L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation ... vs Sukhveer Singh

2. The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2017.11.10 Appellants- Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989. 16:36:36 IST Reason: On 27th October, 1995 while driving a vehicle on 2 Karnal-Haridwar route, the Respondent did not stop the vehicle when the inspection team signalled. The inspection team had to follow the vehicle which was stopped six kilometres away from where it was signalled to stop. On verification, it was found that 61 passengers were travelling without a ticket. The Respondent was placed under suspension on 31st October, 1995 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of a charge sheet on 3rd November, 1995. The Respondent submitted his explanation after which an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar. After considering the material on record, the inquiry officer found that the charges against the Respondent were proved. The inquiry officer relied upon the admission of the Respondent that though there was a signal by the inspecting team to stop the vehicle at Bidouli, he stopped the vehicle only after driving for two kilometres. The explanation given by the Respondent that he drove the vehicle due to a call given by the conductor was not accepted by the inquiry officer. It was held that the Respondent was duty bound to stop the vehicle when a signal was given by the inspecting team. 3 The inquiry officer further held that the Respondent colluded with the conductor and did not stop the vehicle as there were a number of ticketless passengers in the bus. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 26th December, 1996 along with which the inquiry report was supplied to the Respondent. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Respondent to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service by an order dated 23rd April, 1997. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent on 25th July, 2000.

8. The Respondent contended that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and the irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the conductor. We are in agreement with the findings of the 10 inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority and the labour court that the Respondent had committed the misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre. (See - U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma3).

9. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. No order as to costs.

……................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, November 10, 2017.

3 (2010) 6 SCC 555 at Para 21-23
M/S. Srd Nutrients Pvt.Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cent.Excise, Guwahati

3) It so happened that vide Finance Act, 2004, the Education Cess and Higher Education Cess were also imposed, which are surcharge on the excise duty. These Education Cess and Higher Education Cess were also levied and collected from the manufacturers who had set up their units in the aforesaid areas, along with the excise duty. However, while refunding the excise duty paid by these manufacturers, the Education Cess and the Higher Education Cess that were paid by the manufacturers along therewith were not refunded. The dispute, thus, which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the Education Cess and Higher Education Cess which were paid along with the excise duty was also liable to be refunded along with the central excise duty in terms of the exemption notifications. This is the issue which is common in all these appeals and the factual background in which the matter has travelled up to this Court is also almost the same. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, purpose would be served in tracing the factual events from Civil Appeal Nos. 2781-2790 of 2010. Civil Appeal Nos. 2781-2790 of 2010 & Ors. Page 6 of 27

4) The appellant in these appeals is M/s. SRD Nutrients Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’). It is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Malted Milk Food (Horlicks) using sweetened milk powder since April 12, 2008 and has set up its factory in the State of Assam. This unit is duly registered with the Central Excise Department.

9) It may be pointed out at the outset that in its brief order, the Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’) has taken note of two of its earlier judgments which were relied upon by the appellant. These are :

We would like to reproduce this Circular in its entirety:

Notwithstanding the same, the Circular mentions that the said order of the Tribunal is in consistent with the policy intention of the Government to exempt Education Cess in addition to service tax, ‘whole on service tax’ stands exempted.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2781-2790 of 2010 & Ors. Page 23 of 27

24) For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals and hold that the appellants were entitled to refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess which was paid along with excise duty once the excise duty itself was exempted from levy. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

NOVEMBER 10, 2017 Civil Appeal Nos. 2781-2790 of 2010 & Ors. Page 27 of 27
Jaykrishna Industries Ltd. Through ... vs State Of Maharashtra .

2. The present batch of appeals, between the same parties, arise from a controversy relating to auction settlement by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as “the MHADA”), of a plot of land measuring 10,000 sq. mtrs, located at Powai, in the town of Mumbai. The auction notice published on 17.11.2004, remains inconclusive, mired in litigation. The subsequent developments being relevant are also required to be noticed. The contesting parties, M/s.Popcorn Properties Private Limited and M/s. Jaykrishna Industries Ltd., shall hereinafter be referred to as the Appellant and Respondent for convenience.

4. The Respondent had earlier preferred Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2004 and obtained an order on 23.12.2004 for submission of a higher bid. The Appellant was not a party to the same. The High Court was not apprised that the Appellant’s bid already stood provisionally accepted. Upon being apprised of the correct facts, the order dated 23.12.2004 was recalled which automatically results in revival of the order of acceptance of the appellant’s provisional bid. The High Court wrongly declined to interfere with the order dated 07.05.2005 ordering a fresh tender process for settlement. 3

12. The Respondent has only itself to blame for its woes, based on a conduct that cannot be countenanced in law. It is therefore not entitled to any interest on the deposit made by it which shall be refunded by MHADA within four weeks. The Appellant is found to have been wronged, but must bear part of the blame for laches on its part also. It is therefore held entitled to interest @ 8% on the deposit made by it including the earnest money, only till 24.06.2005, to be paid within six weeks.

13. In the entirety of the matter, all the appeals lack merit and are dismissed.
Kamini Jaiswal vs Union Of India

1. The facts are disturbing in the instant case. By moving two successive petitions, one on Wednesday (8.11.2017) and the other on Thursday (9.11.2017), identically worded similar petitions, one by the Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and the other by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate of this Court, who is a member of CJAR. Both the petitions are identically worded. The petition filed on Wednesday was to be listed on Friday (10.11.2017) before a Bench presided by Hon’ble A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. As stated by Shri Prashant Bhushan, one of the counsel representing the petitioner, the said fact was informed to him by the Registry of the Court on 1 8.11.2017. Learned counsel further states that as the petition had not been listed before same Bench which ordered its listing for Friday, i.e. Court No.2, it became necessary to file the present second petition i.e. W.P. (Crl.) No.176/2017 by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate of this Court.

Communicate this order to the second respondent forthwith.”

7. On 19.9.2017, an FIR was registered against the following persons in connection with the case :

Forum shopping takes several hues and shades and Cipla’s petitions do not fall under any category of forum shopping.

32. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Ratanlal @ Babulal Chunilal Samsuka vs S.G. Samsuka (D) Th.Lrs .

2. A brief reference to the factual matrix necessary for disposal of the case on hand are, late Govardhandas has a brother by name Chunilal Laxmichand who is none other than the father of the 1st defendant/appellant herein. Right from his childhood, appellant used to reside with his paternal uncle Govardhandas. During his life Govardhandas used to carry on business of timber in the name of defendant No. 5 initially and later he inducted into business the appellant and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as partners. After the death of Govardhandas his wife Sundarabai who is the original plaintiff in the suit was also taken as a partner. When the other partners failed to give her share in the business, she issued notice to all the partners to give accounts of 5 th defendant partnership firm and also to pay the amount of her share.

c. The alleged adoption took place one day before the marriage of Asha (daughter of respondent), which casts shadow on the photographs taken during the ceremony.

25. Having regard to the evidence available on record and the circumstances elucidated herein above, the view taken by the High Court, being convincingly reasonable, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the 20 High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Bayanabai Kaware vs Rajendra S/O Baburao Dhote

3) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.

6) The suit land originally belonged to one Housing Co-Operative Society called – “Subhash 2 Nagar Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur” (hereinafter referred to as "Society”). The respondent purchased the suit land from the Society vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.1981 and was, accordingly, placed in possession of the suit land by the Society.

7) In March 1985, it was noticed by the respondent that the appellant had encroached upon the suit land owned by him and erected a kacha hut on one portion of the suit land without any authority. This led the respondent to serve legal notice dated 22.04.1985 on the appellant asking her to remove the hut, which was illegally erected by her on the suit land. Since the appellant did not remove the hut, the respondent filed a suit being Civil Suit No.1210/85 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur against the appellant claiming possession and mesne profits in relation to the suit land.

8) The suit was founded essentially on the allegation, inter alia, that the respondent is the owner of the suit land having purchased the same from the Society by registered sale deed dated 29.12.1981(Ex.P-31). It was alleged that the respondent was placed in possession of the suit land pursuant to the sale deed. It was alleged that the appellant, in March 1985, un-authorisedly entered into the suit land and erected one hut on one portion of the suit land and hence, the suit is filed by the respondent seeking possession of the suit land and also claiming the mesne profits from the appellant.

9) The appellant filed written statement and denied the respondent's claim. According to her, the suit land was allotted to one Dhondiba Lodhi by the Society, who then constructed his house on the land and on his death, his wife - Hirabai became its owner. It was then averred that Hirabai entered 4 into an agreement with the appellant on 22.05.1972 to sell the suit land and pursuant to the agreement, was placed in possession of the suit land. It was averred that since then the appellant continued to remain in possession of the suit land without any interruption from anyone and has accordingly acquired ownership of the suit land by virtue of she being in adverse possession of the suit land. This, in substance, was her defense.

Felt aggrieved, the defendant filed the present appeal by way of special leave against the judgment of the High Court before this Court.

19) We agree with the reasoning of the High Court. In our opinion also, the respondent was able to prove the sale deed and was, therefore, rightly held entitled to claim decree for possession of the suit land on the strength of the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 (Ex.P-31) against the appellant.

23) This being the only point involved in the case and the same having been answered against the appellant, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.

November 23, 2017 1
Yash Vardhan Mall vs Tejash Doshi

A Will was executed by Smt. Shrutika Doshi on 01.03.2013 by which she appointed her husband, the sole Respondent herein, as the executor and trustee. Her minor daughters were made the beneficiaries. It was mentioned in the Will that in case the Respondent is unable to carry out or act as the sole executor by giving effect to the Will and testament, the Appellant shall become the sole executor. The Will dated 01.03.2013 was registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance at Calcutta on 25.05.2013. Smt. Shrutika Doshi died on 26.05.2013. Another Will 2 executed by Smt. Shrutika Doshi on 22.04.2013 surfaced wherein the Respondent was appointed as the sole executor and in case he is unable to act as the sole executor his father would replace him. As the Respondent did not apply for grant of probate of the Will dated 01.03.2013 for two and half years, the Appellant applied for a probate of the Will. Thereafter, the Respondent filed P.L.A. No.123 of 2016 for grant of probate of the Will dated 22.04.2013 before the High Court at Calcutta. The Appellant filed a caveat on 15.06.2016 and on receipt of a notice of the filing of the P.L.A. No.123 of 2016, the Appellant filed an affidavit in support of the caveat on 10.01.2017. The Respondent filed an application G.A. No.888 of 2017 in P.L.A. No.123 of 2016 for discharge of the Appellant’s caveat.

9. The appeals are allowed and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. No order as to costs.
Vinod Goyal . vs Vishranti City Residents Welfare ...

3. The appellants are partners in the developer firm-M/S Sai Date: 2017.11.29 16:06:28 IST Reason: Apartments and Infrastructure Ltd. which has evolved the plan for setting up residential project and was given licence by the Page No. 1 of 8 CA NO. ...... OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NO. 29919 OF 2016 Government of Punjab to develop the said plotted colony. The developer firm was to provide the basic infrastructure in the colony as per the terms of the allotment agreement executed by the developer firm with its allottees. Since basic amenities were not provided, some of the flat owners who had moved into their flats filed writ petition before the High Court. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 15.09.2015, the High Court directed Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to provide temporary electricity connections to thirty flats and the corporation supplied electricity to thirty houses at the rate of Rs.13/- per unit as per the schedule of tariff notified by PSPCL for temporary domestic connection. The developer applied to PSPCL for getting NOC for permanent electricity connection. The NOC was granted by PSPCL to M/s Sai Apartments and Infrastructure vide its office memo No. 1392 dated 25.03.2014 directing the builder:- (i) to pay an amount of Rs.1,53,89,250/- for developing Local Distribution system; (ii) to deposit cost of Rs. 49,40,149/- which was the cost that would be incurred for erecting separate 5 KM long 11 KV feeder with the requisite cable from the Sub-station Dhakoli feeder.

(ii) What is the approximate cost required for carrying out such incomplete external and internal development?

8. In compliance with the said order dated 06.10.2017, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted status report as to the work completed and the external and internal work that are yet to be completed. The abstract of total cost of development works required to be undertaken in Vishranti City, Zirakpur is estimated as under:-

14. Hence, without going into the merits of the dispute between the parties, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties. This appeal is accordingly allowed. We express no opinion on the merits of the matter. No order as to costs.

November 29, 2017 Page No. 8 of 8
Mohammed Abdulla Khan vs Prakash K.

2. The sole respondent is admittedly the owner of a Kannada Daily Newspaper by name “Jaya Kirana” published from Mangalore, Karnataka. On 16.12.2013, the said newspaper carried a news item containing certain allegations against the appellant herein. According to the appellant, the allegations are highly defamatory in nature.

3. The appellant lodged a report with the Panambur Police, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District on 17.12.2013 against the respondent and another person who was editor of the abovementioned newspaper. Police did not take any action. Thereafter, the appellant filed a private complaint against the respondent and the editor of the abovementioned newspaper before the J.M.F.C.-II, Mangalore in PCR No.24/2014 which eventually came to be numbered as CC No.1252 of 2014. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on 15.04.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2014, the respondent carried the matter in Revision Petition No.219 of 2014 before the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. By the order dated 06.11.2015, the respondent’s revision was dismissed. Respondent further carried the matter in Criminal Petition No.8679 of 2015 to the Karnataka High Court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By an order dated 23.11.2016, the said petition was allowed and the proceedings in CC No.1252 of 2014, insofar as they pertained to the respondent, were quashed.

28. The judgment under appeal cannot be sustained for the reasons indicated above. The same is, therefore, set-aside and the appeal is allowed. The trial court will now proceed with the case in accordance with law.
C.Venkata Swamy vs H.N. Shivanna (D) By Lr. Etc.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.12.04 Even the issue arising in these appeals is a short 16:07:19 IST Reason: 1 one. It would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

3. The appellant is plaintiff in O.S. No. 6640/1996 and defendant in O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 whereas the respondents are defendants in O.S. No. 6640/1996 and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 in the suits out of which these appeals arise.

6. Parties contested the suits and adduced evidence. The Trial Court, by common 2 judgment/decree dated 04.12.2004 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, i.e., O.S. No. 6640/1996 and decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1, i.e., O.S. No. 2150/1992.

5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of 9 both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.”

22. In the light of foregoing discussion, we have no option but to allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra.

23. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from making any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court. The High Court would, therefore, decide the appeals uninfluenced by any of 10 the observations in accordance with law. Since the appeals are quite old, we request the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeals.

24. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside with the aforesaid directions.

……..................................J. [NAVIN SINHA] New Delhi;

December 04, 2017 11
Daulat Singh Rathore vs Rajasthan Housing Board

2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention infra to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.

5) The appellant made an application on 27.12.1982 (Annexure-P-1) to the Board for allotment of one flat to him at Jodhpur under a Scheme called, Middle Income Group "B" category. 2 On 30.05.1983, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.4,600/- as registration amount and then deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 18.09.1993 being first instalment.

6) Thereafter, there arose disputes between the appellant and the Board for sale of the flat which, in the first instance, led to filing of the petition being Writ Petition No.4707/1993 by the appellant in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. By order dated 04.05.1995, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as having rendered infructuous.

7) The appellant then took recourse to two remedies for ventilating his grievance against the Board. He filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 23/2001 in the Court of ADJ(I) at Jodhpur on 02.07.2001 challenging therein the actions of the Board and simultaneously filed a complaint being UTPE No. 207/1998 before the MRTP Commission, New Delhi against the Board.

12) In our opinion, the directions given hereinbelow would balance the equities between the parties and also safeguard their interest in relation to the subject matter of the appeal. The following are the directions:

from the date the said payment was made by the appellant to the Board till the date of execution of sale deed of the flat.

(v) The Board will accordingly work out the price of the flat, as directed above, and inform the appellant.

(vi) If the appellant deposits the entire sale consideration, as directed above, within the time fixed by the Board in the notice sent to the appellant, the Board will execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant and also in favour of appellant's first blood relation jointly along with the appellant, in case, the appellant expresses his wish to allow any of his blood relation to join with him as co-owner in execution of the sale deed. It is because it was stated at the bar that the appellant is now quite aged. This liberty is, therefore, granted to the appellant.

(vii) If the appellant fails to pay the price within the time fixed by the Board then a sum of Rs.19,600/- deposited by the 7 appellant with the Board shall stand forfeited.

(viii) Let all the formalities, as directed above, be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment by the parties under intimation to both as an outer limit to give quietus to this litigation with no claim of any kind surviving against both the parties for future.

13) In view of foregoing directions, we do not consider it necessary to examine the legal issues arising in the case.

14) The appeal stands disposed of finally.

December 04, 2017 8