L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Monika Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors

3. In response to advertisement dated 9.2.2004 issued by respondent No.3, ten persons including the appellant and respondent No.4 submitted applications for appointment as LPG distributor at Nawabgunj. The Selection Committee interviewed the eligible candidates on 29.8.2007 and awarded marks in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 13 of the brochure issued by respondent No.2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The appellant was placed at No.1 in the panel/merit-list prepared by the Selection Committee. Smt. Anjali Gangwar and Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj were placed at Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

4. Smt. Ragini Bhardwaj filed Writ Petition No.43531 of 2007 and prayed for issue of direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to prepare fresh panel/merit list by asserting that the Selection Committee had not awarded the marks as per the criteria specified in the brochure. The same was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.9.2007 by taking note of the statement made by counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the grievance of the writ petitioner will be considered and her representation will be decided within four weeks after giving opportunity of hearing. Writ 3 Petition No.48817 of 2007 filed by respondent No.4 was also disposed of in similar terms.

5. In furtherance of the orders passed by the High Court, respondent No.3 issued notices to the selected candidates and respondent No.4, who filed their respective claims. After giving them opportunity of personal hearing, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 29.7.2008 whereby he cancelled the panel/merit-list and decided that fresh list will be prepared after interviewing the candidates and evaluating their inter-se merit. The relevant portions of that order, as contained in Annexure P.5 filed with SLP (C) No.228 of 2009, are reproduced below:

The registration of the document must have taken some time (at least half an hour). Therefore, it was impossible for respondent No.4 to file/submit the document before the competent authority at Farrukhabad before the close of the office hours because the distance between the two places is 200 kms.

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court as also order dated 29.7.2008 passed by respondent No.3 are set aside and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take necessary steps for allotment of distributorship in accordance with the panel/merit-list prepared by the Selection Committee on 29.8.2007. The needful should be done within a period of one month from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

20. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A. No.5 of 2010 filed by Smt. Anjali Gangwar for impleadment as party is disposed of.
S.P.Gupta vs Ashutosh Gupta

3. Having regard to the allegations in the complaint, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said application upon holding that upon reading the complaint, it was not possible to conclude that not even a prima facie case had been made out against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court took note of the fact that having regard to the role attributed to each of the accused which had been noticed by the learned Magistrate, summons had been issued to only three of them and that as far as the Petitioner was concerned, the narration in the complaint showed that he was integral to all the transactions that had taken place between the complainant and the Accused No.1 as he was the constituted attorney of the said accused. The learned Single Judge also observed that whether the Petitioner had acted with dishonest intentions or as to whether he was unaware of the dishonest intentions of the Accused 4 No.1 or that he himself held out no assurance as to the title of the Accused No.1 at the time the agreement for sale was executed or whether he acted beyond the scope of his authority under the power of attorney, were matters that raised triable issues and could only be determined by leading evidence at the trial.

9. Mr. Lekhi submitted that in the facts of the present case, which are almost identical to the 8 facts of the aforesaid case, the summons issued to the Petitioner was liable to be quashed.

14. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Niranjan Panja vs State Of West Bengal

2. A report came to be filed before the concerned Police Station by one Tapan Kumar Samanta, who was the son of the victim, Haripada Samanta, that his father was killed and his body was lying in the narrow Khal. He reported that he found number of injuries caused by a heavy sharp cutting instrument on various parts of his body including head and neck. It was stated that in the morning of 13.12.1988 at about 7 a.m. he got the information about his father's dead body lying in a narrow Khal. He stated that on the previous day in the morning his father had gone to Midnapore to look after the case of one Narayan Adhikari of their village and in the evening on that day he himself had talked to his father at Mahisadal. At that time, Niranjan Panja, Narayan Adhikari, Sudhir Maity and Nirode Kanta Bera were with him. It was claimed that he came to know that on the previous night at about 9 p.m. his father consumed liquor with accused Niranjan Panja and Narayan Adhikari in the liquor shop of 3 one Bholanath Pal and, thereafter, the said three persons came through the village pathway and while Narayan Adhikari went towards his house, his father and Niranjan Panja went back to their homes. However, Haripad Samanta did not return home. On the basis of this complaint, investigation was taken up by the In-charge of the said Police Station, Shri T.K. Tas, Sub-Inspector of Police.

3. The police also came to know during the investigation that there was some rivalry between the deceased and the accused Niranjan Panja as the deceased had stopped looking after the cases of Niranjan Panja for the last 5-6 months on which Niranjan Panja used to speak against the deceased. The prosecution case is that it was on account of this that the accused had committed the murder. The prosecution examined number of witnesses including the complainant son. They were Ram Chand Bar (PW-2), Narayan Das Adhikari (PW-

3), Ranjit Samanta (PW-4), Sunil Kumar Samanta (PW-5), Kanai Lal Das (PW-6), Paresh Das Adhikari (PW-7), Smt. Sita Samanta (PW-

17. We are convinced that both the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are incorrect judgments. In this case, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased, Haripada Samanta. We, 1 therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused. The accused shall be released forthwith unless required in any other offence.

May 14, 2010.
Orissa Power Transmission Corp.Ltd vs Khageswar Sundaray & Ors

3. The facts very briefly are that the Orissa State Electricity Board (for short `the OSEB') decided in its meeting held on 02.05.1970 that Lower Division Clerks (for short `the LDCs') in the Circles, Divisions and Sub-

4. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court being OJC No.1428 of 1979 and the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the OSEB to dispose of the representations of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the OSEB rejected the representations. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed another writ petition being OJC No.2237 of 1981 claiming two advance increments. The OSEB in its counter-affidavit filed before the High Court stated that the earlier notification of 1970 under which two advance increments were given to employees of the OSEB who graduated while in service had been withdrawn. The High Court in its order dated 12.04.1989 held that since the basis of the relief claimed by respondent Nos.

9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

There shall be no order as to costs.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Jeev Raj & Ors

2) Brief facts:

(d) On some complaints being made, the restoration of the land was cancelled by the State Government on 01.05.1973.

(e) Since the notice for recalling the order dated 23.04.1969 has not been formally dropped, the respondents filed a suit in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur. The Munsif Magistrate, by order dated 30.06.1982, decreed the suit restraining the State Government from making any alterations in the contract that has come into existence in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.1969. Notices were sent to the respondents to appear before the Revenue Minister as the Revision Petition for cancellation of the plot granted in the year 1969 was pending before him. The parties appeared before the Revenue Minister. By order dated 15.12.1992, the Revenue Minister cancelled the order dated 23.04.1969.

13) In view of the above discussion, factual materials, legal issues considering public interest, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court on 14.10.2003 and direct the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan to decide the matter afresh as discussed above and pass fresh orders within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this judgment after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned. Both the appeals are allowed on the above terms.

No order as to costs.

AUGUST 11, 2011.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs M/S. Baidyanath Ayurved ...

11. Indisputably, the aforesaid produce purchased by respondent company are agricultural produce. In view of the circular dated 18.4.1988, issued by the appellant, a retail trader cannot sell any specified agricultural produce to any person more than the prescribed limit therein. The said circular fixed the maximum quantity of an agricultural produce which the retail dealer can sell to an individual for domestic consumption. The Circular issued under the Rules 1965 prescribes the limit of sale to an individual and storage of the agricultural produces, by the retailer:

(Emphasis supplied)

(Emphasis added)

The aforesaid judgment has no application in the instant case for the reason that issue involved in this case is relating to requirement of having a license under Section 9(2) of the Act 1964 for the purchase of a specified agricultural produce from the market area. The appellants have never asked the respondent company to pay market fee on the end product Chawanprash.

19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that as the respondent-company buys specified agricultural produce from the 16 market area and it is not meant for domestic consumption, the company is required to take license under Section 9(2) of the Act 1964.

20. In such a fact-situation, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.12372 of 2003 is hereby set aside. No costs.
Rajender Singh Pathania & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

8. The status report had been submitted before the High Court after having proper investigation, stating that the writ petitioners had been under the influence of alcohol and been abusing, threatening and quarrelling each other at the public place. The police personnel could not control them. When they were taken to the hospital for medical check up they were found intoxicated, and they misbehaved with the doctor and staff of the hospital also. It had been brought to the notice of the High Court that Sanjeev Kumar - respondent no. 3, had been 6 threatening the police officials that his cousin Shri Aushutosh Kumar was a Metropolitan Magistrate in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and he would teach them a lesson for ever. It was further pointed out that Shri Aushutosh Kumar, MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi from his mobile No. 9868932336 had a talk with appellant no.1-Rajender Singh Pathania, SHO, PS Samaipur Badli, at 10.00 P.M. on his mobile No. 9810030663 for more than three minutes on 3.2.2007. The Magistrate had passed the release order of the said respondents, however, they could not be released because they failed to furnish the personal bond with a surety in the like amount. The High Court while passing the order did not consider it proper to have an investigation on the material facts regarding demand of bribe to the tune of Rs.500 from the writ petitioners or regarding the mis-behaviour of the said respondents with the doctor and staff of the hospital. The medical report reveals that they were intoxicated. The relevant part of the medical report dated 3.2.2007 made at 8.00 p.m. in Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi reads as under:

each, the bonds had been accepted for Rs.15,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that any of writ petitioners had raised the grievance before the Magistrate enhancing the amount of personal bonds. In fact, the said writ petitioners themselves voluntarily submitted bonds for Rs.15,000/- and therefore, no illegality could be found on that ground.

19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in awarding even token compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each as the High Court did not hold any enquiry and passed the order merely after considering the status report submitted by the appellant no.1 without hearing any of the persons against whom allegations of abuse of power had been made. Such an order is liable to be set aside.

20. In view of the above, appeals succeed and are allowed.

Judgment and order impugned herein is set aside except to the extent that the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the contesting respondents stood quashed.
Raviraj Udupa vs M/S. United India Ins. Co.Ltd. And Ors

(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7074-75 OF 2011) August 16, 2011 [G. S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] [2011] 10 SCR 276 The Order of the Court was delivered by H.L. Datttu, J. 1. Leave granted.

4. The appellant/claimant had filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest in view of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The claimant was a private contractor and he was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and his monthly income was stated to be Rs. 12000/-. The vehicle was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. (in short, b�Insurance Companyb�), which did not seriously dispute the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. He had sustained the fracture of condylar and proximal 1/3 of right fibula. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, the loss of future income on account of disability and other factors, had assessed the total compensation of Rs. 4,06,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Six Thousand FOur Hundred only) with interest at 8% p.a. on Rs.3,98,400/- from the date of petition till realization.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Costs are made easy.
Varsha vs Divisional Caste ...

3. It is alleged that the appellant belongs to Kunbi caste which is recognized as Other Backward Caste in the State of Maharashtra. She got married on 3.9.1992 to Sayyad Arif Sayyad Munir who belongs to 'Muslim Attar' caste which is also recognized as Other Backward Caste in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant obtained a caste certificate on 19.9.1996 showing her caste to be 'Muslim Attar'. In November 2003, she contested the election of 2 Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar for the seat reserved for Women-OBC and was elected as a Corporator. After she was elected as a Corporator, her caste certificate showing her caste as 'Muslim Attar' was submitted for scrutiny. Subsequently, she came to know that she cannot obtain the caste certificate of her husband's caste. Therefore, she obtained a certificate on 7.6.2005 showing her caste as 'Kunbi' and submitted this certificate for verification. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee held the certificate showing the caste as 'Muslim Attar' as invalid and declared that the appellant Varsha does not belong to 'Muslim Attar'. She filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed and the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was upheld by the High Court. Thus, the appellant is before us.

5. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) .....................J (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) New Delhi;

August 16, 2011.
State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr

3) Ist Defendant-Union of India, apart from disputing its maintainability on delay and laches also contested on merits.

6) In view of the fact that at present we are concerned with I.A.No.4 of 2009 - application for amendment of plaint, there is no need to traverse all the factual details as stated in the plaint and written statement. However, it is relevant to point 3 out the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in the main suit which are as under:

16) It is brought to our notice that MPEB being the successor Electricity Board for the reorganized State of M.P., a necessary party to the present lis, had filed a separate Writ Petition being No. 675 of 2004 before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India where identical pleadings and prayers were made. There is no serious dispute as to the relief prayed in the said writ petition. Though the MPEB approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 32, admittedly, the vires of those sections were never challenged.

20) In spite of the above conclusion, we feel that the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to put forth its stand that the Central Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders without proper guidelines and affording opportunity to the parties concerned. It is made clear that we have not either accepted or concluded the said claim of the plaintiff but in the interest of justice, plaintiff-State of M.P. is permitted to raise such objections at the time of trial by placing acceptable materials.

21) With the above observation, I.A. No. 4 of 2009 is disposed of with no order as to costs.

AUGUST 17, 2011.
Reg.Gen., High Court Of Madras vs M. Manickam & Ors

4. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the Respondent No. 1- M. Manickam joined the State Subordinate Judicial Service as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate on 04.11.1988, after getting duly selected for the said post by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that in his service records, his date of birth has been entered as 19.03.1947, as found in the S.S.L.C. Book, whereas his actual date of birth is 24.11.1950 and that due to the wrong entry of his date of birth in the service records, he would retire from his service 3 years, 8 months and 5 days before his actual date of superannuation.

6. Subsequent thereto Respondent No. 1 filed a Suit before the District Munsif Court, Karur, which was registered as O.S. No. 549/1995, for a declaration that his date of birth is 24.11.1950 and for a mandatory injunction to enter his date of birth in his S.S.L.C. book and in the Service Records as 24.11.1950, instead of 19.03.1947.

7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Munsif Court, Respondent Nos. 2-4 filed an appeal before the Sub-Judge, Karur which was allowed by the Sub-Judge by its judgment and order dated 12.10.2004. Against the said order of the Sub-Judge, Respondent No. 1 preferred Second Appeal before the High Court of Madras which was registered as S.A. No. 1064 of 2005. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 allowed the second appeal of the Respondent No. 1 and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Review Petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court also got dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2007. Against these orders of the High Court, viz., 15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007 the appellant has filed the present appeals, on which we heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

section (3) of Section 30 were followed in the instant case by respondent No. 1. No order of the Magistrate of the first class or Presidency Magistrate is placed on record to prove and establish that such an Page 14 of 25 order was passed after verifying the correctness of the birth nor any other connected document thereof is placed on record and therefore, the change apparently was not made in terms of the aforesaid mandate of Section 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

The difference of age in the present case is also considerable, as it is 3 years, 8 months and 5 days.

35. When we look into the dispute and the matter from any angle, we find that the judgment and the decree passed by the Munsif Court which is affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. We hereby set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and hold that respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that any change of date of birth is called for in the present case. The appeals are allowed and the suit stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

............................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma] ............................................J [Anil R. Dave] New Delhi August 17, 2011 Page 25 of 25
Indusind Media & Commun. Ltd. & Anr vs Mamlatdar & Ors

3. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellants are engaged in transmitting signals from their `Head Ends' located at Ahmedabad to various cable operators, who in turn receive the same and transmit by way of cables to their subscribers. According to the appellants, they are not liable to pay Entertainment Tax under the provisions of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). According to the appellants, they are transmitting signals to cable operators and the cable operators thereafter transmit signals to actual subscribers who are entertained. In the circumstances, according to the appellants, they are neither `Proprietors' nor providing any entertainment to anyone and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any tax under the Act.

6. Ultimately the Mamlatdar i.e. the Prescribed Officer appointed under the Act, passed an Order dated 18th October, 1999, whereby the appellants were made liable to pay Rs.6,88,840/- by way of an Entertainment Tax and Rs.3,62,431/- as interest on the aforestated amount, which had not been paid within the prescribed period and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed by virtue of the said order. The validity of the said order was challenged by the appellants but ultimately, the Commissioner of Entertainments Tax had confirmed the aforestated order passed by the Mamlatdar. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the Mamlatdar which had been confirmed by the Commissioner of Entertainments Tax, the appellants had filed Special Civil Application Nos.13586-13589 of 2009 in the High Court of Gujarat. The said applications have been rejected and, therefore, the appellants have approached this Court for challenging the validity of the same.

In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the imposition of penalty is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

12. For the aforesaid reasons and for the reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned order, we do not find any substance in these appeals and, therefore, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.