L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Kumar Etc.Etc vs Karnataka Indusl.Coop.Bank Ltd.& Anr

3. The facts lie within a short compass and may be briefly enumerated herein under.

The respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals i.e. Karnataka Industrial Corporation Bank Ltd., Hubli (hereinafter shall be referred to ‘the complainant Bank’) had filed 18 different complaints in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hubli alleging that between 12.07.2003 and 31.03.2004 loans were taken by each of the appellants by mortgaging gold ornaments. According to the complainant Bank, on 10.06.2004, a news item had appeared in the local newspapers that the appraiser of Maratha Cooperative Bank had given false appraisal reports on the basis of which the said bank had granted loans against fake gold ornaments. As the said person was also the appraiser of the complainant Bank the gold ornaments pledged with the complainant bank by the accused were verified through another appraiser (PW.4) who certified the gold ornaments pledged by the accused to be fake. Accordingly, the complaints in question were filed alleging commission of offences under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC by each of the accused persons who had taken loans from the complainant Bank by pledging fake gold ornaments. The complaints were referred, by the learned Magistrate, to the police for investigation and on completion of such investigation charge sheets were filed in the Court against each of the accused. Thereafter charges were framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. All the complaint cases were taken up for trial together and the evidence of the prosecution was recorded in the complaint case registered and numbered as CC. No. 1235 of 2005. In the course of the trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution and several documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, the learned trial court by order dated 29.2.2008 acquitted each of the accused of the charges levelled against them. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of the trial, the appraiser, who was impleaded as the second accused had died. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the complaint Bank instituted separate Revision applications before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court by its common order dated 16/11/2010 and 22/3/2011 allowed each of the Revision Applications filed by the complainant Bank and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved the present appeals have been filed.

8. For all the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the judgment and order dated 16/11/2010 and 22/3/2011 passed by the High Court in each of the Criminal Revisions before it cannot be sustained in law. We therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the common judgment and order dated 16/11/2010 and 22/3/2011 passed by the High Court in the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the respondent Bank.
Ram Viswas vs State Of M.P

3) Brief facts:

(b) Maladeep (the deceased) and Ram Viswas were married to each other but were not in good terms. The appellant herein was not happy with his married life and often used to quarrel with Maladeep. He was actually forcing his wife to leave her matrimonial home which was not agreeable to her.

(c) In order to get rid of her, on 03.02.1998, in the midnight, the appellant herein poured kerosene oil on Maladeep and set her on fire. On hearing her cries, a number of persons gathered on the spot and tried to extinguish the fire. The appellant herein also tried to douse the fire and got his hands burnt.

(d) Maladeep was taken to the G.M. Hospital, Rewa and a First Information Report (FIR) being No. 10/98 was registered against the appellant herein with the Police Station Semaria. On 04.02.1998, the CMO, G.M. Hospital Rewa, opined that she had sustained 100% burn injuries and at about 03:05 p.m., the statement of Maladeep was recorded wherein while narrating the whole story, she named her husband-the appellant herein for the overt act. On 07.02.1998, she succumbed to her injuries.

(e) After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rewa, (M.P.) and numbered as Session Case No. 80/98. The trial Court, by order dated 22.04.1999, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to suffer RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 month.

12) In the light of the above discussion and on going through the entire material relied on by the prosecution and the defence, we are unable to agree with the argument of the counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, we concur with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

13) Learned counsel for the appellant by pointing out the fact that the appellant had served more than 14 years in prison, prayed for appropriate direction for his release as per Jail Manual. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of his claim, inasmuch as we dispose of his appeal, the State is free to consider the same in accordance with the Rules/Instructions/Jail Manual applicable to the appellant. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.

DECEMBER 14, 2012.
Collector Dist.Gwalior & Anr vs Cine Exhibitors P.Ltd.& Anr

2. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh had suppressed various documents which had substantial bearing on the outcome of the appeals. According to the learned senior counsel the following are some of the documents which were suppressed from this Court:

296. In that case Civil Appeal Nos.4656-57 of 1999 were allowed by a two Judge Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban (1999) 7 SCC 44 and the appeals of Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority were allowed. The appellant in Civil Appeal No.4656 of 1999 was the Delhi Administration while the appellant in CA No.4657 of 1999 was Delhi Development Authority. After the appeals were allowed by this Court on 20.8.1999, Review Petition Nos.1402-03 of 1999 were filed in the two appeals by Gurdip Singh Uban and they were dismissed in circulation by a reasoned order on 24.11.1999. Another Review Petition No.21 of 2000 filed by another person was not listed on that date. IA No.3 of 1999 was later listed along with IA Nos.4 & 5 filed by Gurdip Singh Uban on 23.12.1999. Gurdip Singh Uban, it may be noted had filed IA Nos.4 & 5 in spite of dismissal of his review petition on 24.11.1999. IA Nos.4 & 5 were listed before the Court and a preliminary objection was raised stating that the applications couched as applications for “clarification”, modification” or for “recall” could not be entertained once the review petitions filed by the applicant were dismissed. This Court examined the question in detail in Gurdip Singh Uban (supra) and held as follows:

9. We are, therefore, of the view that the Registrar has rightly ordered for lodgment of the applications. However, we make it clear that the dismissal of these applications would not stand in the way of the applicants in filing review petitions with additional documents, stated to have been suppressed by the opposite side, which would be dealt with in accordance with law. The interlocutory applications are dismissed.
Director Of Income Tax(Exempn)N.Delhi vs Raunaq Education Foundation

4) The facts giving rise to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

6) The facts of the case pertain to the assessment year 2002-2003 of the respondent assessee. During the relevant accounting year i.e. 2001-2002, the respondent-assessee had, by way of donation, received two cheques for a sum of Rs.40 lac each from M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. One of the cheques was dated 22nd April, 2002 and yet it was given in accounting year 2001-2002 i.e. before 31st March, 2002. The said cheque for donation was received by the respondent-assessee before 31st March, 2002 but was honoured after 1st April, 2002 i.e. in accounting year 2002- 2003.

9) The Tribunal, after hearing the concerned advocates, came to the conclusion that there was no violation of the provisions of Sections 13 (2)(b) & 13(2)(h) of the Act and the assessee trust had not acted in improper and illegal manner. The Tribunal noted the fact that the amount of donation i.e. Rs.40 lac received by way of a cheque dated 22nd April, 2002 was treated as donation receivable and accordingly accounting treatment was given to the said amount. The said amount was not included in the accounting year 2001-2002 as donation but was shown separately in the balance sheet as amount receivable by way of donation. Moreover, M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. had also not availed benefit of the said amount under Section 80G of the Act during the accounting year 2001-2002 but had availed the benefit only in the accounting year 2002-2003, the period during which the cheque had been honoured and the amount of donation was paid to the assessee trust. For the aforestated reason, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

The fact that most of the trustees of the assessee trust and the directors of M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. are related is absolutely irrelevant.

16) Upon careful perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any error therein. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Registrar Of Jadavpur University vs Arindam Dutta Gupta & Ors

3. Respondent No. 1 is a student studying in an Engineering college. Since numbers of seats were lying vacant in various disciplines of the engineering faculty in the colleges run by the appellant-University, the respondent had approached the Writ Court for appropriate directions. The Writ Court, without taking into account the various Government Orders on the subject prevailing as on that date, : 2 : proceeded to issue direction to the appellant-University in favour of the Respondent No. 1 to allot an Engineering seat to him.

Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.

JANUARY 07, 2013.
Municipal Corp.Rajasthan vs Sanjeev Sachdeva & Ors

Respondents herein purchased a plot of land, with a house, on 9.9.2002, situated in a residential area by way of a registered sale deed. Later, an application under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Change of Land Use) Rules, 2000 (for short ‘2000 Rules”) was preferred for conversion of land use from residential to commercial. They also deposited self- assessment amount of Rs.10,500/- for the said purpose. Municipal Corporation, while considering the said application gave a public notice on 22.7.2003 inviting objections, if any, under Rule 4(1) of the 2000 Rules. The Land Use Change Committee of the Corporation, on 23.2.2004, approved the request for conversion of land use. Municipal Corporation then demanded an amount of Rs.5,70,300/- as land use conversion charges in accordance with the 2000 Rules read with Section 173-A, as amended.

We may, in this respect, also indicate that, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 297 read with Section 173-A of the 1959 Act, 2000 Rules were promulgated. It is under the above-mentioned Rules that the respondents filed an application on 16.7.2003 for change of land use from residential to commercial. Following those Rules, the Corporation issued public notice inviting objections. Later, the Land Use Committee met and approved the conversion for which a demand notice of Rs.5,70,300/- was raised by the Corporation on 2.4.2004. We are of the view that the demand is legal and valid and in accordance with the provisions of Section 173-A, as inserted by Amendment Act 19 of 1999 read with 2000 Rules. We are also of the view that the Rajasthan High Court has committed an error in applying the Judgment of this Court in Pareshar Soni’s case (supra) which was dealing with the un-amended provision of Section 173-A. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the area in question is notified as commercial area under the Master Plan and, therefore, there is no question of any conversion of the residential property to commercial. We notice that this point was not raised before the High Court and we are, therefore, not called upon to decide that question. However, the respondents, if so advised, may take up this issue before the Corporation and it is for the Corporation to consider that issue in accordance with law. Appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgments of the High Court are set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Pattarvayal Kanakan vs State Of Kerala

2. This case relates to the murder of one Purushothaman (“the deceased” for short) by the appellant-accused and six other accused persons on 01.11.1998. At 9:15 p.m., on the fateful night, the deceased was attacked by a group, comprising of the accused persons, while he was proceeding towards the house of his neighbour (PW-3) to attend a phone call from his wife’s house. The deceased’s sister (PW-1) followed him at a distance and thus was an eye-witness to the incident in its entirety. The deceased was first inflicted a blow with a pestle (MO1) on his head by the appellant and thereafter as he fell down, the six other accused persons attacked him with the iron rod, knife, chopper, axe, etc. As soon as PW-1, the wife of deceased, his brother (PW-2) and his uncle (CW-5), amongst others, reached the spot, the accused persons escaped leaving behind MO1. PW-1 and PW-2 rushed the deceased to the hospital, however, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

JANUARY 08, 2013.
State Rep.By Insepctor Of ... vs N.S. Gnaneswaran

2. For the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties the brief facts are stated hereunder.

The SP concerned after satisfying himself that there is prima facie material meriting action by CBI and further verification is likely to result in registration of a regular case, would order verification if it falls within his competence. In the cases which are within the competence of higher officers, he will forward his detailed comments to the DIG and obtain orders from superior officer competent to order registration. The verification of SIRs must begin only after the Competent Authority has approved its registration. At this stage a regular SIR number will be assigned to the SIR which will also be entered in the Source Information sub-module of CRIMES Module with all other details.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is open for the CBI to proceed further in the matter to conduct investigation and proceed in accordance with law against the respondent.
State Bank Of India And Ors vs Narendra Kumar Pandey

3. The charged officer, herein, while he was functioning as the Deputy Manager of the Bank was served with a charge-sheet dated 15.02.1995 by the Joint Manager (Operations) [Disciplinary Authority] stating that while he was posted as officer JMGS-I at Government Business Branch, Kanpur, and Accountant and officiating Branch Manager at Kalpi Road (Kanpur) Branch from 21st May 1985 to 20th October 1987 and 21st October 1987 to 22nd May 1991 respectively had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official and highly prejudicial to the Bank’s interest in deliberate violation of Rules 50(3), 50(4), 50(9) and 60(2) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (in short ‘the Service Rules’).

ii) You utilized a cheque leaf bearing no. 422276 for drawing on your savings bank account no. 5603 with Kalpi Road Branch although the cheque book containing this cheque leaf was issued to some other account holder and has been recorded as “surrendered and destroyed” in the Branch books. Thus, you have taken unauthorized possession of the cheque which was incorrectly shown as destroyed in the Branch books.

i) You issued a Cheque no.315083 dated 4.4.86 for Rs.6030.08 favouring M/s Society Jewellers which was returned unpaid due to insufficient balance in your account no.38. On representation of the cheque on 23.4.86, it was paid after cash deposit of Rs.6,000/- by you. Thus, you issued cheque without maintaining sufficient balance in your account.

6. The charged officer was informed that it was decided to hold a departmental inquiry against him in terms of Rule 68(2)(ii) of the Service Rules read with Rule 67 in support of the above-mentioned charges. The charged officer was given 15 days time to submit his statement of defence. The charged officer submitted his reply on 29.03.1995 denying all the charges. On 24.03.1995, the charged officer sought permission from the Bank for inspection of the relevant documents, which was permitted by the Bank on 29.04.1995. The Disciplinary Authority vide letter No. Vig/96/11 dated 08.05.1996 appointed the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges levelled against the charged officer as per the charge sheet dated 15.02.1995. The Inquiring Authority issued a notice dated 11.05.1996 to the charged officer informing him of the holding of the preliminary hearing on 11.06.1996. From 11.06.1996 to 07.11.1997, the Inquiring Authority conducted inquiry on 17 dates and many a times the inquiry was adjourned on the request of the charged officer. He chose to remain absent on as many as 7 dates of hearing.

27. In view of the above-mentioned reasons, we find it difficult to support the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside with no order as to costs.

..J. (Dipak Misra) New Delhi, January 14, 2013
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal, are as follows:

3. The retail outlets did not receive any loose cookies nor did they manufacture them. They received all cookies in sealed pouches/containers. Those sold loosely were taken out of the containers and displayed for sale separately. Even though no separate register was maintained to account for the sale of the cookies sold loosely, their numbers were calculated from the number of empty pouches/containers left behind at the end of day.

4. On scrutiny of the documents recovered from the said outlet and on the basis of the statement of the Executive Director, a notice dated 20th December, 2012 was issued to the assessee by the Commissioner to show cause as to why (i) the cookies sold by the assessee at its outlets be not classified under Chapter sub-heading 1905.11 as biscuits and (ii) in view of their use of brand name “Cookie Man” on sale of cookies in plastic pouches/containers, S.S.I. exemption should not be disallowed.

5. Upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Commissioner inter-alia came to the conclusion (relevant for the controversy at hand) that unless the specified goods or the packaging in which these are sold, bear the brand name or the logo, prescribed S.S.I. exemption cannot be denied. Thus, the Commissioner held that since there was neither any material evidence nor averment to prove that the brand name was embossed on the cookies, the assessee was eligible to avail of the benefit of small scale exemption in respect of cookies sold loosely from the counter of the retail outlet. Being aggrieved by the order, both the Department and the assessee filed cross appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal).

21. In view of the aforegoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned decision of the Tribunal is erroneous and unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Abbas Ali vs State Of Punjab

2. The facts, relevant to this appeal, are: A recovery of 10 bags containing rice polish and 37 bags containing poppy husk, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, was made from three accused persons (for short “A1”, “A2”, and “A3”, respectively). The said bags were being transported in a canter registered in the name of the appellant herein (referred to as A4 before the Trial Court). A1 to A3 were arrested at the time of recovery, however A4 was arrested later. Upon trial, A1 to A3 were convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 15 of the Act and awarded similar sentence as the appellant herein. By the judgment and order of the High Court, dated 13.05.2008, in an appeal preferred by the said three accused persons, their conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the High Court. The said three accused persons are not before us in this appeal.

5. The aforesaid issue which we have noticed in our order, was not canvassed by the appellant either before the Trial Court or before the High Court and, therefore, we cannot permit the appellant to raise the said issue for the first time before us. Having said so, we have still looked into the disability certificate so produced by the appellant before this Court. The certificate would only show that one of the appellant's legs is amputated and, therefore, there is 60% physical disability. The factum of a person being physically disabled does not imply that he would accord his permission to the use of his vehicle for an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, in our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is devoid of any merit and, thus, is liable to be rejected.

7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.

JANUARY 15, 2013.
State Of Rajasthan vs Shobha Ram

3. The facts in brief are: The incident occurred on 16.02.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. PW-1 - Mohanlal, who is the brother of the deceased- Trilokchand had lodged the FIR before S.H.O., Police Station Chechat, regarding the alleged assault on the deceased by the accused persons. On the fateful day, the appellants on account of their past enmity over the well located in their lands, formed common intention to cause death of Trilokchand (since deceased) and in furtherance of their common intention, they caused injuries to the deceased with stones resulting in his death. The FIR was registered and after the completion of the investigation, the investigating agency had filed a charge-sheet against A-1 and A-2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and pleaded false implication and, therefore, the Trial had commenced against both the accused A-1 and A-2.

14. In the result, while allowing the appeal of the appellant-State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2008), we dismiss the appeal filed by Shri Ram – A-1 (Criminal Appeal No.593 of 2008) and confirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the accused persons so passed by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in acquitting accused A-2. We further direct that the Accused A-2 Shobha Ram shall surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The Trial Court is directed to send the compliance report to this Court within one month’s time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Registry shall send back the lower court records with a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.

Ordered accordingly.

JANUARY 16, 2013.