L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Ramji Rai & Another vs Jagdish Mallah (Dead) Through L.Rs.& ...

Plaintiff (appellant no.1 herein) instituted Civil Suit No.202/77 for permanent injunction in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate-VII, Ballia, against defendants-respondents. In the said suit appellant sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the land in dispute or from raising boundary wall. In the suit it was alleged that the appellants owned a house from the time of their ancestors; that their sehan was towards the south of the said house; that the said sehan was in their possession even prior to the enactment of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; and that their cattle, palanis and troughs etc. existed on the said land which was utilized by the appellants for different household purposes. The appellants further alleged that the disputed land was unbounded and that they had started construction of the boundary wall after leaving a small passage between their house and the sehan. The appellants further stated that they could not complete the boundary wall as they had to go to Bombay where they were employed; that when they came back from Bombay to the village they started the work of reconstruction which was obstructed by the respondents and, therefore, they were compelled to file the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the land in dispute as also from interfering in the construction of the boundary wall.

Aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the lower appellate court, the appellants carried the matter in second appeal to the High Court. By the impugned judgment, Second Appeal No.2839 of 1981 was dismissed on 2.4.2004. Hence this civil appeal.
Avtar Singh And Ors vs Gurdial Singh And Ors

Suit No. 283-T93/12.9.91 was filed by the respondents herein. Suit No. 28T/98/8.10.91 was filed by the appellants herein. Whereas the respondents filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellants herein filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defedants from interfering or dis-possessing them from the suit land, the description whereof was given and whereafter a site plan was filed. Whereas the suits of the respondents were dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Suit of the appellants was decreed.

For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Salim Sahab vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation. It was directed that if the deposit is made, same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Though the trial court had convicted the appellant in terms of Section 324 IPC and imposed sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations, the same was set aside by the High Court.

On the same day at about 8.30 PM, while Sheikh Qadir (PW-1) and his brother-in-law Saleem (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') were in their house, the accused approached and started abusing and threatening them. The deceased resented the conduct of the accused and turned him out of the house. The accused objected to the intervention by the deceased and started grappling with him. While grappling with deceased Saleem, accused took out a pair of scissors, with which he assaulted the deceased in his abdomen and chest with the result the deceased fell down unconscious, and there was profuse bleeding from his wounds. The incident was also witnessed by Gopichand. Accused Salim after assaulting the deceased, tried to run away from the place of the incident, but was caught by Pyara Saheb (PW-2). Accused assaulted Pyara Saheb also, and extricated himself. Deceased was taken to the Hospital for treatment, but on way he succumbed to his injuries.

1). The inquest report was prepared and Pyara Saheb (PW-2) was sent for medical examination. After completion of the investigation, including seizure of the weapon of offence vide seizure-memo (Ex.P/9) and referring the seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, the charge-sheet was filed and the accused was prosecuted.

The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused

In view of the factual position as noted above the applicable provision would be Section 304 part II IPC and not Section 302 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered. Custodial sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment would suffice.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India

3. This Court opined that there was absolutely no reason why the illegal migrants coming into the State of Assam should be treated differently from those who had migrated to the other parts of the country having regard to the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964 (for short "the 1964 Order").

4. Subsequent to the said decision, instead of implementing the directions therein, the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the 1946 Act made an Order known as "the Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order, 2006" (for short "the 2006 Order"), which was published in the Official Gazette dated 10th February, 2006. On 10th February, 2006, the Central Government amended the 1964 Order principally making the same inapplicable to the State of Assam. Clause 2 of the said Order reads thus:

8. The factual position that obtains is that as on 31st December, 2005, 14,947 cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals functioning in Assam and 29,429 persons who came to Assam between 1st January, 1966 and 24th March, 1971 were identified as foreigners. As far as the Tribunals set up under the IMDT Act were concerned, as on 12th July, 2005, 88,770 cases were pending and 12,846 persons who came into Assam after 25th March, 1971 were declared as illegal migrants.

(i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such other requirement, decide the question in conformity with such finding;

42. For the aforementioned reasons also, in our opinion, the impugned subordinate legislation cannot be sustained as it does not the test of the reasoning in Sonowal I.

45. We therefore allow these Writ Petitions and quash the 2006 order and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order 2006 and direct the respondents to forthwith implement the directions issued by this Court in Sonowal I. No time limit for implementation was fixed in Sonowal I with the hope that the Central Government would implement the directions within a reasonable time. But now that it has not been done and we do not find adequate reasons for justifying the non- implementation of the directions issued in Sonowal I, we direct that the directions issued to the Union of India to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the 1964 Order to effectively deal with the cases of foreigners who have illegally come from Bangladesh or are residing in Assam, be implemented with a period of four months from this date.

46. The Writ Petitions are thus allowed with costs. Counsel's fees assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs Ranjodh Singh & Ors

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21796/2005) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5633/2006 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23775/2005) Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Hoshiarpur .. Appellant Versus Hari Har Yadav & Ors. .. Respondents S.B. Sinha, J.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. Appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Rotash vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.765 of 1999. He was proceeded against for commission of murder along with one Pitram, his brother-in-law. Pitram, accused No. 1 (A.1), Mali Ram, the first informant (P.W.1) and Moosaram are brothers. Mooli Devi is their mother. A First Information Report was lodged at about 9.30 p.m. on 13.10.1996 in relation to an incident which took place at the 'Dhani' of Mali Ram's father, which is situated on Bhudoli Road, whereat, allegedly, the said Pitram committed murder of the said Moosaram at about 8 p.m. on the same day.

P.W.1, in his First Information Report, alleged that he and the deceased carried some household articles from town Neem Ka Thana and went to their father's 'Dhani'. They stopped there, talked to their mother and left for their 'Dhani at Lambawali. When they reached the field of 'Darogas', they heard shouting of their mother, whereupon they started running, sensing that they would be attacked. Moosaram was then attacked by 4-5 persons. It was alleged that Pitram, A.1, his brother, who at the relevant time had been working at Jaisalmer in Border Security Force, having 'bakda' in his hand attacked the deceased, as a result whereof he fell down, whereafter his associates started assaulting him with respective weapons in their hands. Moosaram shouted at his brother to save him. He ran and hid himself in the crops. The accused and his associates searched for him with torches in their hands, but because of shoutings of Moosaram they fled away.

The above discussion in fine thus culminates to the effect that the requirement of statute is sharing the common intention upon being present at the place of occurrence. Mere distancing himself from the scene cannot absolve the accused though the same however depends upon the fact situation of the matter under consideration and no rule steadfast can be laid down therefor."

Applying the legal principles as noticed, we unhesitatingly are of the opinion that common intention on the part of the appellant in committing the crime with Pitram stands established.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge and the High Court have not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Dr. T. A. Quereshi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal

The appellant is an assessee. He is a doctor by profession at a place called 'Garoth' in District Mandsaur. On 18.7.1985, CBI sleuths arrested the appellant while transporting a huge quantity of contraband article (the narcotic drugs heroin) in a Jeep (Jonga) RSO 3592. This led to further raid in his residential premises. In this raid, one clandestine laboratory to manufacture heroin powder along with several contraband drugs was recovered. All these contraband articles were seized and proceedings under the NDPS Act were initiated against the assessee. We are not concerned with these proceedings.

So far as proceedings under the Income Tax Act are concerned, with which we are concerned, the assessee-appellant filed his return for the Assessment Year 1986-87. In this assessment the assessee claimed that since the heroin seized from him forms part of his stock in trade hence its loss on account of seizure is an allowable deduction while computing his profits and gains of business/profession. The Assessment Officer by order dated 28.3.1989 did not accept the contention of the assessee and added a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-, being the assessed value of the heroin seized, as an income from undisclosed source. In appeal filed by assessee the CIT (Appeal) upheld the order of Assessment Officer by his order dated 1.2.1990. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. By its order dated 31.3.1993 the Tribunal reduced the value of the heroin seized to Rs.2 lacs, but refused to deduct this amount from the assessee's income as a business loss, since according to the Tribunal the assessee had not claimed it as a business loss. However, subsequently on an application under Section 254(2) the Tribunal by order dated 26.4.1994 accepted that the assessee had in fact claimed it as a loss, and consequently it recalled its order dated 31.3.1993. Ultimately, the Tribunal by order dated 14.10.1998 allowed the appeal and held that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction as a business loss. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that since the seizure has resulted in loss in trade hence, relying upon the law laid down by this Court in CIT vs. Piara Singh 124 ITR 40, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs.2 lacs out of the gross total income of the assessee. It is against this view of the Tribunal that the revenue felt aggrieved and filed the appeal before the High Court which, as stated above, was admitted for final hearing on the following questions of law:

By the impugned order the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.

We fully agree with the view taken by the Tribunal.

For the reasons given above, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside and the order of the Tribunal stands restored. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar Through Cbi (Ahd) Patna

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5865 of 2005) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5866 of 2005) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.

"228.-Framing of Charge-(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

But where the question of jurisdiction is raised and the trial Court is required to adjudicate that issue, it cannot be said that reasons are not to be recorded. In such a case reasons relate to question of jurisdiction and not necessarily to the issue relating to framing of charge. In such a case reasons dealing with a plea relating to jurisdiction have to be recorded.

In the ultimate, analysis in these appeals is that they are without merit and are dismissed.
Vadla Chandraiah vs State Of A.P

On 17.10.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased Manik Rao, a police constable, was walking down the street. P.W.8 (B.Narasimha) was a vendor of guava. Manik Rao picked up four guavas from his vend but did not pay the price thereof. On being asked to do so, he allegedly said that the same would be paid latter. The appellant together with his son were doing some carpentry work on the same street. Apparently, a quarrel took place between P.W.-8 (B.Narasimha) and the said Manik Rao. The appellant and his son intervened. The quarrel continued for 10-15 minutes. Allegedly, Appellant hacked the deceased Manik Rao with a badze (a heavy sharp axe like instrument used in the carpentry work) causing instantaneous death of the deceased. Appellant together with his son were charged for commission of murder of the said deceased Manik Rao. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined four eye witnesses. P.W.1's (V.Narasimha Rao), presence on the scene however, has been doubted by the learned trial judge. Learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have relied upon P.W.-2 to P.W.-4 (V.Damodar Rao, K.Narayana & Kammeta Anjaiah) to arrive at a conclusion that it was the appellant alone who had caused the aforementioned injuries to the deceased Manik Rao. Accused Nos. 1 and 3, who were the father and brother of the appellant, were acquitted. A principal question which arises for our consideration is to whether in the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant can be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. or under Section 304 Part-II thereof.

Again in Pappu Vs. State of M.P., (2006) 7 SCC 391, this Court reiterated the same legal principle.(See also: Kailash vs. State of M.P., (2006) 9 Scale 681) Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant should be altered from Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part-II thereof. It is stated by the learned counsel that the appellant has continuously been in jail from 17.10.2000 till date. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if we modify the sentence awarded to the appellant as the period already undergone by him. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. ... vs M/S Kiran Combers & Spinners .. ...

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:

However, at the same time M/s Mita Marine surveyor recommended that the insurer carries no responsibility in this case as building collapsed on account of structural defect caused by subsidence which was not covered by policy. A legal notice was issued by the claimant on 4.12.1993 and claim was repudiated on 7.1.1994 by the Company, basing on the report of the second surveyor i.e., M/s Mita Marine. Aggrieved against the repudiation of the claim of the respondent-claimant, an Original Petition No. 74/1994 was filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi claiming the damages as aforesaid.

The report was rebutted by the respondent-complainant by filing rejoinder. The National Commission after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim by the Company is not warranted and they decreed the claim of the complainant to the extend of Rs. 10,13,571.90 as recommended by the second surveyor.

) War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), Civil War.

(d) Burning, whether accidental or otherwise, forest bush and jungles and the clearing of lands by fire.
Sita Devi vs Bihar State Housing Board And Ors

The flats were not constructed within the stipulated period. They were not constructed within a reasonable period even thereafter. The respondent filed an application for refund of the amount on 29.10.1996. The respondent-Board purported to have cancelled the allotment made in favour for the appellant on 30.1.1997. Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court in May, 2000 as his representation of the appellant to the effect that the entire amount should be paid back her had not been acceded to. In the said writ Petition the following prayers were made:

We, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances to this case are of the opinion that at this stage the respondent-Board cannot take recourse to the terms and conditions of allotment or of Clauses (3) of Sub-Rule 36 of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983 in the instant case.

For the reasons aforesaid, we are also of the view that the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate allowed by the learned Single Judge on the entire amount subject to the adjustment of the amount already paid at the rate fixed by the High Court on 27.10.1995.

The appeals is allowed.
Delhi Financial Corporation vs V.P.Puri & Others

7. Subsequently, an application was filed by the DFC, claiming to be a necessary party, praying for its impleadment in the suit. The application was dismissed by the Single Judge, which order was affirmed by the Division Bench in the appeal preferred by DFC. On matter being taken to this Court, vide order dated 16.7.2004, it was felt that for effective settlement of the disputes, DFC was a proper party. DFC's appeal was allowed and it was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. Pursuant whereto, DFC filed its written statement.

8. Thereafter, basing the case on some admissions by the DFC in the written statement, inter alia, as to UOI's tenancy, the rate of rent and determination of tenancy on their notice, the landlords filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC contending that no triable issue having been raised by the DFC they were entitled to a decree of possession forthwith.

15. In view of the above said scenario, we hold that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting interference. Resultantly, subject to the aforenoted direction, the petition is dismissed.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S Kiran Combers & Spinners

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:

However, at the same time M/s Mita Marine surveyor recommended that the insurer carries no responsibility in this case as building collapsed on account of structural defect caused by subsidence which was not covered by policy. A legal notice was issued by the claimant on 4.12.1993 and claim was repudiated on 7.1.1994 by the Company, basing on the report of the second surveyor i.e., M/s Mita Marine. Aggrieved against the repudiation of the claim of the respondent-claimant, an Original Petition No. 74/1994 was filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi claiming the damages as aforesaid.

The report was rebutted by the respondent-complainant by filing rejoinder. The National Commission after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim by the Company is not warranted and they decreed the claim of the complainant to the extend of Rs. 10,13,571.90 as recommended by the second surveyor.

) War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), Civil War.

(d) Burning, whether accidental or otherwise, forest bush and jungles and the clearing of lands by fire.