L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors vs Kamini & Ors

Necessary facts leading to the filing of present appeal by the Bihar Public Service Commission ('Commission' for short) are that the first respondent Miss Kamini, passed her B.Sc. (Hons.) in the year 1989 in Chemistry with Zoology and Botany in First Class from Tilka Manghi Bhagalpur University in the State of Bihar. Her principal/main subject in B.Sc. Degree was Chemistry, alongwith Zoology and Botany as subsidiary/optional subjects. An advertisement was issued on December 21, 1999 by the Commission inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- in the Bihar Fisheries Service Class-II. It was stated therein that the candidate must have qualifications of B.Sc. Zoology with a two years Diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or a Graduate Degree in Fisheries Science (B.F.S.C.) from a recognized University or M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration & Management) with Zoology from the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Though the first respondent was not eligible as she did not possess the requisite qualifications of B.Sc.-Zoology, inadvertently, a letter was issued by the Commission on October 17, 2002 calling upon her to appear before the Interview Board on November 5/6, 2002. On closure scrutiny of the mark-sheet, however, it was found that she was not having Hons. Degree in Zoology and was not eligible for the post. On 5th November, 2002, therefore, when she appeared for the interview, she was informed that she was not possessing requisite educational qualifications and her candidature had been rejected. She made a representation on November 6, 2002 to the Chairman of the Commission to reconsider the decision of cancellation of her candidature. Since there were some cases of this nature, an Expert Committee was constituted by the Commission to consider a question whether a student can be called a Graduate in Zoology subject if he/she has cleared the Degree Examination with Zoology as a subsidiary/optional subject and not the principal subject. The Committee submitted its Report on November 24, 2002. As per the said Report, a student will be considered a Graduate in the subject if he/she has obtained the Degree in that subject at the Graduate level. The first respondent, as per the said report, was found ineligible. Her cancellation was, therefore, held proper.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is restored and the petition filed by the first respondent-original petitioner stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra

Respondents were, however, not promoted inter alia on the premise that the General Manager (Vigilance) of the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. intimated to the concerned authority that vigilance cases were pending against them. Orders of promotion were issued in favour of the officers who were admittedly junior to them on 31.8.1999. When despite representation, they were not promoted on the ground of pendency of vigilance cases, they filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court praying inter-alia for notional promotion with effect from the date their juniors were promoted.

Until the competent authority arrives at such a conclusion, the officer may be treated at par as per with orders in the matter of promotion, confirmation etc. These instructions shall come into force with immediate effect."

The circular letters issued by the appellants put restrictions on a valuable right of an employee. They therefore, are, required to be construed strictly. So construed there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the conditions precedent contained therein must be satisfied before any action can be taken in that regard.

A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments. The appeals being wholly without merits, are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.
Nanjappa vs Union Of India

2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station, Bangalore City registered an FIR relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp-papers as Crime No. 545 of 2000 against Abdul Karim Telgi, in respect of offences punishable under sections 255 to 260, 265, 467, 468, 471 to 475, 420 read with section 120B IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by Stamp Investigation Team (for short 'STAMPIT') and on the basis of its report, Crime No. 1100/2002 was registered at Madiwala Police Station, Bangalore, on 16.10.2002 for offences punishable under section 120B, 255 to 258, 260 and 420 IPC read with section 63B of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 against the said Abdul Karim Telgi and others.

3. After further investigation, P.N. Jayasimha, Senior Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore, and the appellant (working as Asst. Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore) were impleaded as Accused Nos. 32 and 33 under supplementary charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 1100/2002 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 3, 4 and 25 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 ('KCOC Act' for short). It was alleged that the appellant was working as the Assistant Superintendent of Central Prison, Parrappana Agrahara, Bangalore with effect from 09.8.2001; that Abdul Karim Telgi was arrested on 07.11.2001 and lodged in the said prison as an under-trial prisoner; and that Appellant and Jayasimha conspired with A. K. Telgi and in contravention of the prison rules and regulations, permitted and facilitated A. K. Telgi to use mobile phone for his unlawful activities, to run his fake stamp business from the Jail and also to celebrate a party within the jail premises, all for illegal gratification.

4. The appellant, who was arrested on 9.12.2003, moved an application for bail before the Special (35th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore) on 23.3.2005. The said application was rejected on 18.6.2005. Therefore, the appellant filed Criminal Petition No. 1021 of 2006 before the High Court on 28.2.2006 seeking bail. The High Court rejected the petition by Order dated 25.8.2006, on the ground that the case was already set down for framing of charges and having regard to the gravity of the offence, it was not a fit case to grant bail to him at that stage. The Court, however, reserved liberty to the appellant to move a similar application in the month of January, 2007 if the trial was not concluded by then. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

8. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the Special Judge [35th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge], Bangalore, to enlarge the appellant on bail on furnishing security to his satisfaction in a sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand with two solvent sureties for like sums. The appellant shall comply with the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and also surrender his passport, if any, before the Special Court.
Nanjappa vs Union Of India (Uoi)

3. After further investigation, P.N. Jayasimha, Senior Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore, and the appellant (working as Asst. Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore) were impleaded as Accused Nos. 32 and 33 under supplementary charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 1100/2002 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 3, 4 and 25 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 ('KCOC Act' for short). It was alleged that the appellant was working as the Assistant Superintendent of Central Prison, Parrappana Agrahara, Bangalore with effect from 09.8.2001; that Abdul Karim Telgi was arrested on 07.11.2001 and lodged in the said prison as an under-trial prisoner; and that Appellant and Jayasimha conspired with A. K. Telgi and in contravention of the prison rules and regulations, permitted and facilitated A. K. Telgi to use mobile phone for his unlawful activities, to run his fake stamp business from the Jail and also to celebrate a party within the jail premises, all for illegal gratification.

4. The appellant, who was arrested on 9.12.2003, moved an application for bail before the Special (35th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore) on 23.3.2005. The said application was rejected on 18.6.2005. Therefore, the appellant filed Criminal Petition No. 1021 of 2006 before the High Court on 28.2.2006 seeking bail. The High Court rejected the petition by Order dated 25.8.2006, on the ground that the case was already set down for framing of charges and having regard to the gravity of the offence, it was not a fit case to grant bail to him at that stage. The Court, however, reserved liberty to the appellant to move a similar application in the month of January, 2007 if the trial was not concluded by then. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

8. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the Special Judge [35th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge], Bangalore, to enlarge the appellant on bail on furnishing security to his satisfaction in a sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand with two solvent sureties for like sums. The appellant shall comply with the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and also surrender his passport, if any, before the Special Court.
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors

After entering appearance in the suit, the appellants on 28th February, 2003 filed their written statement in which they admitted that the plaintiff with defendant No.1 to 7 were entitled to one half share in the suit properties.

Initially, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the appellants on 18th June, 2003, which was contested by the plaintiff. The said application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, but subsequently on a writ application filed before the High Court at the instance of the plaintiff, the order allowing amendment was set aside and the application for amendment was rejected. However, liberty was given to the appellants to file a fresh application for amendment of the written statement.

The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur allowed the application for amendment of the written statement and the matter was carried in revision by the plaintiff by a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order, had set aside the order of the trial court and rejected the application for amendment of the written statement, inter alia, on the ground that since the appellants had categorically admitted in their written statement that the respondents were entitled to half share in the suit properties, it was not permissible for them to withdraw such admission by an amendment of the written statement as that will amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff causing irretrievable prejudice to him.

(Underlining is ours) For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the High Court rejecting the application for amendment of written statement on the ground that if such amendment was allowed it would seriously prejudice the plaintiff. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The trial court on consideration of the written statement as well as the application for amendment of the written statement, in its discretion allowed the application for amendment of the written statement. The High Court ought not to have reversed the said order of the trial court, rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, when the trial court has exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment of written statement on consideration of the principles of law and the material on record.

For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court rejecting the prayer for amendment of the written statement is set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement thus stands allowed. The trial court is now directed to dispose of the suit at the earliest possible time preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

There will be no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs A.N. Mohanan

The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.

The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of promotion. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

Having regard to the penalty imposed on him, undisputedly the respondent has been given promotion with effect from 26.11.2001. His claim for promotion with effect from 1.11.1999 was clearly unacceptable and, therefore, the CAT and the High Court were not justified in holding that he was entitled to be promoted with effect from 1.11.1999. The order of High Court affirming the view taken by the CAT cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside.

The appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.
Ashutosh vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors

On 31.3.1992, a Settlement was reached between Indian Airlines and All India Aircraft Engineers' Association under which the then existing designations were revised as follows:

The revised designation was to operate from 1.4.1989. By the said Settlement dated 31.3.1992, appellant was redesignated as Aircraft Engineer whereas respondent nos. 3 to 17 were redesignated as Sr. Aircraft Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1989. Under the said Settlement, approval qualification had to be acquired by Sr. Aircraft Engineer (feeder post) for being promoted as Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer. Under the Settlement, for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer, the Sr. Aircraft Engineer had to obtain approval of nine groups. Under the Settlement, the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer was created for the first time with effect from 1.4.1992 to be filled from the said feeder post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer. The candidate was required to acquire specified number of points before 1.4.1995. However, the Jet Shop which was established in 1992 for Delhi by Indian Airlines did not get its approval in time from DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation). Therefore, the Association requested the Management to grant conditional promotion in various grades to enable employees like respondents 3 to 17 to complete their eligibility before the cut-off date. This request was made as employees like respondents 3 to 17 would have stagnated on account of above anomalies created by Settlement dated 31.3.1992. Therefore, on 23.7.1993, the Management and the Union entered into Discussions with regard to conditional promotion.

For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in this civil appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M/S. Gupta Modern Breweries vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors

These appeals have a chequered history. We shall, however, notice few facts leading to the filing of the present appeals, strictly for the purpose of disposal of these appeals.

The Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1901 (hereinafter the Act) was passed on 4.12.1901. The Jammu and Kashmir Distillery Rules 1946 (hereinafter the Rules) were framed on 29.6.1946. On 5.9.1973, an order was passed by the Excise Commissioner under Rule 17 of the Rules that charges on account of salary of Excise Department staff were to be recovered from management at 50% of total expenses. This order was, however, withdrawn on 1.4.1974. On 13.8.1981, the Excise Commissioner, withdrew the exemption granted by an order dated 5-9-1973. By an order dated 10.9.1981, the Excise Commissioner made a demand for payment of salaries of Excise personnel posted at appellant's distillery. Notice of demand was issued on 6.10.1988. On 28.9.1981, the appellant filed first OWP No. 549 of 1981 challenging Rule 17 as being ultra vires the Act. The High Court stayed the recovery proceedings. The appellant has also filed Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1989 challenging the demand made on October 6, 1989 on account of staff charges, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by its order dated 27th September, 1990. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred LPA (W) No.159 of 1990, which was dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned order. Hence the present appeals. Section 25 of the Act empowers the Government to frame rules. The relevant portion for the present purpose reads:-

WHY IT IS TAX AND NOT FEE Under the Constitutional scheme, taxes are distinct from fees. Excise is a form of tax. It is self-evident from various constitutional provisions:

(emphasis supplied) For the reasons aforestated we hold that:

We, accordingly, direct the respondents to refund the payment so made in the interregnum with interest calculated at the statutory rate.

In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench passed in LPA No.159 of 1990 are set aside. Appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are asked to bear their own costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Keshar Singh

Background facts giving rise to the present dispute is as follows:

It was found that he was suffering from Schizophrenia and the Medical Board's report indicated his non-suitability for continuance in army. Medical Board opined that the disability did not exist before entering service and it was not connected with service. An appeal was preferred before prescribed appellate authority which was dismissed on 16.4.1989. Respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge and as noted above by the impugned judgment the special appeal was dismissed. Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held that it was not mentioned at the time of entering to army service that the respondent suffered from Schizophrenia and therefore it was attributable to army service. Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench referred to para 7(b) of the Appendix II referred to in Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 to hold that if any disease has led to the individuals discharge it shall be ordinarily deemed to have arisen in the service if no note of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service. Accordingly, it was held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension.

In view of the legal position referred to above and the fact that the Medical Board's opinion was clearly to the effect that the illness suffered by the respondent was not attributable to the military service, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified in their respective conclusion. The respondent is not entitled to disability pension. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, payment already made to the respondent by way of disability pension shall not be recovered from him. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board vs Central Electricity Regulatory ...

4. National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter called the NTPC) generates the electricity at its various plants and sells it to the State utilities like appellants at the tariff fixed by CERC. We have already pointed out that it is the CERC which has the exclusive task of fixing the tariff. After CERC Regulations, 2001 were notified which provide the method for working out the allowable Operation and Maintenance expenses and escalation factors thereupon, the Commission with a view to look into the question of revision of O&M expenses from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 initiated suo motu proceedings being Petition No.196 of 2004. As per procedure the Commission circulated its Draft Order dated 4.1.2005 dealing with adjustment of O&M expenses based on actual escalation factor for the deviation beyond the limit prescribed by Regulation 2.7(d)(iv). The inflation rates for the relevant years were specified by the Commission in this order which were based on computation arrived at by the staff of CERC. The Draft Order was circulated to the Central Utilities as also the State Utilities like UPCL. The UPCL did not question the inflation rates. The stand of the NTPC throughout was that revision of O&M expenses be undertaken on the notional 6% escalation factor based on actual escalation between 4.8 and 7.2 since 20% was considered to normal deviation. Its further stand was that in case the deviation goes below 4.8 or beyond 7.2, as the case may be, it would be required to be adjusted on the basis of the actual escalation factor meaning thereby it would be only the deviation of the two points, namely, below 4.8% and beyond 7.2% which would be taken into consideration whereas the stand of the Utilities was that the said escalation factor should be related to the standard 6%. For example, according to the NPTC, if the escalation went to 4% which was below 4.8% then only .8% should be taken as an escalation factor so also if the escalation went beyond 7.2, i.e., 8%, then it would be only .8% which would be taken as an escalation factor. On the other hand as per the Utilities the said escalation factor should not be limited to the deviation but it should be 2% in the first and the second case because it was actually the deviation of 2% from the standard 6%.

6. A Review Petition was filed before the CERC by the NTPC. However, that review petition was rejected by the CERC by its order dated 7.6.2005. NTPC, therefore, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority vide Appeal No.103 of 2005 (We have taken the facts only in the case of UPCL, i.e., CA No.2352/2006 for the sake of convenience as there is no difference in the facts of the other two appeals and the question is absolutely common).

7. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 3.1.2006 allowed the appeals filed by the NTPC and set aside the orders passed by the CERC dated 28.2.2005 and 7.6.2005. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the present appeals have been filed.

22. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.