L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S. Optiemus Infracom Ltd vs M/S. Ishan Systems Pvt.Ltd. & Anr

4. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

5. Writ Petition No.8409 of 2012, was filed by the respondent, M/S. ISHAN SYSTEMS PVT.LTD.& ANR., against the judgment and order dated 11th April, 2011, whereunder the property of the respondent/judgment-debtor Co. was put to auction. An application had been filed by the respondent-company before the Debts Recovery Tribunal complaining of violation of the statutory rules which regulate the auction of property. Other grounds were also taken, but the same were rejected by the High Court. In fact, the High Court, after examining the records of the writ petition, had found no good ground to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority. Instead of stopping there, the High Court went on further to give various directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, to proceed and decide the application, which had been filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner, being S.A.No.714/2011. By another direction the auction purchaser was restrained from making any further transfer of the property in question and any construction raised would abide by the orders to be passed in the pending application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. With the aforesaid directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition finally.

8. Ultimately, the learned Judge accepted the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the appellants herein and held that the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same accordingly.

12. We hope that in future, this kind of order will be avoided in the interest of justice and also having regard to the principles of natural justice.

13. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment to the extent that it restrains the appellants from alienating or encumbering the property, is hereby set aside.

14. The appeals are disposed of, accordingly.

August 01, 2012.

Pl. read SLP(C)No.23151 instead of SLP(C)No.23161 in cause title.
Ram Shiroman Mishra vs Vishwanath Pandey

4. Before the Labour Court, the respondent filed an affidavit. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not served with the notice and consequently, he did not appear before the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court however notes that the management was duly served of the claim but no written statement was filed by it and, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte. The Labour Court observed that the material on record clearly showed that the respondent had served the management for more than one year when his services were terminated on 31/12/1991 without any valid reason and in violation of Section 2(OO) of the ID Act. The Labour Court further observed that since there was no compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act, the retrenchment was illegal. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent with continuity in service and full back-wages calculated at the last drawn wages which were Rs.1,100/- per month.

6. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The High Court observed that no explanation was given by the petitioner as to why no steps were taken to challenge the award expeditiously. The judgment of the High Court indicates that the High Court was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and the writ petition was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.

AUGUST 08, 2012.
Punjab Urban Planning & Dev.Auth.& Ors vs Raghu Nath Gupta & Ors

petition was disposed of by the High Court on 22.4.2002 directing the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali to pass a speaking order. Consequently, the Estate Officer passed the order on 5.9.2002 rejecting the demand made in the notice, which was challenged by the respondents by filing CWP No. 18753 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.7.2006 directing the respondents to file detailed representations before the Additional Chief Administrator. Consequently, a detailed representation was filed by the respondents on 29.8.2006 before the Additional Chief Administrator stating that since PUDA had failed to provide the basic amenities like drinking water, drainage and public toilets, respondents were not legally obliged to pay interest, penal interest, penalty etc. on the delayed installments. PUDA took up the stand before the Additional Chief Administrator that the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage etc. were not provided at the site when they were allotted, but the toilet was shown near SCF No. 124-125. PUDA submitted that the electrical works had been completed by 24.12.2002, public health works had been completed by 22.11.2002 and the development of the commercial pocket had been completed by 20.12.2002.

11. We are of the view that the terms and conditions stipulated in the auction notification for allotment of commercial plots, published by PUDA, has got considerable bearing in resolving the disputes between the parties. We, therefore, called for the auction notification -

14. We are of the view that the judgment in Amarjeet Singh (supra) is a complete answer to the various contentions raised by the respondents. We may reiterate that after having accepted the offer of the commercial plots in a public auction with a super imposed condition i.e. on “as is where is” basis and after having accepted the -

15. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in holding that the respondents are not liable to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty for the period commencing from 1.6.2001 to 31.12.2002 for the belated payment of installments. Consequently, the judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions would stand dismissed and the appeals would stand allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.

August 16, 2012
Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors

5. Parties are not in conflict on facts, however reference to few essential facts are necessary for a proper disposal of this appeal. Appellants, herein, had filed the writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash, an inter-departmental communication dated 24.10.2009 followed by a letter dated 18.11.2009 issued by the District Education Officer to the Manager/Principal of few Sanskrit Colleges in Hardwar where excess payments were made due to wrong fixation of pay. The operative portion of the communication dated 24.10.2009 reads as follows:

7. We may point out indisputedly, the appellants 1 and 2 herein were not in the pay scale of Rs.4,250-6,400 as such they could not have got the revised pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Only if they were getting pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500/- on 01.01.1996, they would have been entitled to be placed in the pay scale of 10,000-15,200 as on 01.07.2001. Further, appellants 3 to 5 were working as Assistant Teachers and drawing in pay scale of Rs.3,600-5,350/- as on 01.01.1996 and were placed in the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000 as on 01.07.2001. Further, it was noticed that none of the appellants were working as principals and were never placed in the pay scale of 8,000-15,500 as on 01.01.1996 to get the benefit of the pay scale of 10,000-15,200 as on 01.07.2001. We also find only few persons like the appellants have been getting higher pay scale in the district of Haridwar w.e.f. 01.07.2001 and similarly situated persons in the rest of Uttarakhand are getting the same pay scale of Rs.10,000- 15,200 only from 11.12.2007 and it was to rectify this anomaly, the District Education Officer, Haridwar passed the order dated 24.10.2009.

18. Appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order the excess payment made be recovered from the appellant’s salary in twelve equal monthly installments starting from October 2012. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. IA Nos.2 and 3 are disposed of.
State Of U.P vs Sanjay Kumar

C. On the basis of the post-mortem report, the charges under Sections 376 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called ‘IPC’), were framed against the respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

D. After conclusion of the trial and particularly placing reliance upon the confessional statement made by the respondent under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called ‘Cr.P.C.), the trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 5.12.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2007 convicted the respondent of the said charges and awarded him death sentence. The reason for giving death sentence had been recorded stating that the deceased was 18 years of age and the offence committed by the respondent would have a very negative effect on society. The offence committed by the respondent was in fact rarest of the rare. The confessional statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate was worth placing reliance upon, wherein the respondent had admitted his guilt and, therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court reached the conclusion that it was a case under the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’. Therefore, death penalty was awarded to the respondent alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which, he would have to suffer further RI for 4 months. For the charge of rape, he was awarded life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, he would have to suffer further RI for 4 years. E. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal and while considering his appeal alongwith the Death Reference made to the High Court, the High Court after appreciating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that upon consideration of the totality of circumstances, the charges stood fully proved against the respondent. However, the case did not fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ where the option of awarding a sentence of imprisonment for life was unquestionably foreclosed.

With these observations, the Petition is dismissed.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Vijay Singh & Ors

2. On being selected by the District Level Committee which had considered the candidature of those sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, respondent Nos.1 to 13 were appointed as Masters in the subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies, respondent No.14 was appointed as Physical Training Instructor and respondent No.15 was appointed as Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education Officers. The relevant portions of one such order issued on 16.10.1995 are reproduced below:

5. They are put on probation for a period of two years in the first instance from the date he joined his duty. His result will be particularly taken into consideration while assessing his performance, if in the option of the appointing authority his work and conduct has not been found satisfactory during probation period, this period is liable to be extended provided that the total period of probation including extension, if any, shall exceed 3 years or his service will be dispensed with.

5. The respondents challenged the provisional gradation list in Civil Writ Petition No.2409/2008 on the ground that the same was discriminatory and prayed that in view of the judgment of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715, their seniority be fixed by taking into consideration the total length of service including the ad-hoc service, and until then, no one should be promoted to the post of lecturer.

ii) Approved officiating service shall be reckoned as period spent on probation, but no member who has officiated in any appointment for one year, may claim to be confirmed until he is appointed against a permanent vacancy.

Provided that the total period of probation including extension, if any, shall not exceed three years.

Provided further that in the case of member appointed by direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the Commission or any other recruiting authority as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority;

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Devinder Singh Narula vs Meenakshi Nangia

11. As will appear in the averments made in this appeal, the appellant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 1.6.2011 on the ground that the marriage contracted on 26.3.2011, was a nullity; that the parties had been living separately since their marriage and have not cohabitated with each other since 1.6.2011 and in future also they could never live together under one roof. According to the parties, they are residing separately from each other for the last one year and the respondent was presently working overseas in Canada. It is with such object in mind that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act the parties agreed to mediation and during mediation the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition under Section 13-B of the above Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent. In the proceedings before the Mediator, the parties agreed to move appropriate petitions under Section 13-B(1) and 13-B(2) of the Act. A report was submitted by the Mediator of the Mediation Centre of the Tis Hazari Courts to the Court in the pending HMA No.239 of 2011. It is pursuant to such agreement during the mediation proceedings that an application was filed by the parties in the aforesaid pending HMA on 15.12.2011 indicating that they had settled the matter through the mediation centre and that they would be filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent on or before 15.4.2012. On the strength of the said petition, the HMA proceedings were disposed of as withdrawn. Subsequently, on 13.4.2012 the parties filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act on which the order came to be passed by the learned Additional District Judge -01, West Delhi, fixing the date for the second motion on 15.10.2012.

14. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and also convert the pending proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, into one under Section 13-B of the aforesaid Act and by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we grant a decree of mutual divorce to the parties and direct that the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent. The proceedings before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, being HMA No.204 of 2012, is withdrawn to this Court on consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.

15. In the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
R.S. Misra vs Union Of India And Ors

4. Since the appellant was not given consequential benefits, he filed Contempt Petition No. 550/2000 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 25.1.2001, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:

5. The appellant sent legal notice dated 20.2.2001 through his advocate for grant of consequential benefits but the same was rejected vide letter dated 4.4.2001. Thereupon, he filed Contempt Petition No. 151/2001. The learned Single Judge noted that the appellant had already been reinstated and a sum of Rs.11,48,625/- were paid to him by way of arrears of pay and allowances and directed the non-petitioner in the contempt petition to consider his case for grant of such benefits to which he may be found entitled. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that if the appellant feels aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority then he shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy.

9. In view of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner considered the appellant’s representation and passed order dated 20/24.01.2006 whereby he again terminated the appellant’s service with immediate effect under Article 81(b) of the Education Code and directed that the amount payable to him in terms of the Tribunal’s order and 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of notice be paid to him immediately. The operative portion of that order reads as under:

10. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Commissioner was dismissed by the Vice-Chairman, KVS vide order dated 18/21.4.2006.

11. The appellant challenged the order of termination as well as the appellate order in OA No. 996/2006, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by observing that the exercise of power by the Chairman, KVS under Article 81(b) did not suffer from any legal error. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The same was the fate of review petition filed by him before the High Court and SLP(C) Nos.8219-8220/2010 filed before this Court.

13. The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the earlier order passed in WP(C) No. 3141/2004 whereby direction was given to the respondents to pay 50% of salary to the appellant subject to the outcome of OA No.2008/2003, order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.2008/2003 and held that in view of the directions contained in those orders, the appellant is not entitled to more than 50% salary.

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay full salary and allowances to the appellant for the period between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005. The needful be done within a period of two months from today by getting prepared a demand draft in the appellant’s name, which shall be delivered at his residential address on or before the end of two months period.
Srinivasa Surtanarayana Murthy vs Karnataka Housing Board

2. In response to an advertisement issued by Karnataka Housing Board (respondent), which was published in the Times of India dated 14.7.1993, the appellant applied for allotment of a HIG flat in Vth Phase, Yelahanka under the self-financing scheme. He was allotted under S-HIGA Flat No.37, First Floor. In the allotment letter issued on 29.11.1993, the tentative cost of the flat was shown as Rs.3,40,000/-.

3. As per the advertisement, the flat was to be ready for occupation by December, 1994 but the construction of the flat was completed only in 1998 and possession thereof was delivered to the appellant on 19.5.1999.

5. The respondent accepted the request of the appellant and allotted a flat to him in 3500-Multi-tenaments at Vth Phase, Yelahanka on outright sale basis. The cost of that flat was shown to be Rs.5,23,232/-.

6. Upon receipt of the revised allotment letters dated 22.1.1999 and 25.1.1999, the appellant sent communication dated 15.2.1999 to the Housing Commissioner of the respondent and protested against the alleged failure of the concerned authority to take cognizance of the fact that he had already deposited Rs.3,75,750/-. Thereafter, the respondent issued letter dated 6.4.1999 indicating therein that the appellant is required to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,57,482/-. The appellant accepted the revised allotment and deposited the remaining amount.

19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University vs G. Hemlatha And Ors

5. For deciding the question of law, it is necessary to know the facts of the case. Respondent 1 completed Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing with 54.71% aggregate marks from N.T.R. University of Health Sciences in the year 1997. Thereafter, she registered herself as a Public Health Nurse and Midwife. She also registered herself as a nurse under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Nurses and Midwives (Extension of Amendment) Act, 1964. She was appointed as a working staff nurse at the Primary Health Centre, Nagasamudram (Andhra Pradesh) on 08.07.1999. She served for eight years and three months in the said institution. She made a representation to the Regional Director of Medical Health Services seeking permission to pursue the PG course in M.Sc (Nursing). The eligibility criteria prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council for securing admission to the said PG course was 55% aggregate marks. The petitioner, however, secured 54.71% aggregate marks. She approached the Secretary, Indian Nursing Council, the third respondent herein, requesting that a certificate of eligibility be issued to her. The third respondent communicated to her that 0.50% would normally be rounded-off to next digit. She was asked to approach the concerned authority of the institute in that regard. Accordingly, she approached the petitioner. The petitioner gave her the eligibility certificate. She, then, approached the Principal, Navodaya College of Nursing, Raichur, Karnataka, the second respondent herein. With the said certificate she obtained admission in the management quota.

6. When she was preparing to take the annual examination, she was informed by the second respondent that she was not eligible to take examination as she has secured less than 55% in the qualifying examination. She approached the petitioner for reconsideration of her case. She was informed that on reconsideration it was found that she was not eligible to take examination. She, therefore, preferred writ petition in the High Court challenging the said communication. She obtained an interim order permitting her to take first year examination. She took the examination but, results were withheld. She was also permitted to take the second year examination by an interim order. Thus, she has completed the PG course by taking both the examinations. As stated by us earlier, while issuing notice, this court directed that her results be declared and her admission be regularized.

11. We make it clear that this order merely settles the question of law and shall not have any adverse impact, in any manner, on the service of respondent 1.

12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

AUGUST 23, 2012
Kanpur Devt.Auth.Tr.Vice Chairman vs Sheo Prakash Gupta & Anr

4. According to the appellant-Authority vide its office order dated 31st October, 1992 it was determined that in the matter of allotment of any home or plot, if any dispute arises and it does not remain possible to complete the registration proceedings or to handover the possession in lieu thereof, an alternate house or plot shall not be offered and the amount deposited by the allottee shall be returned back to him alongwith the interest as per the rate of post office saving account.

7. As the respondents were successful as the highest bidders, they were allotted the aforesaid plot vide a letter No.D/605/JointSecretary/ZoneNo.2 /2005-06 dated 20th August, 2005 whereunder the premium of the said plot was fixed at Rs.11,700/- per sq.mtr. They were informed that the remaining 3/4th of the premium was to be paid in four quarterly installments alongwith 15% of the interest while the amount of the first installment was Rs.32,76,623/-, payable on 1st October, 2005.

15. For the very same reason, the ground of delay in preferring the appeal was not accepted and the appeal was dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits and the order of the State Commission was confirmed.

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order and judgment passed by the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission for deciding whether the notice issued by the State Commission was properly served on the appellant-Authority and to decide the First Appeal No.42 of 2012 on merits.