L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sunil Balkrishna Bhoir vs The State Of Maharashtra

12. Indisputably, all the witnesses are interested witnesses. P.W. 1 was the complainant. P.W. 2 Ratna was allegedly at the relevant time have been named to the deceased. P.W.4 is Bhaskar, brother of the deceased. P.W. 5, Baburao was the father of the deceased. P.W. 3 Sunil was also one of the brothers of the deceased.

15. The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court proceeded on the basis that for establishing common object, no prior meeting of mind was necessary. According to the courts below, it may develop on the spot. The dispute between the parties which was said to be the motive for committing the offences was an ornament. First of the quarrels between the accused No. 1 and the deceased took place a fortnight prior to the date of occurrence. Appellants herein were not involved. Accused No. 1 on the one hand and the deceased on the other quarreled on the second occasion. A scuffle took place. The wife of the accused No. 1 and P.W. 1 tried to intervene. The deceased allegedly at that time touched the person of the wife of accused No. 1. They went to lodge their respective complaints but then the matter was settled. Accused No. 1 therefore may have a grudge as against the deceased, who had touched his wife. It is unlikely that the appellants before us, who were wholly unarmed and who were even not known to the deceased would form a common object to cause his death. Had it been so, they would have gone armed with weapons. Specific overt acts had not been attributed against them. Allegations made in the first information report show that whereas the accused Nos. 3 and 6 were armed with sword, accused No. 2 had a knife. The knife was used by accused No. 2 all of a sudden. Evidently nobody wanted to cause any serious injury to others. The medical evidence does not specifically mention as to how the wounds were caused. The size of the wound shows that nobody had used any weapon with much force. The wounds might have also been caused during scuffle.

24. Applying the tests laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, we are of the opinion that no case had been made out as against the appellants to arrive at a conclusion that they are guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302/149. We would assume that they were guilty under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code but they have remained in custody for sufficiently long time. We, therefore, are of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, these appeals should be accepted. Appellants herein are in custody. They are directed to be set at liberty in connection with certain other offences. The appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.
Union Of India & Anr vs P.M. Rangasami

Background facts as projected by the appellants need to be noted in some detail as there is great deal of factual controversies and much would depend upon the effects of various acts on different dates.

The respondent who was on deputation wrote to the cadre authority on 17.6.1987 to let him know the date of his promotion with reference to his immediate junior that is one Balraman as per notification dated 9.3.1987 referred above.

Respondent who was on deputation was informed on 28.7.1987 that his proforma promotion is with effect from 9.3.1987 i.e. the date on which his immediate junior i.e. Mr. Balraman assumed charge in the Labour Bureau, Shimla. This position becomes important as according to appellant, respondent in the present case was aware of his seniority position on deputation to grade II at serial number 41, where he had slipped in position vis-a-vis Shri Trehan and Shri Nampoothiri at serial numbers 16 and 17 respectively. The position remained despite the reservation in promotion which gave him an edge in promotion from grade IV to grade III. He suffered slippage in position during promotion from Grade III to Grade II. The Officer had never represented on this matter to the authorities.

The DPC for Higher Administrative Grade (in short 'HAG') held on 19.12.2001 and 27.12.2001 took into account the order of Tribunal in OA 1124/2000 dated 23.10.2001. As per the directions of the Tribunal that until final seniority lists are issued, the applicant's case for further promotion from SAG of IES was to be considered in accordance with his original seniority which led to his promotion to SAG w.e.f. 7.3.1997, the DPC included him in the eligibility list as per his original seniority in SAG.

The Delhi High Court by order dated 14.8.2002 in Civil Writ Petition no.888/89 set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 7.1.1999 which struck down retrospective amendment of Rule 13 of IES Rules and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

The CWP 1375/2002 filed earlier by appellant no.1 against Tribunal's Order dated 23.10.2001 was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 30.9.2002. All the DPCs to consider promotions to HAG held prior to this order had considered respondent's case in accordance with the orders of Tribunal dated 23.10.2001. The DPC proceedings were, therefore, consistent with the Tribunal and High Court's orders.

The order passed by the Tribunal is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
M/S. Noorie Manure Mill, Sambhal vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P

J U D G M E N T WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2522 of 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12061 of 2006] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2523 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19593 of 2006] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2524 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19858 of 2006] S.B. SINHA, J.

4. Horn and hoof, on the one hand, and bone or crushed bones, on the other, used to be treated differently by the State. In a notification issued by the State on or about 7.9.1981, 'bones' were subjected to sales tax at the rate of 6%; the taxing event being sale to the consumer. By a notification dated 30.9.1982, it was declared that no tax was to be paid on sale or purchase of bones but the same did not include crushed bones. The said notification dated 7.9.1981 was amended to include 'crushed bone' against entry No. 8 which, as noticed hereinbefore, mentioned 'bone'. By a notification dated 31.1.1985, however, bone including horn and hoof but not including crushed bones were exempted from payment of tax. We may, however, notice that yet again by a notification dated 12.9.1986, the following item was substituted in place of the original item No. 32 which reads as under:-

8. Following the said judgment, the High Court refused to interfere with the direction of the Tribunal for pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed amount of tax in the cases involving the other two appeals before us.

12. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the impugned judgments are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh on merits. It will be open to the parties to adduce additional evidence before it. The direction of the Tribunal to deposit 25% of the disputed amount of tax is also directed to be waived. These appeals are allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Anr vs Shardindu

3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent herein was informed on 31.12.2003 that he has been selected as Chairperson of the NCTE for a period of four years or till he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. After this appointment the respondent herein was relieved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 21.1.2004 and he assumed the charge of Chairperson, NCET on 22.1.2004. It was alleged that the respondent while working as Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow an inquiry was conducted by the State Vigilance Commission at the behest of Government of Uttar Pradesh in respect of examination of 2001, in 2004. The State Vigilance Commission submitted the report on 27.3.2005 and on the basis of that report, a First Information Report was registered on 19.9.2005 implicating seven persons including the respondent herein and a separate order was passed by the State Government placing the respondent under suspension pending commencement of disciplinary proceeding. When this fact came to the notice of the Union of India, it passed an order on 18.11.2005 terminating the deputation of the respondent as Chairperson, NCTE. This order was subject matter of challenge in the writ petitioner filed by the respondent before the Delhi High Court. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the impugned order dated 18.11.2005 is reproduced below:

Therefore, this case does not provide any useful assistance to us.

37. As a result of our above discussion, we are of opinion that the view taken by the High Court of Delhi is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent be restored back in his post and he shall be paid all his dues which are payable to him in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.
Ram Kripal Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors

4. Accordingly the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that since that the company has been wound up and the proceedings against the guarantor i.e. appellant were perfectly in order.

The BIFR submitted its recommendation for winding up and against the order of BIFR appellant had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected on 9.1.1997. The company had filed a writ petition questioning orders of the BIFR and the appellate authority. By order dated 26.2.2003 the Writ Petition No. 14172 of 1997 was dismissed and in the winding up proceedings, Company Court has permitted official liquidator to proceed with the winding up.

12. The inevitable result is that the appeal is without merit deserves dismissal, which we direct. Costs made easy.
Geeta vs State Of M.P & Ors

4. The appellant was granted Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated 29.8.1986 by the District Magistrate Lucknow. The order reads:-

5. It would appear from the order itself that she was given Scheduled Tribe Certificate on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to the father of the appellant Shri M.S. Nishad by the District Magistrate, Satna in the State of M.P. by an order dated 3.11.1977

6. At this stage, we may point out that the said Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated 3.11.1977 issued to the father of the appellant Shri M.S. Nishad has also been cancelled subsequently. The appellant's father was also placed under suspension. It is brought to our notice that the order dated 28.2.1995 has been challenged in W.P. No.192(SB) of 1995 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the same is still pending.

7. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 29.8.1986, that the appellant belongs to Majhi Tribe, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of M.P., was issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, on the basis of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Satna, in favour of her father by an order dated 3.11.1977.

8. On the strength of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, the appellant applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the reserved quota of Scheduled Tribes. She was selected from the reserved quota and included in the merit list. Thereafter, by an order dated 28.3.2001 she was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police and is still continuing in the said post.

9. An inquiry was initiated against the appellant preceded by a complaint. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, the services of the appellant was sought to be terminated by an order dated 9.4.2001 inter alia on the ground that the caste certificate issued to her father has been cancelled by the Collector, Satna in 1995. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed O.A.No.1426 of 2001 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed in limine by an order dated 26.4.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 2237 of 2001 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 13.5.2002, with the direction to conduct an inquiry whether the appellant belongs to Majhi Tribe or not.

13. The aforesaid finding recorded by the High Level Caste Screening Committee was assailed by the appellant before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 28707 of 2003. which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.

20. Counsel also brought to our notice the Urban and Non-urban Region Mutation Register in which the family tree of Marakahn alias Mulu Majhi is shown. It is clear that Aaraji No.607, area 33 D. Village Madhavgarh is recorded in the name of Lessee Bisheshar, s/o Marakhan Mallah, Atma Ram. This would also show that she belongs to Mallah/Nishad.

23. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.
K Krishna M.A. Raihany vs Union Of India & Ors

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

4. Appellant was born on 28.8.1973 at Mumbai. His school leaving certificate shows that the appellant was admitted to Karnataka High School at Chembur, Mumbai and left the school on 29.8.1988. On 4.12.1993 the Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI') granted permission to the appellant under Section 29(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA') for acquisition of shares in business in India. He also entered into catering contract at a railway station in Maharashtra. On 15.7.2003 the appellant applied for citizenship under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short 'Act'). Initially the State Government wrote a letter to the Central Government regarding grant of citizenship by naturalistion under Section 6(1) of the Act. A letter was also written by the Under Secretary, Government of India, stipulating certain conditions for accepting the prayer of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant got in touch with the Consulate General of Iran on several occasions. An order of deportation was passed against the appellant on 7.10.2005. A writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the order. The same was dismissed on 17.2.2006. However, this Court allowed the Writ Petition (criminal) no.17 of 2006 with certain directions. Appellant's case is that though his presence was required by the police officials, notices were issued without specifying any reason. Notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai requiring appellant's presence on 3.4.2006. A detailed reply was filed on 4.4.2006. Warning was issued on 7.4.2006 to remain present on 10.4.2006. Reply was submitted on that date. On 26.5.2006 notice was issued by the Inspector of Police to the appellant requiring his presence in the office. On 26.5.2006 notice dated 10.4.2006 was received by the appellant directing him to leave the country. Reply was submitted by the appellant on 10.6.2006. A Writ Petition was filed (W.P. 1262/06) with prayers for (a) grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization; (b) not to interfere with the appellant's right of residence in India;

11. It is open to the appellant to avail such remedy as is available in law in view of the said order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Institute Of Chartered Financial ... vs Council Of The Institute Of Chartered ...

2. In recent years, the country has witnessed phenomenal growth in the field of financial markets. The funds raised by the corporate sector from the capital market have increased exponentially, the number of stock exchanges have increased, the investor community has multiplied. The structural developments in the markets are the inclusion of institutional and corporate members, of stock exchanges, and formation of the regulatory authority 'SEBI' to oversee the functioning of the capital market.

168), etc.

13. We find it difficult to understand how does the term 'professional misconduct' apply to a Chartered Accountant seeking additional training and qualification of CFA ? In our opinion the impugned notification clearly and flagrantly violates the fundamental rights of the writ petitioners under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the notification dated 3.8.1989 issued by the respondent No.1 is quashed.
Tanna And Modi vs C.I.T. Mumbai Xxv And Ors

5. Requisite amount of tax was also paid. A certificate was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax having satisfied himself with the various requirements of the Scheme. Additions made in respect of the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 were directed to be deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 29.1.2003 and 24.2.2003 respectively opining that the firm became entitled to the immunity being inherent in the Scheme.

8. Writ Petition filed thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

Answer : The declaration will be by the firm verified by the managing partner. If there is no managing partner, then by one of the partners. The partners need not make declaration regarding their respective share of income.

and-literal construction), or

(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive- and-strained construction)."

24. Applying the aforementioned principles, and particularly having regard to the nature of fraud practiced upon the statutory authorities, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for invoking our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is dismissed.
Kurmanchal Inst. Of Degree & Diploma & ... vs Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand Univ. & ...

6. We may at this stage notice the facts of the case.

In its meeting on 1.07.2003, the Academic Council granted permission to start 'distance education'. By a letter dated 17.07.2003, the Vice-Chancellor of the University sought permission to start courses through Distance Education. On 1.08.2003, the Registrar of the University sent a letter to the Personal Secretary of the Chancellor enclosing therewith a copy of the draft ordinance for launching Degree, Diploma and Certificate Courses through distance education for obtaining his approval. The Ordinances governing Distance Education programme were framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 52 of the Act. The Registrar of the University by a letter dated 27.08.2003 sought permission from the Principal Secretary, Higher Education to start the distance education programme. A letter dated 20.01.2004 was issued from the Office of the Chancellor to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, State of U.P. wherein it was stated:

21. We, thus, are of the opinion that in this case we need not go into the other submissions raised by Ms. Aggarwal.

22. The study centres of the appellants being situated in Nainital, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent university. No writ of or in the nature of mandamus as has been prayed for in the writ petition can be issued.

23. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Afzalkhan @ Babu Murtuzakhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat

J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 754 of 2007] WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 6509 of 2006] S.B. Sinha, J.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgments and orders dated 8.9.2006 as also the judgment and order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2006 respectively whereby and whereunder the bail petitions filed by both the appellants were dismissed. A First Information Report was lodged on or about 4.4.2003 for commission of an alleged offence under Section 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25(1)(b), 25(1)(c), 27 and 29 of the Arms Act in the D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad. The names of the appellants, however, did not figure in the said First Information Report. The first informant was one Tarun Kumar Amrutlai Barot, Police Inspector, Ahmedabad Crime Branch. An information was received that after the Godhra massacre some youths from Ahmedabad City had gone to Pakistan for obtaining training for carrying out terrorist activities with a view to take revenge of loss of lives and properties caused to the Muslim community in communal riots which had taken place therein and they have returned back to India after training. An investigation was carried out. On the allegations that he was a party to the conspiracy, Appellant Afzal Khan was arrested on 15.4.2003. We may notice that a First Information Report almost on the same terms was registered in Hyderabad on or about 19.4.2003 wherein also allegations had been made that a group of boys had gone to Pakistan for terrorist training. Appellant Saiyed Ejaz Ahmed @ Chota Ejaz who is a resident of Hyderabad was arrested in connection with the said case on 3.12.2003. During investigation of the Ahmedabad case also, Appellant Saiyed Ijaz Ahmed was arrested by the Gujarat Police on 14.12.2003.

4. In both the cases, confessional statements of various persons accused of commission of the said offence were recorded. Pursuant to such confessional statements of the appellant as also those of the co-accused, a huge quantity of arm was recovered from the first appellant. The principal allegations against the second appellant are that he had gone to Pakistan for training.

(emphasis supplied)"

21. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the learned Designated Judge is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. With this observation, the appeals are dismissed.
Regional Institute Of Medical Science & ... vs S. Bhagyabati Devi

J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2694 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 22601 of 2005] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2695 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23341 of 2005] S.B. SINHA, J.

4. Dr. Bhagyabati filed a writ petition before the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court inter alia questioning the seniority assigned to Dr. Taruni on the plea that she having never held any teaching post while acting as Medical Officer(SPM) was not entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Professor.

17. The submissions made on behalf of RIMS that the post of Medical Officer, SPM is equivalent to a teaching post has rightly been rejected by the High Court

21. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/- payable by RIMS to respondent No. 1.