L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Shyamrao Maroti Korwate vs Deepak Kisanrao Tekam

2) Brief facts:

The District Judge by a common judgment dated 16.04.2007 in both the proceedings, allowed the application filed by the appellant herein and appointed him as a Guardian of Vishwajeet till he attains the age of 12 years and directed him to deposit the amounts inheritable by the minor due to the demise of his mother, in any Nationalized Bank in Fixed deposit in the name of minor, which may be renewed from time to time till he attains majority and also directed that nobody can withdraw the principal or interest amount without prior permission of the Court. The District Judge further directed the newly appointed guardian to allow the respondent-father to meet the minor once in a month. The application filed by the respondent was dismissed by the District Judge with the liberty to file such application after completion of the age of 12 years by the minor.

(c) Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein filed First Appeal No. 501 of 2007 in the High Court of 3 Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. On 17.10.2007, the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant herein to hand over the custody of the child to the respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

Father shall take the child and leave him back at the maternal grand-father's place on such days.' (4) The father is free to provide facilities such as payment of school fees, books, dress materials, eatables etc. during this period to develop a conducive relationship with the child.

17) With the above direction, the impugned order of the High Court is modified. The appellant-maternal grandfather is permitted to continue the custody of the child till the age of 12 years as ordered by the District Judge. The decision regarding investment in the name of minor child is also restored. To the extent mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. No costs.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010.
M/S Coal India Limited & Ors vs Coal Consumers Association & Ors

2. The relevant facts very briefly are that prior to 2007 industrial consumers were granted coal linkages for utilization in their small scale industries. On 18.10.2007, the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, formulated a New Coal Distribution Policy by which coal linkages were discontinued and instead coal was to be supplied to 3 various consumers including small scale industries under the terms and conditions of Fuel Supply Agreement (for short `FSA'). Accordingly, petitioner No.2 entered into FSA with different industrial consumers of coal. Clause 4.4 of FSA stipulated that the total quantity of coal supplied pursuant to the agreement is meant for use in the industry of the purchaser and the purchaser shall not sell/divert and/or transfer the coal for any purpose whatsoever and the same shall be treated as material breach of the agreement and in the event that the purchaser engages or plans to engage into any such resale or trade, the seller shall terminate the agreement forthwith without any liabilities or damages whatsoever payable to the purchaser. Clause 15.1.5 of FSA further provided that in the event that the purchaser resells or diverts the coal purchased pursuant to the agreement, the seller shall have the right to terminate the agreement forthwith. On 07.06.2009, however, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short `CBI'), on receipt of credible information, registered an FIR under Section 120B read 4 with 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code together with Section 3(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shri Udayan Bhattacharya, the then General Manager (S&M), BCCL, Dhanbad, and ten industrial consumers alleging that the coal sold by BCCL to the ten industrial consumers have been sold in the open market and not utilized in their respective plants. On the basis of the allegations in the FIR, supplies of coal to the ten industrial consumers were suspended on 13.06.2009, some of whom challenged the suspension of supply of coal in writ petitions before the different High Courts. After investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet on 28.06.2008 against Shri Bhattacharya and the ten industrial consumers in respect of whom the FIR had been lodged. Soon thereafter, on 01.07.2010 the petitioner No.2 issued orders suspending supply of coal to 45 industrial consumers against whom no FIR had been lodged by the CBI.

10. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions and vacate the interim orders passed by this Court. We make it clear that the observations made in this order will not influence the High Court in deciding the Writ Petitions on merits. No costs.
V. Ranganathan vs N. Baskaran & Ors

2. The facts, which led to filing of the two writ petitions, indicate that the Secretary, U.P.S.C., invited applications for appointment to three vacancies to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary Schools in Pondicherry, by Advertisement No.17 published in the "Employment News" on 13th September, 2003. Out of the said three vacancies, one was reserved for a candidate from the Scheduled Castes category. It appears that in the vacancies for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, 48 applications were received and on the basis of preliminary scrutiny, 11 candidates were short-listed and called for interview on 9.3.2004. Both, Shri N. Baskaran and Shri V. Ranganathan, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.41237/2005, were among the 11 candidates who were called for the interview. Apparently, based on his performance in the interview, Shri N. 4 Baskaran was selected for the post as per the Selection List published on 16.7.2004. It is thereafter that Shri V. Ranganathan filed the above-mentioned O.A.No.689 of 2004 before the Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 7.12.2005, allowed the Original Application and also directed the official respondents to appoint the Applicant as the Principal of the concerned Higher Secondary School. Aggrieved thereby, Shri N. Baskaran challenged such selection in Writ Petition No.41237 of 2005.

6. The Tribunal rejected the contentions made on behalf of Shri Baskaran and allowed the application filed by the Petitioner herein and directed the concerned respondents to appoint him as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.41237 of 2005 and the UPSC filed Writ Petition No.10771 of 2006.

15. However, what is of cardinal importance is the fact that from the selection list produced by the U.P.S.C., it will be seen that the Petitioner herein had been placed at rank No.10 in the reserve list and even in the reserve list there were three more candidates placed above him. Considering the same, in agreement with the views expressed by the High Court, we are also not inclined to interfere 14 with the order impugned and the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
Rajesh Kagra & Ors vs State Of M.P.& Ors

4. For the purpose of disposal of these petitions, we have adverted to the pleadings in Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 3029-3031 of 2009. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein filed the writ petition; praying for correction of their position in the gradation list of Assistant Engineers and after such correction to promote them as Executive Engineers from the date their juniors were promoted. These reliefs were sought for, inter alia, on the ground that respondent nos. 3 to 7 of the writ petition - respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein, were promoted from Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers in excess of their quota and therefore they are juniors to them. Petitioners 4 herein are down below them in gradation list and undisputedly juniors to both of them. The learned Single Judge by order dated 25th February, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

(3) the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(4) No order as to costs."

9. We are of the opinion that the High Court did not err in holding that petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order and relegating them to the remedy of fresh petitions. In case petitioners seek to take recourse to the remedy of fresh petitions all the contentions raised herein shall remain open.

10. Special Leave Petition(C) No. 30579 of 2009 is against the issuance of notice and declining to pass interim order, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order at this stage.

11. We dismiss all the petitions with the observations aforesaid.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Ram Chandra Agarwal & Ors

By an award dated 22.3.1975, the Special Land Acquisition Officer applied belting system for payment of compensation and fixed market value of the acquired land falling in first belt at Rs.1.03 per sq.ft. For the land falling in the second and the third belt, market value was fixed at 66 paisa per sq.ft. and 33 paisa per sq.ft. respectively. He also awarded Rs.24,687.20 for 3 the trees and existing constructions. The Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow to whom the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') passed an award dated 16.3.1984 whereby market value of the acquired land was substantially enhanced.

After amendment of the Act in 1984, the respondent submitted application dated 21.11.1984 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for payment of additional compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A). He repeated this request by filing another application on 26.6.1991. For the next about 20 years, the Housing Commissioner of the appellant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) exchanged correspondence on the issue of payment of additional compensation to the respondent, which was calculated as Rs.65,56,065/-. However, as the amount was not paid to the respondent, he filed Writ Petition No.8(L/A) of 2001. The High 4 Court took cognizance of the correspondence exchanged between the functionaries of the State and the Housing Commissioner of the appellant and disposed of the writ petition by a rather cryptic order, the last paragraph of which reads as under:

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition filed by the respondent. The parties may file supplementary affidavits within four weeks from today. They shall be free to raise all points/issues before the High Court.

Since the acquisition is of the year 1969, we request the High Court to decide the writ petition within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2010.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Suresh Kumar Sharma

The brief facts of this case, which are relevant to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under :

7. In view of the above we dismiss this appeal. Needless to say that the retiral benefits due to the respondent in accordance with law, will have to be processed expeditiously that is within four months.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab could not distinguish the case of the respondent with the case of 7 S.K.Bhatia and other cases. Consequently, the respondent herein, who has already attained superannuation from service would also be entitled to get pensionary and other benefits due to him in accordance with law. We direct that all the pensionary and other benefits, if any, be given to the respondent within four months from the date of communication of this order. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the State of Punjab to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent. Let the costs be paid within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

23RD SEPTEMBER, 2010
Department Of Telecommunications vs Gujarat Coop.Milk Mkting. Federation ...

2. The respondent was the subscriber of telephone bearing No.40193, in Anand Town installed at the residence of its Managing Director (for convenience we will also refer to the Managing Director as the `subscriber'). The bi-monthly bills in regard to the said telephone were usually around Rs.8500. The appellant served on the respondent the following two bills aggregating to Rs.454,652 :

The huge billing was on account of a large number of international calls known as `party calls' or `sex talk calls' to number 001-4152-085-234 and several calls to 001-4152-085-220/230/236/239.

3. The respondent made a written complaint dated 25.4.1996 after the receipt of the first bill stating that it had been mischievously and unscrupulously billed for large number of international calls made from some other numbers, but shown as having made from its number. It also complained in the said letter that many a time, when the subscriber lifted the telephone for making calls, he used to hear some ongoing talk. The Divisional Engineer of the appellant after verification informed the respondent by letter dated 21.5.1996 that the bills were correct for the following reasons :

4. The respondent filed an administrative appeal to the General Manager, Kheda Telecom District, Nandiad. However as the bills amounts were not paid, the telephone was disconnected on 29.5.1996. A writ petition (SCA No.4188/1996) filed by the respondent was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 29.7.1997 directing the General Manager of the appellant to examine the appeal filed by the respondent in regard to the bills in question and render a reasoned order after giving a hearing to the respondent. After hearing, the General Manager, Kheda Telecom District, Nadiad made an order dated 12.2.1998 rejecting the appeal and confirming the demands under the two bills, for the following reasons: (i) The subscriber had not made use of the STD/ISD dynamic locking facility which was available through a sophisticated electronic exchange; (ii) all rooms in the residence of the subscriber had plug/socket arrangements and all family members and visitors could use the parallel lines for making ISD calls (in particular `party line calls') even without the knowledge of the subscriber; (iii) the possibility of any external misuse was ruled out as the Distribution Point Box was located within the campus premises of the respondent which was under

6. The Arbitrator after hearing made an award dated 4.5.2000 holding that the bills were proper and the respondent had to make complete payment of the said bills. The following summary of the reasoned award is extracted below:

Reference to CBI is not a condition precedent for raising a bill, merely because the subscriber demands it.

16. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the bills.
A.P.State Trading Corp.Ltd vs M/S G.V.Malla Reddy & Co

2. The arbitrator made an award dated 6.7.1991 allowing claims 1 to 8, 11 and 12 (Note: claims 1,2 and 5 were allowed only in part) and disallowing claims 9, 13 to 20 of the respondent. The arbitrator also granted interest from 10.3.1989 to 6.1.1990 and from the date of award to date of decree at 18% per annum. On the award being challenged, the Civil Court, by judgment dated 19.2.2001 set aside the award on claims 5, 6 and 8. The Civil Court limited the interest awarded (for the periods 10.3.1989 to 6.1.1990 and from date of awarded to date of decree) only in regard to amounts awarded under claims 1 to 4 and 7 and made the award a rule of the Court with further interest at 18% per annum from the date of decree to date of payment on the amounts allowed under claims 1 to 4 and 7. Both respondent .....2.

and the appellant challenged the decision of the Civil Court. The High Court, by impugned order dated 30.12.2009, dismissed the appeal and revision filed by the appellant. It allowed the appeal and revision filed by the respondent in part and held that the respondent is entitled to interest from the date of reference to date of award. In other words, in view of the judgment of the High Court, the interest is payable pendente lite and in future at 18% per annum. The said judgment is challenged in these appeals by special leave.

4. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed in part and the interest awarded is reduced from 18% to 9% per annum. In all other respects, the judgment of the Civil Court as modified by the High Court is upheld.
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

2. Arvind Kumar Mishra - appellant - a student of engineering final year at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B.I.T.) at the time of accident was seriously injured as a result of a truck bearing registration No. DEG 3291 being negligently driven on June 23, 1993. The truck coming from the opposite direction hit the motorcycle and the appellant riding the motorcycle was thrown on the road. He sustained multiple injuries; diffused multifocal damage of brain with interventricular hemorrhage; optic atrophy in right eye and 3+ relative afferent papillary in left eye; amputation of right hand distal to carpometacarpal joint level; compound fracture of shaft of tibia (left); total bronchial plexus palsy; blocking of anterior wall of the trachea at the level of the 3rd and 4th cartilaginous rings and disfiguration. He was treated by several doctors at various hospitals namely, R.M.C.H, Ranchi, C.C.L .Hospital, Gandhinagar, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore and Shankar Netralaya, Madras. He had to undergo few surgical operations. After a little recovery, he made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the 1988 Act') claiming total compensation in the sum of Rs. 22 lakhs which included the expenditure already incurred by him up to that time to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- for his 2 treatment.

3. The offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (`the insurer'). The owner as well as insurer contested the claim petition. The appellant passed out Bachelor of Engineering during the pendency of the claim petition. He examined himself and tendered some of the doctors who treated him in evidence. The vouchers of the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment at various hospitals were also produced.

4. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi (for short `the Tribunal') in its award dated December 19, 2002 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. DEG 3291. It also held that the owner of the vehicle and the insurer were liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal allowed the total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from August 7, 2002 by considering the matter as follows:

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the High Court in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 9,06,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to 9% simple interest per annum on the enhanced amount from August 7, 2002 until the date of actual payment. The appellant shall also be entitled to the costs of this appeal which we quantify at Rs. 15,000/-.
State Of Assam vs Union Of India & Ors.Etc

and order in WA No. 535/2001 and other connected appeals and also the dismissal of the Review Petition No. 124/2006 by the Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati, is before us in these appeals.

3) The factual matrix in brief is as under :

11) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench, a Review Petition was filed by the State of Assam, inter alia, on the ground, that they were not heard before an adverse order was passed against them. By an innocuous order, the Division Bench has dismissed the same. Hence the State of Assam is before us, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court in the said Writ Appeals and also against the dismissal of the Review Petition.

22) In light of the above findings, we have no other alternative except to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for de-novo hearing.

27) In view of the above, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court and remand the matter to the High Court with a request to dispose of the appeals as early as possible, at any rate, within six months from today after ensuring that proper parties are impleaded. During the interregnum, we direct the State Government to pay the minimum wages under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, as notified in their official Gazette to the private respondents. Liberty is reserved to all the parties to raise all such contentions which are available to them including the contentions raised before this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL ) NOS. 6432-6446 OF 2008 State of Assam .. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. Etc. .. Respondent(s) DATE : 30/09/2010 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

[ Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file ]
V.Ramakrishna Rao vs Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. & Anr

3. On a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties fixed market value of category I land at Rs.10,000/- per acre and of category II land at Rs.9,500/- per acre. This did not satisfy the land owners, who filed Appeal Suit No.978 of 1990 in the High Court, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to the land owners. The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of the two categories of land at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively. The appeals filed by the parties against the fresh determination of market value by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court. 3

4. The appellant who had not invoked Section 18 of the Act filed an application under Section 28A(1) for payment of enhanced compensation at par with other land owners, at whose instance reference was made by the Collector. By an order dated 31.12.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer held that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation at par with other land owners. On the same day, the appellant filed an application under Section 28A(3) of the Act for making a reference to the Court for fixing the fair market value of the acquired land by asserting that he was accepting the amount of compensation under protest. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to Collector, Karimnagar, who accorded permission for making a reference to the Court. Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer sent communication dated 2.6.2000 to the Reference Court for fixing the fair market value of the appellant's land.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and it is held that the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) is maintainable. However, the Court before which O.P. No.31 of 2000 is pending shall pass appropriate order only after and in terms of judgment of Appeal Suit Nos.688 and 1643 of 2001 by the High Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

.....J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly] New Delhi October 5, 2010.