driver of the vehicle was made an accused.

Against the column `cause of accident with brief descriptions' it was stated:-

14. An admission made in the pleadings, as is well-known, is admissible in evidence proprio vigore. We, thus, are of the opinion that the Tribunal as also the High Court committed a serious error in opining that the insurance company was liable.

28. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly recorded that according to PW 2, he was travelling with his goods as owner thereof and not the deceased."

We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, have no hesitation to hold that the victims of the accidents were travelling in the truck as gratuitous passengers and in that view of the matter, the appellant herein was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside in so far as the liability of the appellant herein is 11 concerned. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 18, 2008
State Of Haryana vs Bhup Singh & Ors

14 years and 26 days as on 6.5.2007. Accordingly, he has undergone a few days more than 14 years and 3 months of actual sentence as on today.

4. The Government of Haryana took a policy decision as regards premature release of the life convicts by putting them in various categories. The cases for premature release of the appellants were not considered on the premise that the offence committed by them fell in the category of `heinous crimes' as murder of more than two persons was involved and, thus, could be considered only after completion of 20 years' actual imprisonment and 25 years' imprisonment including remissions.

5. The validity or otherwise of the said policy decision was questioned by the respondents by a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was marked as Criminal Miscellaneous No.30109-M of 2002. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and order dated 24.7.2003 holding that they were entitled to be considered for premature release on the 4 expiry of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of sentence including remissions.

For the forgoing reasons, both these criminal writ petitions are allowed and both the petitioners are ordered to be released forthwith from jail unless they are required in some other case. However, this direction is subject to final outcome of Special 3 Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1488 of 2004 pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

12. Appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. No costs.

December 18, 2008
M/S.Malwa Strips Pvt.Ltd vs M/S.Jyoti Ltd

2. Appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the said Act"). It is engaged in manufacturing of copper strips and copper foils etc. It has its registered office at 17-20, Industrial Area No.2, AB Road, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Respondent is also a company registered and incorporated under the said Act. It has its registered office at Nanubhai Amin Marg, Industrial Area, 2 Vadodara. Respondent used to place orders for supply of copper rods strips and foils from time to time with the appellant. Allegedly, the payments used to be made towards the said supply from time to time. Appellant, inter alia, on the premise that a sum of Rs. 49,03,908.29 was owed to it by the respondent filed a Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code"). An application for leave to defend the suit was filed by the respondent. Appellant contended that as the respondent raised a defence only as regards the rate of interest and not the principal amount, its application should be dismissed. By an order dated 23.08.2007, the application for leave to defend the suit was allowed, subject to the condition that the respondent shall make payment of undisputed and admitted amount of Rs.22,64,789.52. Such deposit was to be made by 22.9.2007. Respondent obtained extension of time to deposit the amount. However, as the said amount was not deposited, the trial court passed a judgment on or about 14.11.2007 decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant. Respondent preferred an appeal thereagainst. An application for stay of the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was also filed. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the decree in its entirety. While doing so, the High Court opined:

In other words, the application for stay of the execution of the decree could be dismissed for such non-compliance but the Court could not give a direction for the dismissal of the appeal itself for such non-compliance."

13. We, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.35 lakhs within a period of four weeks from date. Respondent shall furnish adequate security for the rest of the decreetal amount within the same period. Appellant shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.30 lakhs out of the said deposited amount without furnishing any security and the rest amount on furnishing security. In the event the respondent fails to comply with the order, the decree shall be executable at once.

14. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. No costs.

December 18, 2008