L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Devi Ispat Ltd. & Anr vs State Bank Of India & Ors

3. While the Bank was processing the request of Devi Ispat, it issued a letter to it on 10th January 2013 informing that its cash credit account is irregular inasmuch as the outstanding was about Rs.11.7 crores against the permissible limit of Rs. 5.6 crores. Devi Ispat was also informed that it was not servicing the interest of cash credit, Foreign Currency Non- Resident Bank Account etc. It was also informed that its account was heading for becoming a non-performing asset (NPA) and Devi Ispat was requested to regularize all its accounts by 14th January 2013 failing which there would be no alternative but to call up the advance.

4. Devi Ispat replied to the above letter but since the response was not satisfactory another letter was issued by the Bank on 14th January 2013 calling upon Devi Ispat to regularize its accounts position failing which the Bank would be constrained to take appropriate action.

5. Since there was again no positive response from Devi Ispat, the Bank issued a letter on 18th January 2013 intimating Devi Ispat that its account had been classified as an NPA on 16th January 2013 and it was requested to regularize the accounts position within seven days.

9. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition dismissed it by an order dated 19th March 2013 on the sole ground that Devi Ispat had an alternate statutory remedy under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act to make a representation against the letter issued under Section 13(2) thereof.

19. On the facts on record and the statutory remedy having been availed of, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court. However, it is left open to Devi Ispat to take such appropriate steps as may be considered necessary for safeguarding its interests.

20. There is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

………………………………J (Gyan Sudha Misra) ………………………………..J (Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi;

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).19466/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 26/04/2013 in APOT No.172/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA) DEVI ISPAT LTD. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) [HEARD BY HON'BLE GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND HON'BLE MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Date:16/04/2014 This Petition was called on for judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Misra and His Lordship.

For the reasons recorded in the Non-Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file, the special leave petition is dismissed.
State Of H.P vs Raj Kumar

2. The respondent is the sole accused. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Una, (Himachal Pradesh) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”). The Sessions Court convicted the respondent under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of three months. The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the State of Himachal has approached this Court.

3. According to the prosecution, on 1/10/1998 at about 7.15 a.m., PW-7 Balbir Singh, Ward Panch and Nambardar of Halqua Bhadorkali, went to the Police Post Daulatpur and lodged daily diary report (Ex-PA) stating that at about 7.00 a.m, PW-6 Dev Raj of the same village came to his house and informed him that one Ashwani Kumar @ Pinku (“the deceased”) had been killed. They went to the house of Ashwani Kumar. They found the deceased lying in a pool of blood on a cot with various cut injuries on his head. PW-9 immediately rushed to the Police Post on his Scooter to lodge the report. The respondent, who is the brother of the deceased also reached the Police Post and disclosed to PW-7 Balbir Singh that he had murdered his brother with a ‘Darat’. On the basis of daily diary report (Ex-PA), First Information Report (Ex-PW-11/A) was recorded by PW-11 HC Yog Raj, at the Police Station Gagret. Investigation was set in motion. After completion of investigation, the respondent came to be charged as aforesaid.

10. In our opinion, in this case, for the reasons which we have already noted, the chain of circumstances is not so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the respondent. It is not possible to say that in all human probability the respondent was the culprit. The High Court has, therefore, rightly set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. Besides, while dealing with an appeal against order of acquittal, we have to be cautious. Unless the order of acquittal is perverse, it cannot be overturned. We find the impugned judgment to be well reasoned and legally sound. It is not perverse. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

APRIL 17, 2014.
State Of Tripura & Ors vs Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are as under:

Inspite of the aforestated fact, the respondent continued to make representations and all his representations were rejected. Ultimately the respondent filed Title Suit No. 175 of 1979 on 19.09.1979 in the Court of Munsif, Sadar, West Tripura, praying for the aforestated reliefs. In the said suit, the respondent had referred to all the representations made by him and had also stated that reply to his last representation was given on 15.1.1979 and therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation.

14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order of the High Court confirming the orders passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. As a result thereof, the suit stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs.

April 21, 2014.
Thimmareddy & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

5. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses and produced 78 documents which were exhibited. The prosecution also marked 37 material objects. The accused persons in their defence examined two witnesses and produced five documents.

12. PW-2 (driver), likewise, deposed that he was hit from the back side by hand and a chopper was put on his neck. When he turned around he saw it was accused No.2 who hit him with his hand and put a chopper on his neck and as a result he suffered an injury. According to him he identified A-2.

19. In so far as recovery on the basis of purported voluntary statement of the accused persons is concerned, the trial court found that while recording alleged voluntary statement of the accused persons, procedure as laid down under Sections 165 and 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed. The accused from outside the State were arrested within the limits of some other police station without following the procedure under Section 166 Cr.P.C. It is further pointed out that when the accused persons were brought in Manvi Police Station and their voluntary statements were allegedly recorded, the police committed major irregularities which were incurable. According to the prosecution the voluntary statements were recorded on 29.10.2004 in respect of Timmareddy, Venkateshagouda, T.Laxman, Anjaneyallu, P.Devanna by PW-23. PW-23 says that after the arrest of the above said accused persons he requested the Tahsildar Manvi to provide 2 official panchas at 4.00 A.M. In the meanwhile, he recorded the voluntary statements of A-1 to 5 as per Ex.p-66 to P-70. Thereafter, on the basis of the said voluntary statements and in the presence of 2 official panchas deputed by the Tahsildar Manvi, he proceeded to recover the cash from their houses under the panchanamas.

31. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of the offence is unsustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed holding that charge against the appellants under Section 397 IPC read with Section 120-B has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

32. The appellants are entitled to be released forthwith and it is directed accordingly.
Amar Nath vs Kewla Devi & Anr

2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are stated hereunder:

We will deal with each of these issues separately along with supplementary issues that would arise out of them.

13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the appellant is the half share owner of the land in question and further uphold his right to the ancestral property. We direct the competent authority to record the name of the appellant – Amar Nath in the revenue records as half share owner of the land in dispute. Thus, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and uphold the judgment of the first appellate court. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar & Ors vs M/S National Insurance Co. & Ors

The appellants herein are the claimants who filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad claiming an amount of Rs. 40.00 lakhs as compensation on the ground that the sole breadwinner of their family, who was 46 years old, had died in a road accident. The Tribunal, relying upon the oral as well as documentary evidence, took the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. and considering his age at 46, applied the multiplier 12. In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/- as conventional amount, and finally awarded Rs.22,10,000/- as compensation to the appellants with interest @ 9% p.a.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Insurance Company preferred First Appeal No. 301 of 2003 before the High Court. The appellants herein also filed Cross Objection No. 107 of 2006 in the said appeal seeking enhancement. After hearing the Insurance Company as well as claimants, the High Court determined the net salary of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- p.m. by applying the multiplier 8, arrived at the compensation towards loss of dependency as Rs.13,44,000/-. It further added Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The High Court , thus, in all, awarded a total amount of Rs.13,90,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest. Thus, the High Court by the impugned order reduced the compensation from Rs.22,10,000/- to Rs.13,90,000/- and reduced the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.

8. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders passed by the Courts below are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………………………CJI.
Arsad Sk & Anr vs Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors

3. The facts revealed in this case are that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed a suit in the Court of First Munsif, District Malda, praying, inter alia, for a permanent injunction against the defendants (who are appellants herein) by declaring the title over 27 decimals of land in R.S. Plot No.95/425 situated in Mouza Mahesh Mati, P.S. Engrej Bazar in District Malda, West Bengal. The Munsif Court, Malda, by its judgment and order dated May 15, 1989 dismissed the said suit with the finding that the plaintiffs did not have any right, title or interest in the schedule property. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the respondents- plaintiffs preferred first appeal, being O.C. Appeal No. 25 of 1989, before the District Judge, Malda, wherein they specifically pleaded that they owned and possessed the suit land within the boundary through purchase and gifts. Simultaneously, further claimed the title to the whole area by adverse possession. On July 12,1991, the Assistant District Judge, Malda dismissed the First Appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the respondents-plaintiffs preferred a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court stating, inter alia, that in a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and description of boundary, the description of boundary would prevail and also pointed out that the Court below had failed to consider the question of adverse possession.

11. In light of the above, we are of the opinion that substantial question of law can be formulated at the initial stage and in some exceptional cases, at a later point of time, even at the time of argument stage such substantial question of law can be formulated provided the opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper opportunity to meet out the point. Furthermore, the judgment of the High Court should only be set aside on the ground of non-compliance with sub- section (4) of Section 100 of CPC, if some prejudice has been caused to the appellants before us by not formulating such a substantial question of law.

12. In the instant case, we have noticed that substantial question of law was framed by the High Court before the hearing took place and the appellants were put on notice and after giving an opportunity to the appellants to meet the question, second appeal was decided by the High Court. Therefore, in our opinion no prejudice has been caused to the appellants.

13. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

….....…..…………………..J. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad) New Delhi;

...........…………………….J. April 23, 2014. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Pappu @ Suresh Budharmal Kalani

3. The respondent was accused in Crime No. 89 of 1990 of the Vitthalwada Police Station, Thane registered under Section 120(B) read with Section 302, IPC on the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy in the killing of the deceased Inder Bhatija. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent-accused and the trial Court by order dated 29th November, 2013 convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the respondent-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1309 of 2013 before the High Court. Considering his Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2013, the High Court enlarged him on bail by the order dated 7th March, 2014 which is impugned herein. Against the said order, the State preferred this appeal.

17. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

…………………………………CJI.
Anjani Singh & Ors vs Salauddin & Ors

2. The facts in brief are stated hereunder:

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed First Appeal No. 234 of 2011 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 12.7.2000. The High Court allowed the appeal and held that assessment of monthly income by the Tribunal as [pic] 4030/- is correct based on the examination of the salary certificate. The finding of the Tribunal leading to deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses was held to be erroneous. Hence, this finding was set aside and only 1/4th of the compensation was deducted towards personal expenses. The total dependency amount came up to [pic]3,62,700/- by applying a multiplier of 10 and [pic]2,500/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and [pic]5,000 towards loss of consortium for the widow of the deceased. In total, a compensation of [pic]3,70,200/- was awarded. Thus, the compensation was enhanced by [pic]1,20,600/-, which carried an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till the date of payment.

……………………………………………………………J. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] ……………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, April 25, 2014 ITEM NO.1E COURT NO.13 SECTION IV FOR JUDGMENT S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4647 OF 2009 ANJANI SINGH & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS SALAUDDIN & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 25/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and His Lordship.

Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of signed reportable judgment with no order as to costs.

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Baskaran & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu

1 This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras affirming the conviction and sentence of the first appellant under Section 376 (2) (g), 302 and 201 I.P.C. awarding sentence for life imprisonment along with Rs. 5,000/- fine, 10 years RI, along with Rs. 5,000/- fine and 3 years RI, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- respectively. The Trial Court had awarded identical sentences to Appellant No. 2, who on appeal in the High Court, was acquitted of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC but his conviction and sentence under Section 376 I.P.C. was maintained.

2. The case of prosecution which led to the conviction and sentence of the appellants summarily stated are as follows:

3. After about 35 days, on 25.11.1995, the appellant No.1 approached PW10, the village Administrative Officer of Kadhili village whereby he confessed that he along with appellant No.2 and two others murdered the deceased after raping her and offered to surrender. This confession was reduced into writing in presence of PW-11 who was there and who signed the same. In pursuance to the confessional statement, the I.O. took him to the scene of crime where some earth sample was taken and then they went to A1’s home, where a diary belonging to the deceased was recovered. The next day, on 26.11.1995, A-2 approached PW-13, the village Administrative Officer of Sunderam Palli village and confessed about the crime, in the presence of PW-14, who had attested the written confession given to PW-13. The accused/appellants were then, committed to trial and convicted on the basis of the extra-judicial confession. While A-1 had identified A-4, A-2 had identified A-3 and thus, they too were arrested. However, later the trial court had acquitted A-3 and A-4 and the State did not challenge the same.

15. Having examined the instant case based on the aforesaid principle, we are not prepared to accept the plea that merely because one of the witnesses to the confessional statement did not support the confession in its entirety, the entire confession should be brushed aside as unreliable even though independent witness like the Village Administrative Officer had supported the recording of conviction. However, we have further taken note of the fact that the conviction of the appellants is not based merely on the confessional statement but also on other substantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution viz. recovery of the body, post-mortem report matching with confessional statement, evidence of other independent witness who corroborated the recording of confessional statement in their presence and thus do not create doubt about the credibility of the prosecution case so as to discard the same.

16. We thus do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the High Court holding the appellants guilty and sentencing them appropriately. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bails bonds are cancelled and they be taken into custody forthwith for serving out remaining part of the sentence.

April 25, 2014
Mathai Mathai vs Joseph Mary @ Marykkutty Jopseph & Ors

2. Necessary relevant facts of the case are stated hereunder:-

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent and others filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) under Section 102 of the K.L.R. Act questioning the correctness of the order dated 21.3.1994 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kottayam, on various factual and legal contentions. The Appellate Authority has adverted to certain relevant facts in respect of the previous proceedings in relation to the same land initiated by the appellant under Section 72 of the K.L.R. Act in O.A. No. 531 of 1975, which was allowed by order dated 25.4.1978 which order was challenged by the first respondent herein before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam as L.R.A.S. 534 of 1978 which appeal came to be allowed and the case was remanded to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration. In the said proceedings the Revenue Inspector had filed his Report dated 23.4.1992 as contemplated under Section 105A of the K.L.R. Act. The same was marked as Exh.C1, after examining Revenue Inspector in the proceedings. The said report was not challenged by the first respondent’s father and the same was accepted in toto by the Land Tribunal. It is further stated that the objection of the father of the first respondent was taken in the original application before the Land Tribunal but he was not examined as a witness in support of his claim as he died during the pendency of the case. However, he was examined as a witness before the Land Tribunal in the previous O.A. No. 531 of 1975. In his deposition he has clearly stated that the possession and enjoyment of the disputed property was by the appellant herein. The said deposition is marked as Exh.A8 before the Land Tribunal.

14. In view of our findings on the point Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellant, we hereby dismiss this appeal and uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in the Civil Revision Petition. It is open to the parties to litigate before the appropriate court with regard to the ownership rights of the property under the relevant provisions of law to get their rights settled upon the property in question. No costs.

………………………………………………………………………J. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] ………………………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, April 25, 2014 ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.13 SECTION XIA FOR JUDGMENT S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4479 OF 2007 MATHAI MATHAI Appellant (s) VERSUS JOSEPH MARY @ MARYKKUTTY JOPSEPH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 25/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M.T. George,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and His Lordship.

Civil Appeal is dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. No costs.