L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Shiv Dutt Sharma (Shastri) vs State Of Up & Ors

2. The appellant had filed Writ Petition No.15156 of 1983 for quashing the order dated 13.6.1983 passed by the Director of Education and the consequential communications dated 18.8.1983 and 9.9.1983 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura and the Principal of the fifth respondent college, whereby the appellant was informed that he was not entitled to Lecturer grade pay-scale from the date of his appointment (17.7.1972). The respondents in the said writ petition were (i) Deputy Director of Education; (ii) District Inspector of Schools; and (iii) the Committee of Management 2 of the employer College. The writ petition was allowed with certain observations, after twenty years, on 15.12.2003.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, an intra-court appeal was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition (that is Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools) along with two non-parties, namely the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education. One of the contentions urged by the appellant in the appeal was that no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner, without the State being impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The said argument found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was therefore allowed by order dated 26.7.2006 on the ground that the state government was a necessary party and non-impleading of the State Government was fatal to the petition. The said order of the Division Bench is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

6. The appeal before the Division Bench had been filed by the State Government and Director of Education along with Deputy Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools. Though they were not parties, they were permitted to file the appeal. They could have urged all their contentions on merits before the Division Bench in the appeal and such contentions could have been considered by the High Court, instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of parties.

7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench, and restore Special Appeal No.401/2004 to the file of the High Court, for disposal on merits in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the state government and the Director of 5 Education will also be heard, on the merits, even though they were not respondents in the writ petition.
Shiv Kumar vs Darshan Kumar

4. The appellant, being the landlord of Shop No. WZ-272, Jail Road, Nangal Raya, New Delhi - 46 (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed property") filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, New Delhi, which was decided in favour of the appellant and the Rent Controller, by the said order, passed an order of eviction against the respondent. 2

5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, New Delhi and by an order dated 20th of September, 2004, the Additional Rent Control Tribunal had set aside the order of the Rent Controller and rejected the eviction petition filed by the appellant. Against this order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, the appellant had approached the High Court of Delhi by way of a Civil Misc. Main Petition No. 429 of 2005 and the High Court entertained the said petition and issued notice to the respondent. The aforesaid petition, however, was dismissed in default on 4th of May, 2006. Accordingly, an application for restoration was filed by the appellant for the purpose of recalling the aforesaid order of dismissal for default. In the application for restoration, it was alleged that the appellant had fallen seriously ill and was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, whereby he was advised by the Doctors to take complete bed rest. By the impugned order, the application for restoration was rejected and feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up before this Court by way of Special 3 Leave Petitions, which on grant of leave, were heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties. 4

7. Since the appellant has already challenged the first order of rejection of the restoration application, which is now before us and in the event this application for restoration is allowed and the Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 is restored to its original file, it is needless to say that the subsequent restoration applications, which were rejected, are also deemed to have been allowed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the original Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 is restored to its original file. The High Court is requested to dispose of the case at an early date preferably within two months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. However, we make it clear that in the event, the appellant fails to deposit or pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent as costs in the High Court within one month from this date, the application for restoration shall stand rejected and these appeals shall stand dismissed and the order of the High Court shall stand affirmed.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order of costs.
Prahalad Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

Subsequently, the State made an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine three witnesses, including the complainant/appellant before us and two other witnesses - one the Investigating Officer of the case, and the other the Medical Officer, who examined the victim. The application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was duly allowed by the trial court, but upon the accused moving the High Court, the High Court set aside the said order, against which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. In fact, the appeal ought to have been filed by the State, which seems to have been slack in prosecuting the case. Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that in order to do justice between the parties, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the State was rightly allowed, notwithstanding the delay in the trial.

Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring that of the trial court, we direct that the examination of the defendants' witnesses be -3- completed within two months from the date of communication of this order and the trial is to be completed within three months thereafter.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Jijabai S. Sagle & Anr vs Shivaji Tatyaba Sanap Saket & Anr

By order dated 15th September, 2003, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik, [for short, `the District Forum'] in Complaint Case No.2 of 2002, on an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, [for short, `the Act'], came to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out and directed that particulars for offence under Section 27 of the Act was required to be framed against the respondents. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Thereafter the respondents moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the Commission'] in revision, which has, in effect and substance, set aside the aforesaid order passed by the District Forum and disposed of the revision application. In our view, the District Forum had found prima facie case under Section 27 of the Act for taking action against the respondents. The revisional authority was not justified in interfering with the same.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the National Commission is set aside and the same passed by the District Forum on 15th September, 2008, restored.

ITEM NO.MM-B COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9711/2006 (From the judgement and order dated 18/04/2006 in RP No.3223/2005 of The NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI) JIJABAI S. SAGLE & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHIVAJI TATYABA SANAP SAKET & ANR. Respondent(s) Date: 15/12/2008 This Petition was mentioned today.

Ordered accordingly.

[Signed order is placed on the file] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7137 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9711 of 2006) Jijabai S. Sagle and Anr. ...Appellant(s) Versus Shivaji Tatyaba Sanap Saket and Anr. ...Respondent(s) O R D E R In the order dated 5th December, 2008, the words "S.L.P. (C) No.9711 of 2008" and "15th September, 2008" may be read as " S.L.P. (C) No.9711 of 2006" and "15th September, 2003" respectively.

Ordered accordingly.
V.Y.Jose & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

3. Appellant No.1 is a partner of a partnership firm known as M/s. Premionics (hereinafter referred to as `the firm' for the sake of brevity). Appellant No.2 is an employee of the said firm.

Respondent No.2, the complainant is also a partnership firm. On or about 18.10.1997, it placed an order on the firm to manufacture and install a machine to purify and desalt the dyes of a particular quality and quantity with the firm. The total manufacturing cost of the said machine worked out to be at Rs.17,96,488/- including excise duty and other incidental charges. Second respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the firm as advance and part payment of the said consideration. There has been a change in the specifications of the said machine purported to be on the request of the second respondent in terms whereof two extra modules thereto were provided. A revised offer was made. The said machine, although was to be manufactured and supplied within a period of three months, the same was not complied with.

4. A partner of the second respondent along with its technical engineer visited the site of the firm. Allegedly, it was found that the said machine did not conform to the specifications contained in the order placed with the firm. It refused to take the delivery thereof. To the said effect, the second 3 respondent, by a letter dated 7.4.1998 called upon the firm to return the amount of advance, stating :

5. Second respondent by another letter dated 9.7.1999 called upon the firm to refund the said amount together with interest thereon, stating :

9. We have been taken through the complaint petition in its entirety. Indisputably, the parties entered into a contract in terms whereof the firm was to manufacture a machine to purify and desalt the dyes of a particular quality and quantity. The specifications for the machine were changed. First appellant issued a letter dated 20.2.1998 to the complainant, stating :

Such is not the case here;

20. It is in that sense, a distinction between a mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating should be borne in mind. We, having regard to the 19 facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that no case has been made out and against the appellant so as to hold that he should face the criminal trial.

(Emphasis supplied)

23. For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Criminal proceedings against the appellants are quashed. The appeal is allowed.

December 16, 2008
Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors

Indisputably the said truck belonged to respondent No.2 and was registered at Faridabad. It was insured with respondent No.1-company. Appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer. He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time by performing his job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named `Hola River' near Beri Pada, Lalkuan, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal. He is said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Indisputably, after he remained in the district Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient upto 28th July, 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations. 2

The conductor of the bus and the driver of the truck examined themselves before the Tribunal as witnesses. No oral evidence was, however, adduced on behalf of the first respondent. One of the questions which, only the first respondent raised and no other, was lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal.

6. The High Court, however, on an appeal preferred thereagaisnt by the first respondent, opined -

On the basis of the said finding it was held that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition.

21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the order of the Tribunal is restored. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
Deepa Bhargava & Anr vs Mahesh Bhargava & Ors

In the said suit the parties settled their disputes and differences. A compromise petition in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed which was accepted by the Court by an order dated 12.5.1995, some of the terms whereof are as under :

4. A decree was directed to be prepared on the said basis, stating :

5. The compromise petition was to form part of the decree. Payment having not been made in terms of the said consent decree the appellants filed an application for execution. Respondents deposited a sum of Rs.18 lacs in the year 1998. An objection was also filed by them under Section 47 of the Code before the Executing Court in 2002. The said objection petition was rejected.

6. A Civil Revision Application was filed thereagainst, inter alia, contending that the respondents were not liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

7. The Executing Court, pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, by an order dated 23.12.2005 directed that the amount of interest payable should be calculated at the rate of 14 per cent per annum, opining : 6

14. Interest becomes leviable either under a statute or under a contract. The stipulation to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum cannot, by itself, be said to be unreasonable.

19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The executing court is directed to proceed to execute the decree as it is. The appeals are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

December 16, 2008
M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.Tr.Director vs State Of Bihar & Ors

Appellant was a contractor of the State. It entered into a contract for supply of black pipes to the Minor Irrigation Department of the State of Bihar (for short "the Department") at the rate of Rs. 174.95 per meter. The said agreement contained a clause for escalation of price. On the premise that the price of steel had gone up from Rs. 10804 per MT to Rs. 13031 per MT, appellant, by its letter dated 18.06.1992, stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement supply would be made only at the escalated rate for which the additional price was calculated at Rs. 24.09 per meter.

4. Orders for seven lakh meters of supply of black pipes were placed on 16.07.1992. The State worked out the escalation and determined the total increase at Rs. 24.09 per meter. On or about 4.11.1992, `the Department', however, fixed the escalated rate of price of steel at Rs. 190.48 instead of Rs. 199.04.

7. Appellant, by its letter dated 4.06.1993, stated:

13. The learned Single Judge, however, allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the suit, holding:

18. Dr. Dhawan is not correct in contending that the writ petition filed by the appellant had nothing to do with the escalation clause. 10

26. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to the fact of the present case.

27. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.

December 16, 2008
Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd vs Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board

Appellants supplied AC pressure pipes to the respondents. A sum of Rs.1,57,488/- became due. On the premise that as a small scale industrial unit, it cannot afford to block such a huge amount, plaintiff requested the defendants to release the said payment. The defendants having not released the outstanding payment, plaintiff became entitled to interest at the rate of 23% per annum being 5% higher than the bank rate per annum thereupon. Plaintiff filed a Summary Civil Suit in the court of Civil Judge (SD), Gandhinagar. Respondent filed an application for grant of leave to defend the suit. By reason of an order dated 27.11.2002, conditional leave was granted, directing :

6. Indisputably, the said order has been complied with. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed First Appeal, opining :

17. We fail to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of Mr. Chitale that although a revision from an order granting conditional leave was maintainable, the same could not have been a subject matter of challenge in an appeal from a decree as envisaged under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the impugned judgment of the High Court should be interfered with. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

December 16, 2008
Mahesh Yadav & Anr vs Rajeshwar Singh & Ors

In the said suit, the defendants filed a joint written statement. During the pendecy of the said suit, however, the defendants No.2 and 5 entered into compromise with the plaintiff. A compromise petition filed by the parties thereto was accepted. Indisputably, talks for compromise were going on by and between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 6; however, no compromise petition was filed in that behalf. Although witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff were cross-examined on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 6, they did not adduce any evidence. 3

5. We may notice that plaintiff's evidence was closed on 18.5.1995. The learned Judge thereafter was transferred. The learned District Judge transferred the said case by an administrative order dated 20.2.1997. There is nothing on record to show that the counsel appearing on behalf of the other defendants were the advocate of the appellants herein also. By reason of an order dated 20.2.2003, the learned Judge while considering the case of the appellants that they were kept in dark about the development of the case due to connivance of the respondents herein as they had been informed that 4 the compromise had been entered into by some of the parties and the Presiding Officer has been transferred, noticed :

14. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion is not sustainable.

While, however, saying so, we must express our dissatisfaction in the manner in which the learned Civil Judge has passed the order impugned before the High Court. The said order is an unreasoned one. The evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants were not analysed for arriving at a finding as to whether a case for setting aside an ex parte decree has been made out by the appellants or not. The matter had not been considered as is required in terms of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An 10 order setting aside the ex parte decree being a judicial order should have been supported by reasons. The learned Judge could not have allowed the said application without following the legal principles on the basis whereof such an order could be passed.

We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court also set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The Civil Judge should consider the matter afresh on merit and pass a reasoned order.

15. Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions. However, in the facts of and circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their own costs.

December 16, 2008
Kothari Filaments & Anr vs Commr.Of Customs (Port) Kolkata & Ors

2. Appellant No.2 is a proprietory concern of the First Appellant which is importer of various items of goods including Lithopone. Appellant No.1 placed an order for import of 21.5 MT of Lithopone 28-30% (pigment), with Texpo International, Hong Kong. The said item is used in manufacture of paint. It is a freely importable item. When the goods arrived at the port, a 2 bill of entry for 21.5 MT of Lithopone was filed. The requisite custom duty after assessment was paid. However, on physical verification, out of the imported items 400 bags of 25 kg. each contained in a yellow coloured substance suspected to be `Tetracycline HCL BP 93', a chemical used for making medicines was found wherefor an import licence was required to obtained.

3. A search and seizure was carried out and on examination, it was found that 189 poly bags out of 860 poly bags contained a white coloured chemical and the remaining 671 poly bags contained a yellow coloured chemical. The estimated value of the mis-declared item was estimated at Rs.1,02,97,166/-.

4. A notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, `the Act') was issued on appellants on 8.3.2000 asking them to show cause as to why the consignment said to be valued at Rs.63,32,018.60 CIF should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act, 1962 and as to why the importers and their agents should not be punished in terms of Section 112(a) and (b) thereof. Cause was further directed to be shown as to why the appellants attempted evasion of custom duty amounting to Rs.38,16,729.40 resulting from mis-declaration of the imported goods 3 should not be directed to be paid and as to why the said amount shall not be recovered along with interest.

6. By reason of an order dated 29.12.2000, however, the goods were not only directed to be confiscated but also a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- was imposed on the company. A personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on Appellant No.2.

7. An appeal preferred thereagainst before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta was dismissed by an order dated 19.4.2002. A writ petition was filed thereagainst which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.

12. The information which was gathered during the said overseas enquiry through departmental source, however, was not final and conclusive. Be that as it may, concededly, no document pertaining thereto was supplied or 5 was shown to the appellant. Commissioner of Customs, however, in its order dated 29.12.2000 made liberal use of the said information, stating :

68) :