L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd

2. The petitioner alleges that the respondent entered into an agreement dated 28.2.2005, agreeing to purchase from the petitioner 40,000 MT (plus or minus 10%) of iron-ore fines at FOB price of US$ 50 per dry MT, subject to the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Clause 17 of the said agreement providing for settlement of disputes by arbitration is extracted below :

3. The petitioner alleges that respondent failed to nominate the vessel in terms of the contract in spite of several reminders and ultimately refused to take delivery of the cargo; that in view of breach by the respondent, the petitioner had to sell the cargo at Rs.1010/- per MT (as against the contract price of Rs.2190/-) incurring a loss of Rs.1180/- per MT; that it had to incur storage charges for storing the cargo for more than five months; that it had to incur freight charges for moving a part of the cargo from Karwar Port to Mangalore Port; that the amount invested in the cargo was locked up for considerable period involving loss of interest on the value; and that as a consequence, respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,50,57,488/- (= US $26,27,568). The alleged refusal/repudiation by the respondent gave rise to a dispute and the petitioner by a notice dated 21.9.2005 through counsel, invoked the arbitration agreement and furnished a panel of three names to enable the respondent to give concurrence for appointment of any one of them as the sole arbitrator. The respondent sent a reply refusing to comply. This led to the filing of the present application under section 11(5) of the Act, seeking appointment of the sole arbitrator.

4. The respondent has resisted the petition. The contentions of respondent in brief are :

Conclusion

10. As none of the objections of the respondent has any merit, this petition deserves to be allowed.

12. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. Let this matter be listed on 24.5.2007 for appointment of the Arbitrator. The parties may also, if possible, suggest the name of a person finding mutual acceptance, by that date for appointment as arbitrator.
Commissioner Of Customs Kolkata vs M/S. Peerless Consultancy Services ...

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

3. The Respondent Company which is engaged in the business of computerized printing exported for the first time consignments of steel balls of a total declared value at Rs.14.63 crores to one M/s. Ria Multiple Enterprises of Malaysia under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (in short the 'DEPB') Scheme. Incidentally, the consignee is also a dealer of computer and information technology based products who also acts as General Insurance Agent. Exports were made under DEPB scheme and a claim of Rs.3.20 crores was made.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid materials the Commissioner recorded the following findings:

11. He accordingly confirmed the demand made in the Show Cause Notice.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. We express no opinion on the merits of the case.
Byvarapu Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

PW15 took up investigation. By the time he went to Chagallu Police Station, both the accused were present in the police station. Thereafter Al led him and the mediators to the "Makamshed" of Viswanadham and produced the bloodstained knife, bloodstained T-Shirt and Lungi and they were seized under Ex.P3. PW15 prepared Ex.P4 observation report and seized M.Os. 7 and 8 (control earth and bloodstained earth). Thereafter he visited the place where the dead body was found lying and declaration report was drafted. At that place, he seized bloodstained earth and control earth. Thereafter he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. in the presence of PWI and another and examined the witnesses. After inquest, the dead body was sent to post mortem examination. PW10 conducted autopsy and found 13 injuries. He opined that the deceased died of shock due to hemorrhage on account of injury to vital organs. After completion of investigation, PW15 filed a charge sheet. To support the case of the prosecution, it examined 15 witnesses and marked 21 documents besides the case properties M.Os.1 to 11. Accused persons pleaded innocence.

3. Considering the evidence on record the trial Court ordered conviction and sentence as afore-stated. In appeal before the High Court A-2 i.e. mother of the accused was found not guilty and it directed her acquittal. However, the conviction and sentence so far as accused-appellant who was separately charged under Section 302 and 201 IPC is concerned was maintained.

8. On the background facts considered in the light of the principles set out above, it is clear that to the present case the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies. Therefore, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. The conviction in terms of Section 201 IPC is well founded and does not warrant interference. In the ultimate conclusion, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent by altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I, IPC. The custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Inderjit Singh

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

3. Respondent made a complaint that though he continued to work as a Carpenter, his services were illegally dispensed with from 30.4.1997 onwards. On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute raised by the respondent was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). By award dated 22.2.2005, the Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal and he was entitled to be re-instated with continuity of service and also was entitled to receive 50% of the back wages. It was further directed that if the amount is not paid to the respondent-workman, he was entitled to interest on the said amount. The reinstatement was directed to be done on the workman reporting for duty.

Management produced several documents to show that the claim was absolutely frivolous. The claim that the workman was working w.e.f. 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997 continuously was without any basis. It was further submitted that Daulat Ram was not officially competent to give any certificate as claimed to have been issued by him. The High Court accepted the claim of the workman that he was continuously working from 31.3.1993 to 30.4.1997. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

9. Above being the position, orders of the Labour Court and the High Court are clearly unsustainable and are set aside. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Block, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT') allowing the appeal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'). By the impugned order, the CEGAT also held that the removal of goods and payment of duty took place between July 1995 to March 1996. The assessee had paid differential duty as worked out by them also in November 1996. In these circumstances, there is no factual basis to the allegation that the assessee suppressed any material facts. Show-cause notice dated 1.6.2000 was issued almost four years after the payment of the differential duty by the assessee, well beyond the normal period allowed for duty demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act'). Demand of duty for longer period upto 5 years is permissible only if the short levy of duty is on account of suppression, mis-declaration of facts, fraud etc. as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. These elements constituting contumacious conduct by the assessee are entirely lacking in the present case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the ground of time bar without going into the merits of the case. It was held that assessee was entitled to return of amount paid by them over and above the differential duty of Rs.67,88,027/- paid on 28.11.1996

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

7. In the aforesaid background, the CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal has to decide whether the benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) is available to be granted. In that regard, we express no opinion. It is stated that the writ petition No.17685/94 is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is for the Tribunal to take note of the decision if any rendered in that petition. The appeal is allowed to that extent. There will be no order as to costs.
M/S. Shakthi Seeds Pvt. Ltd vs Dy. Commnr. (Ct) & Anr

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

15. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to examine the factual aspect, keeping in view the clarificatory memorandum providing alternatives. The parties shall be free to lead fresh evidence. The appellant shall produce evidence to show that the seeds were truthfully labelled. It cannot be said that the authorities cannot require the dealer to satisfy the requirement that the seeds were truthfully labelled. There is no such blanket protection. In order to be satisfied about the acceptability of the claim, they can require the assessee to justify the claim and that it is entitled to the exemption.

16. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no orders as to costs.
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs High Court Of Judicature Of Madhya ...

The Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, Gwalior District, during 1998-1999. He has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"), being aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of 2000, punishing him with simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Factual Background

3. Shri N.K. Tripathi, I.G. of Police, sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior under cover of letter dated 10.11.1999 with a direction to take necessary action. The subject of the letter stated "Regarding conducting an inquiry and taking disciplinary action against Raghuvanshi". The Superintendent of Police (Sri Pradeep Runwaal) in turn forwarded the I.G.'s letter along with the Magistrate's complaint and its enclosures, to the appellant herein who was at that time the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, under cover of letter dated 17.11.1999, with a direction to personally look into the matter and send a detailed report ("Vistrit Teep").

7. The appellant also filed a reply similar to the reply filed by I.G. of Police, with an unconditional apology. The High Court did not, however, accept the appellant's explanation and apology. It framed the following charges against the appellant on 10.11.2000, which according to the High Court amounted to contempt of court:

The High Court by the impugned order dated 2.3.2001 rejected the explanation and held that all three charges were proved and imposed the punishment of seven days' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

20. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is not guilty of contempt of court. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 2.3.2001 in contempt petition No.5 of 2000 and acquit and exonerate the appellant of all charges.
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

3. Information was lodged at Partap Garh police station at about 8.30 p.m. After investigation charge sheet was filed. To further prosecution version 15 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge also examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). Five witnesses resiled from their statements made during investigation. However, considering the evidence on record the trial court found the evidence to be credible and cogent and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused- Gajraj Singh. During trial a plea was taken that the accused was of unsound mind and, therefore, entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC. Same was rejected by trial Court. The High Court also found that the plea regarding applicability of Section 84 IPC was not acceptable. It found that though some of the witnesses stated about the accused suffering from unsoundness of mind, the crucial question was whether at the time of commission of offence the accused was incapable to understand the nature of the act committed by him or suffered from insanity and had to be given protection under Section 84 IPC. The High Court found that Section 84 IPC has correctly been applied.

15. Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.
State Of Rajasthan vs Babu Ram

2. The High Court directed acquittal on the ground that there was non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the Act. Before the High Court though many points were urged, the primary stand was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The High Court accepted that there was non-compliance as alleged. Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and consequential sentence.

However, such information may not necessarily be in writing.

13. In view of the aforesaid judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court, the acquittal, as directed by the High Court, is clearly unsustainable. However, we find that other points were urged in support of the appeal before the High Court, but the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of challenge. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh on grounds other than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which, as noted above, has no application to the facts of the case.

14. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Om Prakash vs State (Nct) Of Delhi

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

5. It is pointed out that the appellant has already suffered custody for more than three months. We direct that a sum of Rs.7,500/-, as fine, be deposited within a period of six weeks from today. The appellant shall move the appropriate Government for commutation of the custodial sentence. On the deposit of the above amount being made within the stipulated time and the appropriate application being made the State Government may consider whether commutation can be done in view of the peculiar facts of the case by passing an appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain on bail.

6. With this end result, the appeal stands disposed of.
Shivanand Mallappa Koti vs The State Of Karnataka

1. In the present appeal, challenge is to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant faced trial along with two others, i.e. his mother and brother for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'D.P. Act'). The trial Court had acquitted the present appellant and his brother of the charges under Section 302 IPC. Latter is described as A-3 while former is referred to as A-2. Mother of the accused (hereinafter referred to as A-1) was separately convicted under Section 302 IPC. The State had also filed an appeal questioning the acquittal, as noted above.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. The High Court found that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the allegations levelled against A-1. It also noted that there was no evidence to show any demand of dowry. Therefore, it directed acquittal of A-1 so far as charges relating to Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act are concerned, but placing reliance on the letters, Ex.P2 to P-4, held the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Interestingly, the conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Section 498-A was held to be not sustainable by the High Court.

11. Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish its accusations so far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned to hold the accused-appellant guilty. The conviction is, accordingly, set aside. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds executed for release of the appellant on bail shall stand discharged.
Commissioner, Prohibition And Excise, ... vs Sharana Gouda

3. The 2nd respondent in the High Court i.e. present appellant no. 2 rejected the request of the respondent for interim custody of the vehicle pending proceeding, by order dated 7.1.1995. Subsequently after obtaining orders from the High Court in writ petition No. 20291 of 1995, dated 17.9.1995 and after furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- the respondent was given custody of the vehicle Subsequently, present appellant no.2 directed confiscation of the vehicle.

10. The appeal is allowed.
Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra & Ors vs State Of West Bengal

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

15. Coming to the question of sentence we find that 8 years sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II. The incident is of the year 1990. Considering this fact and the background in which the occurrence took place, custodial sentence of 6 years would meet the ends of justice.

16. So far as appellant no.3 is concerned, the conviction is in terms of Section 323 read with Section 149 and the sentence is 6 months. It appears from the record that he has already suffered custody of nearly 5 months. Keeping this in view the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

17. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
State Of Rajasthan vs Wakteng

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. This factual narration is found in Ex.P-1O, alleged dying declaration, recorded by Abhey Singh Bhati, SHO, (PW-7) in Surgical Ward of Government Hospital, Banswara on 10th June, 1988 two days after the occurrence.

6. Subsequently, Thanu died on 25.6.1988 and, therefore, offence was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of Ex.P-10, all the accused persons were put under arrest on 11th June, 1988 vide memos Ex.P-12 to P-14. A discloser statement Ex.P-15 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') as given by Dhuliya at 08:00 AM on 2nd June, 1988 by which he wanted to recover 'myan' and 'sword' used in the crime and on the same day, in the presence of attesting witnesses, Bhika (PW5) and Chamna, vide Ex.P-7 Dhuliya made 'sword' along with 'myan' recovered from his residential house, which was seized and sealed then and there. A site plan Ex P-8 was also prepared of the place of recovery. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and charges were framed.

14. Though conviction can be raised solely on the dying declaration without any corroboration the same should not be suffering from any infirmity.

15. While great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lie or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person but the Court has to be careful to ensure that the statement was not the result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of the imagination. It is, therefore, essential that the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, had clear capacity to observe and identify the assailant and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancor. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it is sufficient for the purpose of conviction.

18. Above being the position, the High Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations against the respondent. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
Daya Ram vs Raghunath & Ors

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

Aggrieved by the said order respondent no.1 had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, in which the respondent no.1 took the plea that order passed by the Collector, Maharajganj, is illegal as there was no report called from the Lekhpal and no spot inspection was done. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. In January 2003, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition No.1004/2003 before the High Court. The primary stand taken was that there was delay in filing the application under Section 198 (4) of the Act by the appellant. Initially the High Court issued notice. Appellant filed his counter-affidavit. Learned Single Judge by order dated 11.9.2003 by a practically non-reasoned order allowed the writ petition. The said order is the subject-matter of challenge.

10. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court, remit the matter to it for fresh disposal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chamru @ Bhagwandas Etc.Etc

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents. The Trial Court had found the accused Chamru guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'). He was awarded death penalty for the quadruple murders. Accused Geetabai was awarded life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC along with sentence of fine. They were both sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the other two heads of charge along with various sums of fine. Both accused challenged their conviction and sentence and filed appeals. The Trial Court made a reference to Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short `the Code') for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court found the prosecution version to be not cogent and credible and directed acquittal. It may be noted that there was a gruesome murder of four persons. Two of them were minors. Though the High Court was conscious of this fact, yet, it found the evidence of the witnesses to be not credible and cogent and, patently unreliable and, therefore, directed acquittal.

3. Both accused Chamru and Geetabai went to the house of Ramkishan at the dead of night and Chamru hacked Ramkishan, his wife and children one by one while they were sleeping in their courtyard. Two of the children namely, Keerti (P.W.3) and Bantu (P.W.7) were badly injured, but they could be saved after prolonged hospitalisation. These two children, and Ramkishan's niece Indu Patel (PW-8) who was on a visit to his place, are said to have witnessed the crime.

12. In the ultimate analysis, the judgment of the acquittal passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.