L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Muni Reddy vs C.Nagaraju

2. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in   the   appeal,   it   is   necessary   to   set   out   few   facts infra.

5. The   appellants   (plaintiffs)   felt   aggrieved   and filed   first   appeal   (R.A.   No.   18/97)   in   the   Court   of 2 District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Bangalore   Rural District.   By   judgment   dated   02.08.2001,   the   first Appellate   Court   dismissed   the   appeal   and   upheld the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.

6. The appellants pursued the matter further and filed   second   appeal   in   the   High   Court   being R.S.A.No.804/2001.   Subsequently,   the   parties compromised   the   matter   and,   therefore,   the   High Court   (Single   Judge)   by   order   dated   10.04.2002 disposed   of   the   appeal   in   terms   of   compromise arrived at between the parties.

The appeals are allowed accordingly.”

11. Having thus observed, the High Court did not consider it necessary to examine the genuineness of the compromise petition impugned by defendant No. 2   in   his   application   dated   23.07.2002   and proceeded   to   decide   the   second   appeal   on   merits and   by   impugned   order   02.01.2008   dismissed   the second appeal.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds   and   is   allowed.   Impugned   order   is   set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the matter afresh as directed above.

20. In   case   the   compromise   is   held   legal   and proper, there will be no need to decide the second appeal on merits. It is for the reason that in such eventuality, the order dated 10.04.2002 disposing of the   second   appeal   in   terms   of   compromise   would continue to hold the field as being legal and proper.

21. However, if the compromise is held illegal, the order dated 10.04.2002 will stand set aside.   As a consequence thereof, the second appeal will revive for being heard on merits. The High Court  will then 11 proceed   to   decide   the   second   appeal   on   merits   in accordance with law.
Achpal @ Ramswaroop vs The State Of Rajasthan

3. FIR No.16 of 2018 was registered on 24.03.2018 with Police Station Baharwanda Kalan, Distt. Sawai Madhopur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 452, 336, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian 2 Penal Code against 18 persons. The appellants were named as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in said crime and came to be arrested on 08.04.2018. They were subsequently remanded to police/magisterial custody from time to time.

5. Since the appellants had been in custody from 08.04.2018, the investigation, in terms of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for Short) had to be completed by 07.07.2018. On 05.07.2018 a report under Section 173 of the Code was filed by the police before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Since said report was filed by a police 3 officer lower in rank than an ASP and was thus contrary to the order passed by the High Court on 03.07.2018, an application was filed by the complainant placing certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2018. The Magistrate having noted the contents of said order, returned the charge- sheet with certified copy of the order dated 03.07.2018 to the police for due compliance. Thus as on the expiry of 90 th day i.e. on 07.07.2018 no report under Section 173 of the Code was on record with the Magistrate.

In our considered view the accused having shown their willingness to be admitted to the benefits of bail and having filed an appropriate application, an indefeasible right did accrue in their favour.

20. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct that the appellants are entitled to be admitted to bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code on such conditions as the trial Court may deem appropriate. The matter shall be immediately placed before the trial court upon receipt of copy of this Judgment. We also add that in terms of conclusions arrived at in the majority Judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), there would be no prohibition for arrest or re-arrest of the appellants on cogent grounds and in such eventuality, the appellants would be entitled to petition for grant of regular bail.

Para 86 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Deepak Gupta 18

21. The appeal thus stands allowed.
Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Limited vs Bhagirath Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in   these   appeals,   few   facts   need   mention hereinbelow.

3) The   appellant   is   a   Co­operative   Bank   having their area of operation in District Sikar in the State of   Rajasthan.   The   respondent­Bhagirath   Singh (since   dead   and   now   represented   by   his   legal representatives)   was   appointed   by   the   appellant­ Bank   on   17.09.1975   on   the   post   of   Clerk.   The appellant,   however,   terminated   the   services   of   the respondent by order dated 28.03.1979. 2

4) Late   Bhagirath   Singh   felt   aggrieved   by   his termination   approached   to   the   State   Government and   prayed   for   making   on   Industrial   Reference   to the   Labour   Court   to   decide   the   legality   and correctness of his termination from the services.

5) The State Government acceded to his request and   made   Reference   to   the   Labour   Court,   Jaipur under   Section   10   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act, 1947   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   ID   Act’)   on 09.04.1980.   The   Labour   Court   entertained   the Reference   and   called upon  the  parties to file their respective statements. Parties accordingly filed their statements.

10) In our opinion, the need to remand the case to the   Division   Bench   has   occasioned   because,   as urged   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant (Bank),  the  Division Bench allowed the employee’s appeal without hearing the Bank.

13) In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeals succeed   and   are   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned orders   are   set  aside. The case is remanded to the Division Bench  for deciding the writ appeal out of which   these   appeals   arise   afresh   on   merits   in accordance with law. Needless to say, the appellant­ Bank   would   be   entitled   to   raise   all   pleas   in   their appeal before the High Court while prosecuting the appeal.

September 24, 2018  9
Shri Ambadevi Sanstha vs Joint Charity Commissioner

6. It   was   contended   on   behalf   of   respondents   that   permission   was granted to sell properties in the interest of the Trust as the Trust was not having proper income.  The land is situated at a distance of 25 kms from Amravati.  Three out of four lands are situated about 5 kms away 4 from   the   locality   of   Khar   Talegaon.     The   Trust   wanted   to   construct   a hospital.  The Trust was in dire need of money and had decided to invite tenders on 1.6.1994 by advertisement for the sale of land and only one offer from Mr. Naresh Laxmanrao Bhatkar was received for purchase of land   admeasuring   15   acres   15   gunthas   at   Chandpur   at   the   rate   of Rs.4,500/­ per acre.   However, the said offer was not accepted by the Trust in the meeting dated 9.8.1994.  Thereafter, second advertisement was   published   in   the   local   newspapers   in   November   and   December, 1994.  Varying offers for land between Rs.6,000/­ to Rs.9,000/­ per acre were received.  Late Mr. Jaikishore Karwa submitted offer of Rs.7,651/­ per   acre   for   purchase   of   the   entire   land   of   the   Trust  i.e.,   63   acres   4 gunthas,   whereas   the   offer  of   Mr.   M.K.   Lakde   was   for  Rs.9,000/­  per acre for certain piece of land i.e., 11 acres 28 gunthas.  The offer of Late Mr. Jaikishore Karwa, husband of respondent no.2­Smt. Tarabai, was accepted. The entire land was sold as indicated by Mr. Jaikishore Karwa in   the   names   of   several   persons.   The   Trust   in   its   meeting   dated 13.3.1995 passed a resolution and accepted earnest money also.

21. In view of the above, we direct the Trust not to fritter away with the properties in the manner in which it has been done.  In future also, let the properties of the Trust and its legacy be protected and guarded and it   should   not   be   sold   away   in   the   manner   as   has   been   done   in   the present case.   We allow the civil appeals and set aside the judgments and   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   that   of   the   Joint   Charity Commissioner.  Transactions of sale are annulled.
State Of Kerala vs Joseph

2) In   order   to   appreciate   the   short   controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out few facts hereinbelow.

(ii) any forest not owned by the Government, to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests   Act,   1949,   did   not   apply,   including waste   lands   which   are   enclaves   within wooded areas.

(2) in relation to the remaining areas in the State of Kerala, any forest not owned by the Government, including waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas.”

21) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.

26) The   appeal   thus   fails   and   is   accordingly dismissed.

September 25, 2018  17
Punjab Urban Plann. vs Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia .

2. Facts   of   the   case  and  the  issue  involved  in  the appeal lie in a narrow compass as would be clear from the narration of the facts stated infra.

4. The   respondents   purchased   one   plot   on 12.08.1998   bearing   No.   795   Phase   ­I   Urban   Estate Patiala from the appellant­Authority pursuant to one scheme for the construction of their residential house. The respondents, after purchase, ensured compliance of   all   necessary   formalities   and   started   construction work   on   the   plot.   The   construction   work   had   to   be stopped   by   the   respondents   at   the   instance   of   the appellant half way.

7. The respondents inter alia complained that it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Authority as a result of which the respondents had to suffer losses, but for no fault of theirs and, therefore, they are entitled to claim the aforementioned monetary claim   under   specified   heads   from   the   Authority (appellant   No.1   herein).   The   appellant­Authority contested the complaint.

13. All the three forums categorically, on facts, held that the respondents were never at fault at any stage after purchasing the plot from the appellant­ Authority but   it   was   the   Authority,   who   was   at   fault   due   to 5 which the respondents caused loss, inconvenience and mental   harassment   while   completing   construction   of their   residential   house   on   the   plot   which   remained incomplete for more than one year.

9. The   appellant   felt   aggrieved   and   filed   appeal before the State forum. The appeal was dismissed and, therefore, they filed revision before the National forum. By impugned order, the National forum also dismissed the   revision  and   confirmed the orders passed by the 4 District  and   State  forum  which  gives  rise to  filing  of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

16. Once the three forums, on facts, held against the appellant­Authority (a finding quoted above), then we are   not   inclined   to   go   into   any   issue   which,   even otherwise, does not arise for consideration.

17. In the light of   the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed   with   costs   quantified   at   Rs.10,000/­ payable by the appellant­Authority to the respondents.

September 25, 2018  7
P.Radha Bai vs P.Ashok Kumar

3. The facts which give rise to this question fall into a narrow compass.   Originally   one   Mr.   P.   Kishan   Lal   carried   on business   and   acquired   several   properties.     On   his   death, Mr.   P.   Kishan   Lal   was   survived   by   eight   (8)   legal   heirs (Appellant Nos. 1 to 6 and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2).

5. On 18.02.2010, the arbitrators passed a unanimous Award providing for the division of properties and businesses. The parties   received   the   Award   on   21.02.2010.     There   is   no dispute on the receipt of the Award by the parties.

6. The Respondents allege that after the pronouncement of the award,   the   Appellants   in   bad   faith   entered   into   a Memorandum   of   Understanding   (MoU)   with   the 2 Respondents. According to the Respondents, the Appellants agreed   to  give   certain  additional  properties to  Respondent No.   1,   which   were   more   than   what   were   provided   in   the Award. The Respondents alleged that after entering into the MoU,   the   Appellants   were   required   to   execute   Gift   and Release   Deeds   to   give   effect   to   the   MoU.   However,   the Appellants   delayed   the   execution   of   the   Gift   and   Release Deeds as contemplated by the MoU.

(emphasis added)

51. In   light   of   the   aforesaid   legal   position,   the   judgment   and order of the High court dated 18.06.2012, in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2151, 2246, 2383 and 2458 of 2012 are set­ aside,   and   also   the   order   allowing   I.A.   No.   598   of   2011 condoning the delay of 236 days in filing the objections is set   aside,   accordingly   these   appeals   are   allowed   with   no order as to costs.
Lok Prahari vs Election Commission Of India

2 An erstwhile member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Uttar Pradesh was convicted of offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment. In appeal, the District Court stayed the execution of the sentence and of the conviction.

(ii) imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.] (2) A person convicted for the contravention of—

(c) any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 6 [1961 (28 of 1961);], and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.] (3) A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.]” 5 It has been contended by the petitioner that there is no provision in the Constitution or in the Representation of the People Act 1951 to the effect that upon a subsequent stay of conviction by the appellate or revisional court, the disqualification shall stand wiped out retrospectively and that the membership of a convicted Member of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Council shall get revived despite the vacancy having occurred from the date of conviction. It has been urged that in the absence of any constitutional or statutory provision, stay of 6 conviction can only operate prospectively to enable a person to contest an election again since membership of the legislature terminates instantly from the date of conviction.

16 No such direction can be issued by the Secretary in the Department of Justice to the Registrars General of the High Courts. Moreover, following the implementation of the e-courts project, certified copies of judgments are made available across all courts in a streamlined manner. The affidavit filed by the Election Commission of India indicates that the Commission has already issued instructions on 13 October 2015 to the Chief Secretaries of all states to ensure that necessary steps are taken to bring to the notice of the Speaker or Chairman as the case may be of the House and the Chief Electoral Officer of the state, an order of conviction within a period of seven days of the passing of the order. The Election Commission is sufficiently empowered to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. No further directions are necessary in that regard.

15 17 The writ petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. Pending application, if any, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

…….................................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] ….……...............................................J [A M KHANWILKAR] …......................................................J [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] New Delhi;

September 26, 2018.
Hiya Associates vs Nakshatra Properties Pvt. Ltd.

10) The defendants (appellants) filed their reply and raised   several   objections   on   facts   and   law   including maintainability of the execution application. By order dated   28.10.2015,   the   Executing   Court   overruled   all the   objections   on   merits   and,   in   consequence,   held that   the   execution   application   filed   by   the   plaintiff (respondent)   is   maintainable   in   law   and   the   consent decree is, therefore, executable against the defendants (appellants).   The   Executing  Court, therefore, directed issuance   of   warrant   of   possession   against   the defendants   (appellants)   in   relation   to   the   suit premises.

11) The   defendants   (appellants)   felt   aggrieved   and filed   revision   before   the   Small   Causes   Court   at 5 Mumbai.   The   Revisionary   Court,   by   order   dated 26.09.2016,   allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Executing Court and remanded the case to the Executing Court for deciding the   objection   raised   by   the   defendants(appellants) against   the   execution   application   afresh   on   merits. One   of   the   reasons   to   remand   the   case   to   the Executing   Court   was   that   the   Revisionary   Court allowed   the   defendants   (appellants)   to   file   additional documents (Ex.22), which they had filed for the first time in the revision petition.

19) Second error committed by the Revisionary Court was   that   it   allowed   the   defendants   (revision 9 petitioners)   to   file   additional   documents   (Ex.22)   to prove their case.

22) It is due to these two aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Revisionary Court is not legally sustainable.

25) It is  for  these reasons, we consider it proper to set aside the impugned order and also the order of the Revisionary   Court   and   remand   the   case   to   the Revisionary   Court   to   decide   the   defendants’ (appellants’)   revision   afresh   on   merits   in   accordance with law.

28) The   appeals   thus   succeed   and   are   accordingly allowed in part.  Impugned order and the order of the Revisionary   Court   are   set   aside   and   the   case   is remanded   to   the   Revisionary   Court   to   decide   the defendants’ (appellants’) revision (No.333/2015) afresh on its merits in accordance with law.

29) Since   the   matter   is   an   old   one,   we   direct   the Revisionary   Court   to   decide   the   revision   within   six months as an outer limit.

September 26, 2018  14
Padmini Singha vs The State Of Assam

2. On 17.03.2014, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar sent a communication to the BDO, Borkhola Development Block which is as follows:-

3. In compliance of the above communication, on 21.03.2014, the BDO wrote to the President, Masughat Gaon Panchayat informing her to attend the special meeting of No Confidence to be convened on 31.03.2014 at 12:30 p.m. in the office of the BDO. On 31.03.2014, the meeting was presided over by BDO. In the meeting, nine members cast their votes in favour of the No Confidence Motion and one member cast vote against the No Confidence Motion. Thus, the President, respondent no. 6 herein, lost her Presidentship and the Vice President, appellant herein, was directed to function as incharge President of the concerned Panchayat for the time being. 4

In case the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, within the specified seven days time, the concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall inform the matter to the Deputy 7 Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as the case may be within three days after the expiry of the stipulated seven days time and the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of the receipt of the information with intimation to the Zilla Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat and preside over the meeting so convened :

Confidence Motion. As a result of which Rita Rani Dusad, President, Masughat G.P. lost her Presidentship and as per Act, Vice President Masughat G.P. will act and perform and function as i/c, President, Masughat G.P. for the time being.”

14. In view of the aforesaid premises, the appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench are set aside. The resolution passed against the respondent no. 6 is treated as valid. The competent authority is directed to carry out the consequences of the resolution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

September 27, 2018
Dalip Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Ram Kishan (D) Thr. Lr.

The   appellants   herein   are   the   original   defendants. Respondent no.1 in this appeal, namely, Ram Kishan (now dead and represented through his legal heir) filed a suit for possession as the owner of the 1/3rd  share of the suit property against the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein).  The trial Court  decreed   the   suit.     The  first  appellate  Court  reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court 1 and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.  Consequently, the suit came to be decreed by the High Court.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

9. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] 7
Ministry Of Ayush vs Dr. Vanitha R

Notice for the purposes of holding an election for the post of President was issued on 27.2.2017 by the Returning Officer/Secretary of CCIM. On 14.3.2017, the election was held in which the respondent No.1, namely, Dr.Vanitha R. was elected as the President. Vd. Raghunandan Sharma, Jaipur 2 filed representation on 18.4.2017 to the Government, Ministry of Ayush as to tenure for which election was held. It was decided on 24.8.2017 by the said Ministry and representation was rejected on the ground that the provision under Section 7 (3) of the Act of 1970 is applicable to Members only and not for the President and for Vice President. Thereafter, the Ministry had taken opinion from the Law Department and the fresh order came to be passed on 8.3.2018 in which it was observed that, the election for the post of President was held for the remainder period available to the erstwhile Member from Uttarakhand, to hold the said office which came to an end on 4.7.2017. As such, a fresh election for the post of President was required to be held.

The order of the rotation shall be as below:

Resultantly, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. We also hold that election for President held on 23.3.2018 is legal and valid. Let the result be declared after counting of the votes in accordance with law, within a period of ten days. Since we have decided the matter, any order of stay passed by any court on declaration of results shall cease to be operative and shall not come in the way of declaration of result.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. 12