L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Shimla vs M/S Aarham Softronics

3. The High Court has answered the aforesaid question in the affirmative thereby holding that when the assessees started availing exemption of 100% tax on the setting up of a new industry of the kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80IC, which is admissible for 5 years, and either on the expiry of 5 years or thereafter (but within 10 years) from the date when these assessees started availing exemption, they carried out substantial expansion of its industry, from that year the assessees become entitled to claim exemption @ 100% again.

5. It so happened that in some of the appeals, assessees who were respondents, were not served with the notice and they remained unrepresented. Since the appeals in respect of these assessees were decided in their absence, they filed miscellaneous applications for recall of the order, with prayer to decide the appeals afresh after giving hearing to them. Since, these assessees remained unrepresented, as even the notice was not served upon them, by a separate order passed in their cases, those applications have been allowed and their appeals being C.A. No. 7218, 7882, 7236, 7215, 7221, 7217 and 7223 of 2018 have been restored. Even the Revenue has filed few SLPs against the common judgment of the High Court as these SLPs were not filed earlier when batch of appeals was decided on 20 th August, 2018 by this Court. Appeals arising out of these SLPs have also been heard along with 5 other appeals in which the earlier judgment rendered has been recalled. All these appeals have been heard afresh and are being disposed of by the present judgment.

24.The aforesaid discussion leads us to the following conclusions:

However, this 100% deduction would be for remaining three years, i.e., 8th, 9th and 10th assessment years.

25.In view of the aforesaid, we affirm the judgment of the High Court on this issue and dismiss all these appeals of the Revenue. Likewise, appeals filed by the assessees are hereby allowed.

February 20, 2019.
Mahendran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

The Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2010 preferred by Mahendran (Accused No. 3), and Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2010 preferred by Ravi (Accused No. 1), Singaravelu (Accused No. 2), Iyappan (Accused No. 4), Rajendran (Accused No. 5), Selvaraj (Accused No. 6), Reason: Karunakaran (Accused No. 7), Arunachalam (Accused No. 8) and 1 Sundaramoorthy (Accused No. 9) arise out of a common judgment by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 26.09.2008. The High Court has acquitted Mohan (Accused No. 10), Ravi (Accused No. 12), P. Mohan (Accused No. 13), Palanivel Thevar (Accused No. 14) and Kannan (Accused No. 15) from all charges by granting them benefit of doubt. The accused are referred to with reference to their status before the trial court.

21), Santhanam (Accused No. 22), Mariappan (Accused No. 23) and Kannan (Accused No. 24) were acquitted.

4. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of PW1-Ganesamoorthy, resident of Kumbakonam and son-in-law of Murugaiyan-deceased. He stated that on 12.03.1994, he along with his 2 father went to Nangarari, but due to darkness, they decided to stay in his father-in-law’s house at Neikuppai.

9. PW17-Dr. Razool also examined informant PW1-Ganesamoorthy on 13.3.1994 at 6.00 PM alleged to be assaulted by stones at 7.30 AM on the same day. The following injuries were reported:

55. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are dismissed.

The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender within four weeks to undergo their remaining part of the sentence.
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. Petitioner Jagdish was tried for the murder of his wife and five children. He was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 and sentenced to death. He filed an appeal which was 2 dismissed by the High Court on 27.06.2006 and the death sentence was confirmed. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal in this Court which was dismissed and again death sentence was confirmed vide judgment dated 18.09.2009.

7. As far as the present case is concerned the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 19/20.08.2005. The trial court completed the trial swiftly and delivered its judgment on 24.04.2006. The High Court confirmed the sentence within 2 months on 27.06.2006, and this Court dismissed the appeal on 18.09.2009. The petitioner filed a mercy petition addressed to the President of India and the Governor of Madhya Pradesh through the jail authorities on 13.10.2009. This application was forwarded by the Madhya Pradesh authorities to the Ministry of Home Affairs after more than 4 years on 15.10.2013. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs called for some records from the State of Madhya Pradesh on 20.11.2013. These documents were supplied by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 12.12.2013. The file was forwarded to the President of India on 02.04.2014. The file was returned to the Ministry of Home Affairs for reconsideration. It was re­submitted to the President of India on 07.07.2014 and finally the mercy petition was rejected on 16.07.2014.

11. We are not only dealing with the issue of delay in disposal of the mercy petition. The petitioner has now been behind bars for almost about 14 years. This is also a factor which will have to be taken into consideration.

12. Death sentence is the exception and has to be awarded in the rarest of rare cases. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, including the un­explained delay of 4 years in forwarding the mercy petition by the State of Madhya Pradesh leading to delay of almost 5 years in deciding the mercy petition and the fact that the 9 petitioner has been incarcerated for almost 14 years, we are of view that regardless of the brutal nature of crime this is not a fit case where death sentence should be executed and we, accordingly commute the death sentence to that of life. However, keeping in view the nature of crime and the fact that 6 innocent lives were lost, we direct that life imprisonment in this case shall mean the entire remaining life of the petitioner and he shall not be released till his death. The Review Petition as well as the Writ Petition are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.
Nagaraj vs Union Of India

3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from a few facts stated hereinbelow.

4. The appellant was a driver working in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. On 03.08.2006 at around 11.15 p.m., the appellant while driving the bus hit it against the railway crossing gate KM No. 350­5­6, which was set up on the railway line between Chalageri and Ranebennur Railway Stations. Due to the said hit, the railway crossing gate was broken.

8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. By order dated 04.03.2016, the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant resulting in affirmation of his conviction and sentence awarded by the JMFC by his order dated 05.04.2011.

17. Even otherwise, we have not been able to notice any kind of perversity or illegality in the concurrent finding, which may call for any interference in this appeal.

19. Keeping in view the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the six 8 months’ jail sentence awarded to the appellant by the three Courts below deserves to be altered to “what he has already undergone by the appellant till date”.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant is upheld but sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to “what he has already undergone”. In other words, now the appellant is not required to undergo any further jail 9 sentence in this case except what he has already undergone.

22. The appellant is already on bail, his bail bond is discharged.

February 21, 2019.
Murugan vs Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr Lrs And Ors.

2. Brief facts of the case are:-

2.4 The defendant filed written statement. The defendant’s case was that Balaraman, in order to discharge his debts and for family necessity executed sale deed for himself and on behalf of his minor son on 15.12.1981. The sale deed binds the minor Palanivel. The release deed executed by Lakshmi Ammal on 24.03.1986 will confer no right to the plaintiffs. The suit is barred by limitation since the suit has not been filed within 03 years from the date of death of Palanivel i.e. 11.02.1986. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The defendants are not in illegal possession. The defendants are bonafide purchasers for value. The plaintiffs cannot file suit for declaration without praying for setting aside the sale deeds.

2.7 The High Court held that alienations made by Balaraman can be construed only as a voidable alienations and not void alienations. High Court held that plaintiffs suit ought to have been filed within 03 years as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act. All substantial questions of law were decided in favour of the defendants-respondents. High Court dismissed the second appeal. Aggrieved against the judgment, this appeal has been filed.

Issue No.3

Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

36. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
M/S Model Economic Tewnship Ltd. vs Land Acquisition Collector

2. The Reference Court by order dated 16.11.2011 raised compensation to Rs.41,81,500/- per acre, whereafter an application was preferred by the petitioner on 01.2.2012 seeking redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A(1) of the Act. Said application was allowed on 06.03.2014 granting to the petitioner same benefits in terms of the order of the Reference Court. The Collector had proceeded on the footing that no further challenge was pending and the assessment made by the Reference Court had attained finality.

6. The aforesaid judgment dated 10.10.2017 is presently under challenge. After hearing learned counsel for both sides, on 06.02.2019 this Court posed certain questions on which response from the petitioner was sought. The questions were posed as those factual details were not available on record. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed giving answers to said questions as under:-

Response: The petitioner had filed its writ petition on 15.11.2016.”

11. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the petition. We see no reason to interfere. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Joseph Easwaran Wapshare vs Shirley Katheleen Wheeler

3) The present appeal arises out of a proceeding to revoke a Succession Certificate that was granted in favour of the appellant on 16.03.2005.

5) Gorden Wapshare died on 18.01.1991. As a result, a petition was preferred under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 being O.P. No. 17 of 2005 before the Court of Civil Judge, Nilgiris, which petition was allowed and Succession Certificate dated 16.03.2005 granted to the appellant. The respondent, in an application filed under Section 383 of the Act dated 28.03.2005, applied to revoke the Succession Certificate so granted. In this application, a counter affidavit was filed in which it was clearly stated that the respondent was an outsider to the Wapshare family as she was the daughter of Beatrice and born to a second husband and not Edward Wapshare, who was the brother of Gorden Wapshare, as stated hereinabove.

6) An application for probate of the will of Gorden Wapshare was moved by Beatrice in 1993, being O.P. No. 55 of 1993. Beatrice died on 29.01.1999. It may be mentioned that this application was dismissed for non-prosecution. At no point of time did the respondent ever apply as legal heir of Beatrice to be substituted therein.

Judge, which it did not do.

11) This being the case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the learned Sub-Judge.

12) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

(VINEET SARAN) New Delhi;

February 26, 2019.
The Greater Mohali Area Development ... vs Arminderjit Kaur

3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from a few facts mentioned hereinbelow.

5. However, the Civil Court (Reference Court) in reference proceedings filed at the instance of the landowners against the award of Land Acquisition Officer enhanced the rate of compensation payable 2 2 to the landowners at Rs.3,8686925/­ crores per acre. The figure of enhancement, however, varies marginally in other connected cases.

13. The appellant shall deposit the entire awarded sum, which is the subject matter of these appeals in the High Court within 3 months.

14. On such deposit being made, the respondents (landowners) will be entitled to withdraw 50% of the awarded sum on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the High Court and remaining 50% amount shall be invested in FDR Scheme in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the Registrar of the High Court.

15. The withdrawal and deposit shall be subject to the result of the appeals.

16. Depending upon the final outcome of the appeals, the amount, which is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondents (landowners) and 5 5 which is deposited in the Bank including the interest earned thereon, will be adjusted/given, as the case may be, to the parties concerned as directed in the final order.

17. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the directions, the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned orders are modified to the extent indicated above and the interim ex parte order passed by this Court on 18.07.2018 also stands accordingly modified as indicated above.

18. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeals finally preferably within a year.

February 26, 2019 6 6
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Rashtradoot (Huf)

4. This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the income tax proceedings initiated against the respondent(assessee) on the basis of a search operation which was carried out by the Income Tax Department in assessee’s premises on 04.09.1997. This gave rise to initiation of assessment proceedings for the block period from 01.04.1987 to 04.09.1997 (Assessment Years 1987­88 to 1996­97 and 1997­98 up to 04.09.1997) against the assessee to determine their tax liability as a result of search operations carried in their premises. The matter, out of the block assessment proceedings, reached to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of 2 2 the respondent against the order of the assessing authorities.

10. Indeed, the observation made in paragraph 13 that "In view of the above" does not lead us anywhere because, as mentioned above, in the paragraphs 1 to 12 no reasons are mentioned except the facts and the submissions.

15. However, in this case, we find that the High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine but dismissed it after hearing both the parties. In such a situation, the High Court should have framed the question(s) and answered them by assigning the reasons accordingly one way or the other by exercising powers under sub­sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of the Act.

16. As mentioned above, in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of ITAT does not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue are not acceptable and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed cannot be 7 7 answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of sub­sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of the Act.

18. Indeed, what is decisive for deciding the case is not the conclusion alone but the reason(s)/ground(s) assigned in support of such conclusion, which results in reaching to such conclusion.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court with a request to decide the appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) afresh on merits in accordance with law.

21. Before parting, we may observe that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case 9 9 having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court in the light of our foregoing discussion. The High Court will, therefore, decide the appeal in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.

February 27, 2019 10 10
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. Marriage of deceased Shilpa, daughter of Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1) was solemnized with Dimpal @ Akash Deep on 26.01.2006. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. According to the complainant - Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), his daughter Shilpa was complaining about the demand of dowry by her husband Dimpal @ Akash Deep and the appellants-her in-laws. Complainant-PW-1 alleged that on 19.08.2012, his daughter Shilpa was set ablaze and she told him in full consciousness that Chanchal @ Babita, Sachin, Sunil Kumar Gupta (Elder uncle of Dimpal), Pushpa (wife of Sunil Kumar Gupta), Vicky (Son of Sunil Kumar Gupta), Neeru, Shrikant Gupta (Brother of Sunil Kumar Gupta), Bhagwan and Khusbu Gupta have poured kerosene on her and burnt her. Dying declaration of Shilpa was recorded by the Tehsildar on 19.08.2012 at 09.40 PM in which she stated that Chanchal @ Babita poured kerosene and set her on fire. Deceased Shilpa succumbed to injuries on the same day at night i.e. 19.08.2012. On the complaint lodged by Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), FIR was registered against nine accused including the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498A, 2 302 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Chanchal @ Babita (wife of Sachin Kumar) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. So far as other accused are concerned, the charge sheet stated that no offence was made out under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. In the trial, Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), Mohit Agarwal (PW-2), and Munish Gupta (PW-3) were examined on 30.10.2014, 06.11.2015 and 08.11.2015 respectively. About one year thereafter during the course of trial on 04.10.2016, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution seeking to summon the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC stating that their names were mentioned in the FIR and also in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. The trial court held that prima facie evidence is available against the appellants for trying them for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and allowed the application and ordered issuance of summons to the appellants for trial under Section 302 IPC. In the revision filed by the appellants, the High Court by the impugned order dismissed the revision petition 3 observing that there are specific allegations against the revisionists and therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial court. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us.

13. In the result, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The Sessions Judge/Fast Track No.1, Moradabad shall proceed with Session Trial 10 No.35/2013 in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

February 27, 2019 11
Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

6. Assailing the correctness of the judgment of the first appellate court, the appellant preferred the second appeal. The High Court affirmed the findings of the first appellate court holding that the suit property is recorded in the name of Deity and Ram Das and Bajrang Das were recorded only as pujaris and the name of pujari kept on changing and these pujaris do not belong to one family and there is no blood relation between those persons. The High Court held that the findings of the first appellate court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple is based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties and no substantial question of law arose for consideration and accordingly, dismissed the second appeal.

27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

February 27, 2019 22
Department Of Customes vs Sharad Gandhi Proprietor

3. It must be noted that the Special Leave Petition out of which this appeal arise was ordered to be tagged with SLP(Crl.) No. 1525 of 1996. The said Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment 3 of learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi which has been relied upon by the Court’s below for discharging the accused. As it turns out, the said Special Leave Petition has been closed by order dated 09.05.2016 by reason of the death of the respondent in the said case. The learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that there is a clear error in the reasoning of the Court by which it has concluded that prosecution is not maintainable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The error stems from a misapprehension both of the scheme of the Act and also the principles of law which govern the situation.

(i) in the case of an offence relating to,— (A) any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore of rupees; or (B) the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding thirty lakh of rupees; or (C) such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; or (D) fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds thirty lakh of rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year;

(ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(a) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under sections 135 and 135A;

(iii) any other goods or documents, which are likely to affect friendly relations with a foreign State or are derogatory to national honour;

(d) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under this Chapter for goods of value exceeding rupees one crore;

(e) a person who has been convicted under this Act on or after the 30th day of December, 2005.”

85. The upshot of the above discussion is as follows:- Prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, is not barred in regard to the antiquities or art treasures. Accordingly, we allow 89 the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The complaint filed may be proceeded with as per law. However, we make it very clear that pronouncement of this order shall not come in the way of the Court deciding the matter on its merits. The Court will proceed to consider the matter on its own and shall not be influenced by any observation which may have been made in this order regarding merits.

February 27, 2019