L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Manohar S/O Shankar Nale And Others vs Jaipalsing S/O Shivlalsing Rajput And ...

3. Shivlalsing, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malkapur. The said suit was marked as Regular Civil Suit No. 250/1965. It was dismissed on 24.12.1968. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed. However, a second appeal filed by the plaintiff-decree holder was allowed upon setting aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the operative portion whereof reads as under :

interest of the appellants herein. The said review petition was dismissed by an Order dated 12.8.1985. Appellants preferred a special leave petition thereagainst before this Court and leave having been granted, the matter was marked as Civil Appeal No. 1836 of 1986.

6. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed as being incompetent by this Court opining that no appeal lay in terms of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejecting a review application.

15. The order of purported stay passed by this Court in terms of its Order dated 21.3.1988 is also of no assistance to the plaintiff-decree holder. The Special Leave Petition was filed only against the Order dated 1.7.1985 refusing to review its judgment and decree dated 2.9.1983. The stay of operation of the Order dated 1.7.1985 for all intent and purport was meaningless as the review petition already stood dismissed.

17. We, therefore, do not see any reason to hold that the said order could be construed to be one passed in favour of the decree holder-respondent as was contended or otherwise.

18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Executing Court as well as the High Court committed a manifest error in opining that the Execution Petition was not barred by limitation. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside with costs. Counsel fee quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Pareshar Soni

2 The facts involved in the special leave petition, in brief, are as follows:

It appears that the Corporation did not pay any heed even to the said notice, and accordingly, by invoking the deeming clause the respondent started construction work on the said property.

4 On 24th May, 1997 the Municipal Corporation raised a demand upon the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,66,874/- by way of conversion charges and compounding fees. The respondent objected to the said demand and filed a representation challenging its validity on the ground that the property in question is nearly 200 years old and reference thereto had been made in a Patta of the year 1865 pertaining to a neighbouring house, showing the property to be a free-hold property. Consequently, according to the respondent, no commercial charges could be levied thereupon. The respondent, however, deposited a sum of Rs.1,619 towards construction fees. As the representation filed by the respondent did not yield any result, the respondent was compelled to file a writ petition before the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, being SBC Writ Petition No.2159 of 1997. The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, which is the petitioner No.2 in the present special leave petition filed its reply contending that Section 173-A of the Act permits the State Government to allow any person to use the land for the purposes other than for which it was originally allotted. It was also contended that the regulation of the areas, markets etc. were all within the compass of the Act and the Patta said to have been issued by the earlier State would also remain subject to the Act. One other stand which was taken before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent/writ petitioner had failed to produce a copy of the Patta for the property in question to indicate the rights and the conditions of usage of the land provided therein. Upon hearing the parties the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 19th July, 1999 dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of non-production of the Patta by the respondent herein.

5 The respondent thereupon filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the aforesaid High Court, being DB (Civil) Special Appeal No.1109/1999. Before the Division Bench the main contention advanced on behalf of the respondent herein was that the property in dispute was a free-hold Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property which was nearly 2 centuries old and at the relevant point of time the erstwhile State had allotted the same on a free-hold basis. Consequently, the provisions of Section 173-A of the Act would not apply in the instant case.

19 We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Section 173-A as amended in 1999 would not apply to the case of the respondent and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur had correctly allowed the appeal by the respondent.

20 In that view of the matter, the instant special leave petition is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
Santhosh And Others vs Saraswathibai And Another

3 The short factual matrix involved may be noticed at the threshold.

7. The said suit was dismissed on the premise that the plaintiffs were not the owners and were not in possession of the suit property.

8. On an appeal having been preferred thereagainst, the Principal District Judge Bidar by his judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2003 allowed the said appeal opining that Section 14(1) of the Act being applicable, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit property. By reason of the impugned judgment the second appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

3. That after the death of the plaintiff the land given to her will be reversed to the defendant No.1 and 2. The parties will bear their costs of the cost.

18. In view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsels fees assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai And Anr vs P. Ganesan And Others

5. Indisputably a first information report was lodged on 27th January, 2005 with the Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai alleging that L. Balasubramanian, Respondent No.5, herein was assaulted on 27th January, 2005 at about 12.35 p.m. within the bank premises by Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as well as by Mr. P. Rajalingam, the Deputy Chief Officer working in the Regional Office of the appellant-bank. All the respondents are indisputably employees of the bank. Their designations are as under :-

7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were placed under suspension by the appellant-bank by an order dated 28th January, 2005. Charge-sheets dated 21st February, 2005 were also served upon them. They were asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against them for their acts of indiscipline, insubordination, unruly and disorderly behaviour, use of filthy language and most shameful abuses as well as murderous assault on respondent No.5 within the office premises of the bank as also causing damage to valuable properties and serious impairment to the banks prestige and reputation in the estimation of public at large. Requests were made by the said respondents to revoke the order of suspension by an application dated 9th March, 2005 assuring the authority that they would fully cooperate with the authorities of the bank in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. They, furthermore, requested the bank to grant them one months time to submit their reply to the show cause. Orders of suspension were revoked on 16th April, 2005. No reply to the show cause notice, however, was filed by them despite opportunities granted. Departmental enquiry was held against them on 18th May, 2005 ; 3rd June, 2005, 17th June, 2005, 28th June, 2005, 8th July, 2005, 19th July, 2005, 29th July, 2005 and 4th August, 2005, the details whereof, as stated by the appellants in their affidavit before the High Court, are as under :-

27. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

28. We would, however, like to observe that in the event any prayer is made by the respondents to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants, the Enquiry Officer may consider the same in accordance with law. Keeping in view the conduct of the respondents they are directed to bear the costs of the appellants both before the High Court as also before us. Counsels fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore And Ors

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

3. Claim was made by the respondents to the effect that their services were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). It was their case that they were employed on regular basis and, therefore, the termination of service is illegal. In the claim petition they had averred that they were working since 1991 and had worked continuously till there was termination of service by an oral order on 16.5.1994. Appellant took the stand that the respondents were engaged as daily rated helpers. Their appointments were not in terms of the recruitment rules and workers were called for rendering services as and when required. It was therefore said that the claim regarding continuance of service was mis- conceived. The respondents only worked for a few days. In fact after November, 1993 there was no engagement made as their services were not required. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 9.7.1999 directed re-instatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The order was assailed before the High Court. It was contended that the respondents were working as daily wagers and they had not rendered regular service. A learned Single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that each of the respondents had completed 240 days of service and, therefore, the order of the Labour Court was justified. As noted above, writ appeal was dismissed.

337) and Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat v. Gangaben Laljibhai and Ors. (2006 (9) SCC 132).

18. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board vs Larabsha Darga Panruti

2) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

Against the said dismissal, S.L.P. (c) No. 2486 of 1990 was filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs before this Court and the same was dismissed. Respondents herein filed O.S. No. 20 of 1992 in the sub-Court, Cuddalore for a declaration that the suit Darga and its property belongs to a wakf i.e., Wakf-alal-aulad, and the Wakf Board had no jurisdiction to appoint Muthavllis for the said Darga and for injunction restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with the suit Darga and its property except claiming contribution from the net income of the wakf. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit Darga and its property belong to a private wakf. Aggrieved by the said order, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board filed an appeal being A.S. No. 206 of 1994 in the District Court, Cuddalore and the same was allowed holding that the suit Darga and its property do not belong to a private wakf. Against that order, the respondents herein filed a second appeal being S.A. No. 641 of 1996 in the High Court. The High Court allowed the second appeal reversing the judgment of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the present appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by way of special leave petition before this Court.

8) In the light of the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Rameshwar Das Agrawal & Anr vs Kiran Agrawal & Ors

3) Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the High Court are the appellants in this appeal. According to them, late Hari Prakash Agrawal (father of respondent No.7) and Rameshwar Das Agrawal (appellant No.1 herein) were very close relatives and they decided to carry on business of electronics and electrical goods and other items. They executed a partnership deed on 15.05.1992 which contains an arbitration clause. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the members of their two families and by agreement dated 13.09.2002 signed by the partners, Shri Gopal Goel of Ravindrapuri, Varanasi was appointed as sole Arbitrator to decide all the disputes concerning the business. Since the entire disputes between the families were reconciled, fresh Deed of Partnership reconstituting the three partnership firms were executed on 13.09.2002 and signed by all the partners and witnessed by the sole Arbitrator - Shri Gopal Goel and one Shri Vinod Kumar Jindal, one of the advisors to the Arbitrator. This was intimated to the bank and sales-tax authorities. After retirement of Smt. Kiran Agrawal and her husband Shiv Kumar Agrawal on 13.09.2002, a fresh Retirement Deed was executed on 05.07.2003 which was also duly signed by the parties concerned. Thereafter, first respondent herein filed an application dated 07.07.2003 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for appointment of an Arbitrator based on clause 21 of the agreement dated 15.05.1992. On 17.10.2003, the High Court issued notice to all the 8 respondents-therein. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 09.12.2005 and as per the office report, most of the respondents had not been served. Shri Rameshwar Das Agrawal, appellant No.1-herein was represented in the High Court through his counsel and prayed time to file counter affidavit. It was also stated that no dispute remained for adjudication. The High Court, after rejecting the request of the first appellant-herein, by order dated 09.12.2005, appointed Honble Mr. Justice Giridhar Malviya as an Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred this appeal.

We constrain to arrive at such conclusion since all of them (except Shivkumar Agrawal) are members of one family residing at No.20, Gurdas Colony, Varanasi and all of them were duly served notice in this Court.

11) The Civil Appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs.
Union Of India And Anr vs Vicco Laboratories

The petition was resisted on the ground that at the stage of show cause notice there should not be any inference. In fact the notice was issued pursuant to the liberty given by this Court in C.A.Nos. 7896-97/2003 disposed of by a three-Judge Bench by order dated December 7, 2004. The High Court accepted the position that normally the High Court should not interfere at the show cause notice stage. But in view of the factual scenario the Court entertained the writ petition and decided in favour of the respondent.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Thereafter, the Union of India moved an application being IA-1 of 1999 in this Court in Civil Appeal No.2123 of 1993 arising out of the SLP No.14082 of 1988 which was filed by the respondent for clarification of the order dated 19th April, 1993 with reference, to Shree Baidyanath's judgment (supra). On 17.07.2000 the said application was withdrawn stating that the authorities will act in accordance with the provisions of law, which statement was recorded by this Court while disposing of the said application. On 14.5.2001 with reference to the 3rd SCNs, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders classifying the respondent's products as "cosmetics" falling under Chapter 33. The respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) which came to be allowed by an order dated 10.01.2002. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before CEGAT, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 03.02.2003. The appellant filed special leave petition before this Court. The same were converted into the Civil Appeals No.7896-97 of 2003 and the appeals were dismissed by this Court on 07.12.2004.

When the factual scenario is considered in the background of the legal principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal is sans merit, deserves dismissal which we direct. Costs made easy.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Babu Singh

2. The necessary facts in brief may be stated as follows:

(v) award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner."

7. It appears from the record that the respondent thereafter filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Civil Miscellaneous No.10362/99 dated 29.04.1999 in CWP No.2890/97, which was already dismissed by the Division Bench on 31.08.1998 with costs of Rs.5,000/-. In the said application, the respondent has claimed retiral benefits under Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II. The application was, however, allowed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 19.07.2002 and the appellants were directed to pay pension to the respondent within a period of three months.

17. The High Court's order is not sustainable for yet another reason. As noticed above, first Writ Petition No. 2890/97 was dismissed with costs for the highly contumacious conduct of the respondent for producing a fabricated document in regard to seeking of unconditional voluntary retirement from the service. We may again repeat that no claim for pensionary benefits was made by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 2890/1997 nor has he applied for review of the order dated 31.08.1998 whereby his petition was dismissed. Thus, the order dated 31.08.1998 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in CWP No.2890 of 1997 has attained finality. It is well-settled that the relief granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of the legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. The possession of powers under Section 151, CPC, by the Courts, itself is not sufficient, it has to be exercised in accordance with law. The orders of the Courts must emanate logically from legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings.

[Emphasis supplied]

20. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated 19.07.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in CM No.10362/99 in CWP No.2890/97 stands set aside and the said application is, accordingly, dismissed. The appeal shall stand allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust vs Dinesh Kumar

3. The Claim of the respondent was that he was working as a sweeper in the hospital of the appellant and was appointed on 1.7.1995 and worked up to 16.8.1996. But his services were terminated on 17.8.1996 without any notice and without any retrenchment allowances. A dispute was raised which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). The Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of reinstatement and 50% of back wages. The stand of the appellant that the respondent was engaged on a daily wage basis for doing a part time job of sweeping was held to be not acceptable. It was held that the respondent had rendered more than 240 days of service. Before the High Court, the stand of the appellant was that the respondent did not render service for more than 240 days as claimed. His appointment was only on temporary basis and that too for one hour daily. This stand was not accepted by the High Court.

9. In the aforesaid position, the inevitable conclusion is that the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in directing the reinstatement with partial back wages.

10. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

11. It is made clear that the fact we have allowed the appeal shall not stand in the way of the appellant giving engagement to the respondent on such terms as deemed proper.
Yadvendra Arya & Anr vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta

6. An affidavit was filed by the respondent who has deposed that he wants to run the independent business and he cannot settle himself along with his father. So far as the availability of the other shops are concerned, it was specifically stated that all other shops are rented accommodation and the tenants are occupying the same.

7. The prescribed authority, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar allowed the application of the respondent directing the appellants to vacate the shop within a period of 30 days.

8. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate authority. The respondent filed Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The High Court as noted above allowed the writ petition of the respondent and directed the appellants to vacate the premises.

xx xxx xxx

17. Considering the factual background in the light of the principles as stated above, the inevitable conclusion is that this appeal is without merit. Considering the fact that the appellants are carrying on the business in the premises, time is granted to them to vacate the premises in question by the end of June, 2008 subject to filing the usual undertaking with the prescribed authority within a period of four weeks from today.

18. Appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Kapildeo Mandal & Ors vs State Of Bihar

4. The incident took place in the night between 14th & 15th July, 1979. As per the prosecution case as reported in the FIR by PW-9 Ramanand Mandal, at about 11.00 p.m. he woke up after hearing the sound of barking dogs. A lantern was burning in the verandah of his house. He saw persons, namely, A-1 and his younger brother A-5 entering from the inner courtyard from the roof of his house. One of them went to the southern side and opened the window from that side. A-2 and A-4 entered the house along with some other persons. One person opened the main door on the eastern side. A-3 and 5-6 other persons entered from that door. A-3 was carrying gun, whereas A-1, A-2 and A-5 were carrying country-made pistols. Other persons were carrying swords and lathis. They assaulted the inmate of the house. A-2 fired at Sitaram Mandal as a result of which he was badly injured. A-3 Subhit Mandal ordered to kill PW-9 Ramanand Mandal, upon which A-1 fired upon PW-9. A-1 assaulted PW-9 with the butt of a country-made pistol on the head. One of the miscreants sprinkled kerosene oil of two bottles upon the body of PW-6 Brahmadeo Mandal and made search of a match-box to set fire upon his body. PW-5 Mahesh Mandal was assaulted with a lathi. While leaving, the miscreants took away some articles from the house. On hearing a hue and cry, some villagers reached the spot. The occurrence and the assault was due to a land dispute between the parties. In the incident, because of the assault made, Sitaram Mandal died.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court and that of the trial court are set aside. The accused-appellants are directed to be set at liberty if they are not required in any other case.
The Secretary To Govt. Agriculture & ... vs K. Kesavulu

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. By Order dated 4.8.2004, the Tribunal held that the service of the respondent was regularized pursuant to the order in G.O. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 and basing on order in G.O.Ms No.9 of 1981 proceedings dated 1.3.1991 were issued and his service stood converted into a regular last grade service and the subsequent scheme of regularization issued in G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 would not deprive the respondent of the benefits of earlier regularization. The order was challenged before the High Court which, as noted above, dismissed the writ petition.

12. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.