L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Baleshwar Rajbanshi & Ors vs Board Of Trustees For Port Trust & Ors

4. Despite recommendation of the Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government decided not to prohibit employment of contract labour in the jobs/works of sleeper renewal of railway tracks, repairing/restoration and laying and linking of tracks in the establishment of CPT which led to the filing of writ petition by the present appellants before the High Court at Calcutta. Vide Order dated July 22, 2004, the High Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the issue concerning abolition of contract labour in CPT and pass a fresh order after hearing all the parties concerned.

7. By his order dated May 15, 2007, Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by CPT and held that there was no irregularity or illegality in the notification dated July 7, 2005. Insofar as the writ petition filed by the present appellants was concerned, its hearing was deferred.

14. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. M.A.T. No. 2363 of 2007 and F.M.A. No. 430 of 2008 are restored to the file of the High Court at Calcutta for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. We request the High Court to dispose of the aforesaid matters as expeditiously as may be possible. No orders as to costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) .............

...........J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi November 6, 2009.
Dir.,Fisheries Terminal Division vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda

3) The facts in brief are : The Fisheries Terminal Department;

(`F.T.D.' for short), the appellant herein, had come into existence sometime in the year 1976. The activities of F.T.D. inter alia consisted of providing landing facilities for catching fish in a clean and hygienic condition and for that purpose, services of daily wage workmen were utilized as and when it was needed. While this practice was going on, the State Government by its order dated 17.10.1988, directed all the departments of the State Government to discontinue the practice of engaging the services of daily wage workmen and in lieu of it to hire labourers on contractual basis.

18) In view of the above discussion, we do not see any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal requires to be dismissed and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sivanmoorthy & Ors vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police

767-768 OF 2008 O R D E R The facts leading to these appeals are as under:

Hyoid Bone is intact."

Likewise we are of the opinion that the Crl.A.Nos. 767-768/08 filed by P.Chellam also lack merit for the reasons given above. This court would be hesitant to reverse a finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court -10- or the High Court where the circumstances are not palpably wrong and the judgment is not perverse. These adjectives cannot be applied to the judgment of the High Court in the present case.

Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.
Gurrala Anthony & Ors vs State Of A.P

The deceased Srinivasa Rao was working as a coolie in the Mango Market in Vijayawada and would leave for work at 4:30a.m. and return home to his village by 9:30p.m. On 3rd April, 2004, P.W. 1 - the mother of the deceased, received information from P.W.4 to the effect that she had seen her son lying near the bridge with serious injuries. On receiving this CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE 2 information P.W. 1 went to the spot and was told by those present that accused A1 to A4 had beaten her son with sticks causing his death. She, accordingly, lodged a report with the police a short while later. The investigation made by the police revealed that several witnesses including P.Ws. 2 and 3 had been accompanying the deceased while he returned home and that they had seen the attack on him. It was also ascertained that A1 to A4 were bad characters and in the habit of committing thefts in the market and misbehaving with the women workers and the deceased, had, on several occasions, admonished them for bad behaviour which had led to unpleasant scenes between them. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC. During the course of the trial, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 admittedly not an eye witness who gave the story with regard to the motive for the incident as also the fact that the deceased was employed in the Mango Market as a labourer, and P.Ws 2 and 3 who were allegedly accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident and claimed to be eye witnesses. The trial court relying on this evidence as CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE 3 corraborated by the medical evidence, convicted accused A1 to A4 and acquitted A5 and A6. The High Court in appeal, acquitted A1 as well. This appeal is before us at the instance by the remaining accused.

In the background of a very uncertain eye witness account, the recovery of some of the sticks allegedly used in the murder or the blood stained shirts have no significance. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellants and order their acquittal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants and ordered acquittal.

The reasoned order to follow.
Exec.Dir.,W.Bengal Power ... vs Ardhendu Sekhar Bala & Ors

2. The Executive Director (FM & HR) West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. is the appellant before us. A school was set up by the appellant in the name of "Kolaghat Thermal Power Plant High School" (in short `the School') mainly for the wards of the employees of Kolaghat Thermal Power Station. The 2 respondent No.1 Shri Ardhendu Sekhar Bala was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Bengali in the aforesaid School. Without going into the details, on or about 26th of February, 2009, nine employees of the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. including the respondent No. 1 were transferred from one Power Project to different Power Projects. The respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order of transfer and for that reason, he had challenged the order of transfer by way of a writ petition filed before the High Court of Calcutta on 24th of March, 2009. By a final order dated 30th of March, 2009, a learned Judge of the High Court rejected the writ application holding that an order of transfer could very well be made if the exigencies of the services so required.

4. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, we request the Division Bench of the 5 High Court to decide the pending appeal within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it positively. It may be stated that the appeal shall be decided without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In view of the order passed in the appeal itself, the interlocutory applications such as the application for modification or clarification of our order dated 21st of July, 2009 have become infructuous and are also accordingly disposed of.

5. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the writ appeal which shall be decided by the High Court in accordance with law.
Sau Panchashila Dada Meshram vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:

3. As the offence punishable under Section 302 is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara for trial. The learned Judge framed charges against the three accused. The same were read over and explained to them. The appellant and others did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, several witnesses were examined and documents produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. On completion of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Judge explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their further statements as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case of the accused was that of total denial but none of the accused examined any witness in support of the claim that he/she was innocent.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High court under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the 11 sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

November 17, 2009.
Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors vs Naveen Maheshwari

4. The facts have been mentioned in the judgments of the courts below and hence we are not repeating the same here.

7. Against the judgment of the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal which has been allowed by the first appellate court by judgment dated 19.1.2004, true copy of the said judgment is at Annexure P-2. The first appellate court held that the hall above the suit shop is a suitable alternative accommodation and it can be used for non-residential purpose. Hence the first appeal was allowed.

9. The appellants filed a second appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and hence this appeal.

12. As regards the finding that the sons of plaintiff No. 1 are getting salary of Rs. 1500/- from the firm, in our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant and was wrongly taken into consideration by the High Court.

13. For the reasons given above, the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The appeal stands allowed. No costs.

14. However, the respondent is granted one year's time to vacate the shop in dispute on furnishing the usual undertaking within six weeks from the date of this order. The respondent shall, however, continue to pay the rent during this period.
M/S Mepco Industries Ltd.Madurai vs Commr.Of Income Tax & Anr

The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Potassium Chlorates. Its factory is located in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The ...2/-

...7/-

different from the Scheme giving subsidy for setting up industries in backward areas. In the circumstances, the present case is an example of change of opinion. Therefore, the Department has erred in invoking Section 154 of the Act.

For the afore-stated reasons, appellant-assessee succeeds, impugned judgement is set aside and, consequently, the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
Harbans Singh & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand

2. The prosecution in support of its case examined Gurbachan Singh - P.W. 1, the first informant, as one of the eye witnesses and his nephew Deedar Singh - P.W. 2 as the second eye witness; Dr. S.K. Mishra - P.W. 4, the doctor, who had performed the post mortem CRL.A. No 1167 of 2007 REPORTABLE 3 examination on the body and P.W. 7 the Investigating Officer, Harish Mehra. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded. They denied all allegations levelled against them. The trial court relying on the aforesaid ocular evidence as supported by the medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Mishra, - P.W. 4, held all the four accused Jagdeep Singh and Manjeet Singh guilty of murder simplicitor under Section 302 whereas present appellants Harbans Singh and Jaswant Singh were held guilty under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced accordingly. An appeal was thereafter taken by all the four accused to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 15th June, 2007.

3. We are told that special leave petitions were subsequently filed in this Court. The Special Leave Petition filed by Jagdeep Singh and Manjeet Singh was dismissed by a simple order of dismissal whereas leave was granted in the Special Leave Petition filed by Harbans Singh and Jaswant Singh, the present appellants.

9. We, therefore, remain uncertain about the involvement of the appellants in the incident. They are, accordingly, entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

CRL.A. No 1167 of 2007 REPORTABLE 8

10. We, accordingly, allow this appeal. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ..................J [DEEPAK VERMA] NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 24, 2009.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants and ordered their acquittal.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in jail. We direct that they be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

The reasoned order to follow.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ..................J [DEEPAK VERMA] NEW DELHI CRL.A. No 1167 of 2007 REPORTABLE 10 NOVEMBER 24, 2009.
Commr.Of Income Tax vs M/S Alom Extructions Limited

employers. They represented to the Government about their hardship and, consequently, pursuant to the Report of the Kelkar Committee, the Government introduced Finance Act, 2003, by which the second proviso stood deleted with effect from 1st April, 2004, and certain changes were also made in the first proviso by which uniformity was brought about between payment of fees, taxes, cess, etc., on one hand and contribution made to Employees' Provident Fund, etc., on the other.

For the afore-stated reasons, we hold that Finance Act, 2003, to the extent indicated above, is curative in nature, hence, it is retrospective and it would operate with effect from 1st April, 1988 [when the first proviso came to be inserted]. For the above reasons, we find no merit in this batch of civil appeals filed by the Department which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.7755/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No.20581/2008 and Civil Appeal No.7757/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No.18380/2009:
Rajendra Agricultural University vs Ashok Kumar Prasad & Ors

2. The appellant is an agricultural university governed by the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 (for short `Act'). To provide relief to its teaching staff who were facing stagnation in service, the Board of Management of the Appellant University at its meeting dated 22.7.1989 framed a Statute providing for a Time Bound Promotion Scheme. The proposed Statute was placed before the Chancellor of the University for his assent under section 36(2) of the Act and such assent was given on 17.8.1991. In pursuance of it, the university issued a notification (N.No.106/RAU) dated 4.9.1991, making an addition in Statute 14.1 in chapter XIV of the Statutes of the Rajendra Agricultural University providing for a time bound promotion of (i) Assistant Professors/Junior Scientists to the post of Associate Professor/Senior Scientist and (ii) Associate Professor/Senior Scientist to the post of University Professor/Chief Scientist. The said addition in Statute 14.1 was not published in the Official Gazette, as the matter was under reconsideration in view of the decision taken by the state government to implement the pay scales of University Grants Commission (for short `UGC') in regard to the teachers of the agricultural universities. The Chancellor also passed an order, which was communicated to the Vice-Chancellors of the 3 Agricultural Universities vide letter dated 6.2.1992, that the operation of the said statute be kept pending till further orders as the whole issue was under review and further consideration.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the Rajendra Agricultural University Shikshak Manch, an association of teachers, filed a writ petition (CWJC No.9622/1992) challenging the said order dated 6.2.1992 of the Chancellor, and seeking directions to the University to consider the cases of its members for promotion in terms of the additional statute as per Notification dated 4.9.1991. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court by order dated 17.3.1994 held that the notification dated 4.9.1991 relating to the additional statute did not come into effect as it was not published in the official gazette and therefore, no right could be claimed on the basis of such unpublished statute. The writ petition was therefore dismissed with a clarification that the impugned order dated 6.2.1992 being an interim order, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the Chancellor taking appropriate final decision on the issue in accordance with law. Two writ petitions filed before the Ranchi Bench of the High Court [CWJC No.3096 of 1992 (R) and CWJC No.2740/1995 (R)] were disposed of with a direction that the issue raised by the writ 4 petitioners may be considered and decided by the Chancellor after hearing the parties.

17. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court.

.........................J [R. V. Raveendran] .......................J [G. S. Singhvi] New Delhi;

November 30, 2009 21
K.M. Ibrahim vs K.P. Mohammed & Anr

3. The appellant issued a cheque to the first respondent for an amount of Rs.95,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. However, when the cheque was presented by the first 2 respondent to his bank, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the appellant. The respondent thereupon issued statutory notice to the appellant within the prescribed time limit informing the appellant about the dishonor of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount due. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount in time, the respondent filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargode. Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence with which he had been charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. If, however, the fine was realized, directions were given that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- should be given to the respondent by way of compensation.

5. The said order was challenged before the High Court, which decided the matter in the light of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the revision against which the present appeal has been filed.

13. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with the spirit of Section 147 of the Act, we allow the parties to compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below and acquit the appellant of the charges against him.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Balaji vs State Rep.By Insp.Of Police

2. The second accused in the trial, Dhanalakshmi, is the wife of the deceased, Chelliah Naicker. The first accused is the nephew of Chelliah Naicker. According to the prosecution case, the first accused and the second accused developed an illicit relationship. The first accused would visit the house of the deceased carrying liquour with him which he gave to the deceased, and, thereafter, indulge in illicit intimacy with the second accused. PW.2, Sundari, referred to hereinabove, is the child of the second accused and the deceased. At the time of the incident, the deceased and the first accused and Sundari were residing in a hut belonging to PW.4 at Rajiv Nagar, Tuticorin. According to the prosecution, on 23rd October, 1999, the first accused came to the house of the deceased along with a bottle of liquour as 3 usual and handed over the same to the deceased. Thereafter, after having illicit relations with each other, both the accused decided to do away with the deceased and in furtherance of their object they took a nylon rope and strangulated the deceased. Immediately, thereafter, they dug a hole in the floor of the hut and buried the dead body in the said hole. It is the prosecution case that the entire incident had been witnessed by Sundari, who was threatened by the accused that if she revealed the occurrence to anybody, she would have to face dire consequences. One Papammal, who was examined as PW.3, is also alleged to have witnessed the digging of the hole by the accused persons and on being questioned, the accused persons are said to have informed him that they had killed the deceased as he was a continuous menace for them.

14. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the State and we are convinced that no fault can be found either with the judgment of the Trial Court or the High Court in convicting the appellant for the offence with which he had been charged.

17. In view of the above, we are in agreement with Mr. Nedumaran that no interference is warranted 12 with the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court, convicting the appellant herein.

18. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
M/S Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Co vs Union Of India

4. We may notice here the relevant facts.

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as a contractor), was allotted certain civil works on 22.3.1988. Initially, the work was scheduled to be completed on or before 28.06.1989. However by mutual agreement, the period of contract was extended from time to time and finally till 5.11.1990. The work was completed on 3.11.1990.

5. Disputes arose between the parties after completion of the work regarding the work and payment for the same. The contractor invoked the arbitration clause contained in Clause 70 of the agreement, dated 22.3.1988. Necessary claim was filed before the sole arbitrator under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 on 21.4.1994. Both the parties participated in the proceedings.

19. In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not fall within the limited jurisdiction available to the Court for interference in the award of an arbitrator.

20. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

.........................................J (TARUN CHATTERJEE) ........................................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) NEW DELHI DECEMBER 03, 2009