L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Vijendra vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. Sri R.C. Kansal, Food Inspector filed a complaint stating that on 16.10.1979, at about 8:00 AM, while he was posted as Food Inspector at Primary Health Centre Bhojpur, he found the appellant taking buffalo milk for sale on the Acchapalgarhi Road, Pilakhuwa, District Ghaziabad. On demanding license from Appellant, it was revealed that he did not have any license for selling the milk. Suspecting adulteration in the milk, complainant prepared a notice Ex.6 and gave a copy to the appellant. After that, in the presence of public witness Radhey Shyam/PW­3, the complainant purchased 660 ml milk for 1 Rupee 65 paise and gave the money to the appellant and took thumb impression of the witness. The purchased milk was divided equally and filled in 3 clean bottles. The bottles were sealed in accordance with the rules and labels were pasted on 3 them. Thumb impression of the Appellant was taken on the labels posted on the bottles. One sample was sent to Public Analyst Lucknow on 17.10.1979. The rest of the 2 bottles were submitted before the office of Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad. The Public Analyst received the sample on 18.10.1979, who prepared report Ex.No. 4 dated 15.11.1979 with the finding that the sample of buffalo milk was deficient by 12% in milk fat and 27% in non­fatty solids. The sample was thus found to be adultered.

7. The prosecution examined the complainant/R.C. Kansal as PW­1, Jaipal Singh/clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer as PW­2 and Radhey Shyam, as PW­3. PW­2 stated in his statement that on 07.04.1980, he sent the report of the Public Analyst to the Appellant by registered post. PW­3, who is an independent witness, was declared hostile by the prosecution. The appellant, in his turn, pleaded not guilty. He however did not produce any evidence in defence.

18. Therefore, in that circumstance even if the other aspects are not adverted to, the very fact that the Analyst’s report being served not being proved and the sample being taken in an appropriate manner not being established, it would be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is not justified. In that view, the judgments dated 02.06.1987, 01.11.1988 and 09.12.2014 passed respectively by the Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, Ghaziabad, the Additional Sessions Judge Ghaziabad and the High Court of Allahabad are set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Narendra Kumar Mittal vs M/S Nuper Housing Development Pvt Ltd.

4. The second defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit, having regard to Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). The Civil Court vide order dated 22.05.2014 held that the suit was maintainable. The second defendant challenged the said order before the Allahabad High Court. After considering the matter, the High Court dismissed the revision petition by its order dated 17.11.2014. The second defendant has called in question the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.

12. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5980 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8528 of 2015

13. Leave granted.

14. The issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the above judgment. Hence, this appeal is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

July 31, 2019.
Dr. Sridip Chatterjee vs Dr. Gopa Chakraborty

4) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal as emerging from the material on record, are that the respondent-University published an advertisement on November 22, 2012 inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy). The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said post is Masters

5) in Yoga/Yoga Therapy or Masters in Physical Education with Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy with at least 55% (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed). The appellant applied for the said post and appeared in the selection process with other candidates. The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee consisting of Dr. Arun Kumar Uppal, Prof. Rajesh Tripathi, Prof. Krishna Banerjee, Dr. Sudip Sunder Das, Prof. Sanat Kr. Naskar and Dr. A.N. Dey for an interview on March 26, 2013. He was selected to the said post on March 28, 2013.

19) Consequently, we allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the High Court. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, seniority and pay fixation but will not be entitled to pay for the period he was out of service. No order as to costs.

AUGUST 06, 2019.

Page 10 of 10
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohar Singh

The case of the prosecution is that as per complainant- Date: 2019.08.08 17:33:02 IST Reason:

(5) In appeal, the High Court has held that the respondent- accused has caused a single gun-shot injury to the deceased that too on being instigated by Ajab Singh who had already been acquitted by the Trial Court and, therefore, it cannot be held that the respondent had intentionally caused the gun-shot injury on the deceased-Bhagwan Singh. The High Court held that the entire incident occurred when there was heated altercation between both the parties and resultantly the respondent had 3 fired the gun-shot injury on the deceased and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of the respondent would not attract Section 302 I.P.C.; but would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. The High Court has also pointed out that the occurrence was of the year 1993 and the respondent has already undergone nearly seven years and six months and if the remission is taken into account his sentence would be more than nine years. It is stated at the Bar that the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- imposed upon the respondent has already been paid by him.

(6) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of the High Court modifying the conviction of the respondent from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. cannot be said to be perverse and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. (7) In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Zonal Manager, Bank Of India, Zonal ... vs Aarya K. Babu

4. In the instant fact situation, the Notification dated 17.11.2014 was issued calling for applications from interested candidates for the different posts that were advertised therein. The consideration herein relates to the recruitment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale­1). The private respondents in both these appeals are applicants for the said post. The process of selection was undertaken and the private respondents in both these appeals were provisionally selected, subject to verification of their documents and were accordingly allotted by the IBPS to the respective appellant Banks herein. However, the selection of both the private respondents was cancelled on the ground that the private respondents herein did not possess the qualification prescribed in the notification for appointment. It is in Page 3 of 21 that regard the private respondents claiming to be aggrieved by such action were before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court assailing the termination orders in the respective writ petitions as taken note above.

19. Subject to the above observations, both the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs A Kalaimani

2. The written examination was of objective type. A printed book was given to the candidates in the 1 examination hall. The printed book is known as Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet. After completion of the written examination, the OMR sheets were scanned in the office of the Board. The original OMR answer sheets were kept in the safe custody in the office of the Board.

3. The scanned copies of the OMR sheets were sent to M/s Datatech Methodex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agency’) for evaluation and for preparation of the final list of the candidates who qualified for the certificate verification. The evaluation was done by the Agency and the list was sent to the Board. The merit list of the candidates called for certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2 was released on 07.11.2017. At that stage, a complaint was made to the Prime Minister’s Office on 17.11.2017 as well as the Board on 21.11.2017 alleging large scale malpractices in the written examination and requesting a probe into the complaints of tampering with the OMR sheets. To verify the genuineness of the complaint made to the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr. Shaik Dawood Nazzar representing the Agency was instructed to send the scanned images of the OMR sheets of the candidates whose names were mentioned in the 2 complaint. Certain discrepancies were found on comparison of the scanned copies of the OMR sheets with the original OMR sheets. Immediately thereafter, the System Manager of the Agency was asked to re-evaluate the scanned images of the OMR sheets of the candidates called for certificate verification from the Hard Disk which was handed over to the Board. After re-evaluation, discrepancies were found in the entries of 109 candidates who were called for certificate verification. Further scrutiny of the answer sheets revealed further discrepancies in the marks of 225 candidates. On a deeper scrutiny, the Board found that 196 candidates have been the beneficiaries of the fraudulent alteration of the marks.

4. After being satisfied that the marks of 196 candidates were manipulated, the Board withdrew the result which was published on 07.11.2017. A decision was taken by the Board to upload the scanned images of the OMR answer sheets of all the 1,33,567 candidates along with the final marks and answer key on the website of the Board. The candidates were allowed to download copies of their OMR 3 answer sheets and lodge objections in the interest of transparency.

17. In view of the aforementioned, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The appeals are allowed.
Wainganga Bahuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha ... vs Ku. Jaya

3) Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer of Home Economics on ad-hoc basis till such full time Lecturer is appointed, vide appointment letter dated February 24, 1999. There was also a condition in the appointment order that if her performance is found to be unsatisfactory, services can be terminated without giving any notice. The relevant clauses of the appointment order read as Page 1 of 8 under:

Therefore, as per terms and conditions mentioned in the order of appointment, the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated and salary for one month was paid to her.

5) The respondent No1, aggrieved against the termination order, filed an appeal before the College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The said appeal was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal.

hoc employee.

15) Consequently, we find that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is clearly unsustainable in law. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

AUGUST 09, 2019.

Page 8 of 8
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Laxman Das Khandelwal

3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of aforementioned Income Tax Appeal No.97 of 2018 before the High Court, as culled out from the judgment and order dated 27.04.2018 presently under appeal are as under:-

was added on account of unexplained cash receipts. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted an amount of Rs.7,48,463/- holding that jewellery found in locker weighing 686.4 gms stood explained in view of circular No.1916 and further deleted the addition of Rs.29,23,98,117/- out of Rs.29,53,52,631/- holding that the correct approach would be to apply the peak formula to determine in such transaction which comes to Rs.29,54,514/- as on 05.03.2010.

11. These Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

August 13, 2019.
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as under:-

B) The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)1, who by his order dated 16.02.2009 confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. The matter was carried further by filing ITA No.2399/Mum/2009 before the Tribunal.

18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. … …”

The threshold limit of Rs.5 crores will be reviewed depending upon the workload of the TPOs.

(ii) Role of Transfer Pricing Officer:- The role of the TPO begins after a reference is received from the Assessing Officer. In terms of section 92CA this role is limited to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer. If during the course of proceedings before him it is found that there are certain other transactions; which have not been referred to him by the Assessing Officer, he will have to take up the matter with the Assessing Officer so that a fresh reference is received with regard to such transactions. It may be noted that the reference to the TPO is transaction and enterprise specific.

including the application of the most appropriate method, the data used, factors governing the applicability of respective methods, computation of price under a given method will all be subjected to judicial scrutiny. It is, therefore, necessary that the order of the TPO contains adequate reasons on all these counts. Copies of the documents or the relevant data used in arriving at the arm’s length price should be made available to the Assessing Officer for his records and use at subsequent stages of appellate or penal proceedings.

instructions issued by the CBDT. We do not find the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal to be incorrect.

9. We, therefore, allow this Appeal to the aforesaid extent and direct that it would now be upto the Assessing Officer to take appropriate steps in terms of Instruction No.3/2003.

10. The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

August 13, 2018.
Joginder Singh . vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ...

2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeal arises is briefly stated as under :– 2.1. The daughter of the Appellants viz. Ambika Thakur was a student who was undertaking an Air Hostess Training Program at the Frankfinn Institute, Chandigarh.

2.2. On 10.9.2009, Ambika Thakur was travelling in a Verna car bearing Registration No. CH­04­H­0297 from Chandigarh to Bhatinda.

The car met with an accident with a Tata Ace vehicle bearing Registration No. PB­03T­4804 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle suddenly stopped in front of the Verna car, which led to head long collision between the two vehicles, and resulted in the death of Ambika Thakur on the spot. Ambika Thakur was 20 years old at the time of her death.

2 The offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent – Insurance Company.

2.3. The Appellants herein being the parents of the deceased, filed a Claim Petition before the MACT, Shimla claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/­ on the death of their daughter.

2.4. The MACT vide Award dated 15.07.2014 granted compensation of Rs. 10,40,000/­ to the Appellant – Claimants along with interest @7.5% p.a. The compensation was awarded under the following heads :–

(ii) A deduction of 50% was made from the notional income of the deceased, since she was unmarried;

7 4.2. Furthermore, the Courts below have failed to award loss of estate @Rs.15,000/­ as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).

4.4. The funeral expenses and interest awarded by the MACT are maintained.

6. The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 13,48,000/­ to the Appellants within 1 month from the date of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry Simple Interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of realization.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.

August 14, 2019.
The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kanshi Ram

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court fixing compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, the appellants have preferred R.F.A.No.202 of 2011 and batch questioning the fixing of the market value of the C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 7 acquired land by uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. In the appeals preferred by the State, the respondents have preferred cross objections claiming interest from the date of taking possession to the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. By the impugned judgment the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by a common judgment dismissed the appeals filed by the State and allowed the cross objections by awarding interest @ 15% per annum on the market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989 till the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 30.7.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, appellants have filed these appeals. The respondents-claimants also preferred appeals claiming interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum on the total compensation payable to the respondents, not merely on the market value as awarded by the High Court.

15. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons all the appeals filed by the State are allowed by setting aside the common judgment dated 31.07.2017 in R.F.A. No. 202 of 2011 and batch. Consequently the Award of the Reference Court fixing the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, also stands set aside and matters are remitted back for fresh consideration by the District Court for considering the references in accordance with law and to pass fresh Award. As much as the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30.7.2005, we direct the Reference Court to dispose of references within a period of six months from date of this judgment. We permit both the sides to adduce further documentary and oral evidence, in support of their case. As the appeals filed by the State are allowed by this Court, the additional interest awarded at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of Notification is also set aside. It is open to the Reference Court to consider the claim of the claimants for award of the additional interest from the date of taking possession to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification in accordance with law. We do not wish to express any C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319 of 2018 etc.etc. 14 opinion on such claim, such claim is to be considered independently in accordance with law.

16. As much as the appeals filed by the State are allowed, the batch of civil appeals filed by the respondents-claimants are dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that the compensation which is already paid to the claimants, will be subject to further orders to be passed by the Reference Court.
Vinod Singh Negi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. In order to appreciate the short question involved in these appeals, a few facts need mention hereinbelow.

5. Three accused persons, namely, Umesh Sharma, Ashok and Parvinder Singh were prosecuted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) 2 2 for commission of murder of one –Manoj, who was brother of the appellant­ complainant.

So far accused persons (R­2 in Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)1480/2019 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Crl.A.@SLP(CRl.)1481/2019) are concerned, they were served and duly represented except respondent No.3 in Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.1481/2019. The name of respondent No.3, namely, Parvinder Singh, in Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.) No.1481/2019 was deleted from the array of parties by this Court order dated 08.05.2019.

8. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the applications made by all the three accused persons and suspended their respective jail sentence by directing that all the three accused be released on bail.

16. In the light of the aforementioned two grounds, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court enabling it to reconsider the applications for grant of 7 7 bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on their respective merits keeping in view the two grounds noted above. The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

18. Since the impugned order is set aside, the accused persons are directed to surrender for being taken into custody. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

August 14, 2019 9 9
The State Of Jharkhand vs Gopal Prasad Mandal

2. This Court by order dated 17.11.2008 had issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Jharkhand with a direction to file a counter affidavit and the contempt proceedings before the High Court were stayed until further orders. The matter has remained pending since then.

Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2009 Page 5 of 6

8. Though one would agree that in case of doubt, the authorities should have approached the court for clarification and appropriate directions, albeit this failure would not justify contempt of the court proceedings. In fact, there is compliance of the court’s directions without the matter getting escalated and the controversy was resolved. Recording the aforesaid, we allow the present appeal and set aside and quash the order dated 27.08.2008 and the contempt proceeding in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 43 of 2008. We clarify that we have not commented on the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the 13 decimals of land.

No costs.

August 14, 2019.

Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2009 Page 6 of 6
Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner ... vs M/S U P State Warehousing Corp

3. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, a few facts need mention infra. 4. The appellant herein is respondent No. 1 whereas respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein is respondent No. 2 in the writ petition before the High Court out of which this appeal arises.

10. The Corporation contested the show cause notice inter alia on the ground that since there was no relationship of employer and employee between 4 4 the Corporation and these workers, the Corporation was not liable to pay any contribution of these workers under the Act.

14. It is against this order, the Provident Fund Authorities felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court questioning its legality and correctness.

23. Since the High Court did not notice the definition of "employee" defined under Section 2(f) of the Act and proceeded to pass the impugned order only in the light of finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the ID Act in the order dated 15.05.2013 passed in W.P. No.72314 of 2010, the impugned order is rendered bad in law and, therefore, calls for interference in this appeal. 10 10

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case (writ petition) is remanded to the High Court (writ court) for deciding the Corporation's writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view the definition of "employee'' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act and then decide as to whether the proceedings under section 7A of the Act are legal and proper or not.

25. We request the High Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously.

August 14, 2019 11 11