L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Head Master,Meenal A.C. Vidyalaya & Anr vs Sunita Laxman Kolhe & Anr

The facts of the case are that the respondent herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Smt. Meenal Arjun Chavan Vidyalaya, Ulhasnagar on June 16, 1997. According to her, she was continued in service up to December 28, 2001. From that date onwards, however, she was not allowed to discharge duty and also not allowed to sign muster roll. Being aggrieved by the said action, she preferred Writ Petition No.5840 of 2002 in the High Court of Bombay on which rule nisi was issued. But finally by an order dated August 25, 2005, the writ petition was disposed of as the High Court felt that appropriate statutory remedy is :2: available to the respondent under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In pursuance of the said order, the respondent herein approached the Maharashtra School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai by filing Appeal No.20 of 2005. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances as also the evidence led by both the parties, recorded a finding of fact that the respondent herein was appointed by the Management and that she had completed more than two years and her services were terminated only in 2001 i.e. after about four years. In the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, final order was passed by the Tribunal granting reinstatement.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Management approached the High Court but the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition. The said order is challenged by the Management in the present appeal. On January 08, 2007, the Court passed the following order:

On January 25, 2007, leave was granted and interim stay was also granted. Today the matter has been called out for final hearing.

In our opinion, it would have been appropriate had the High Court considered the facts of the case and disposed of the matter. But on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, this is not a case which calls for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. :7:

In view of the said fact, in our opinion, though the disposal of High Court may not be said to be strictly proper, in the light of factual situation, we are of the view, that the case does not require interference by this Court in its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly with costs.
M/S Eicher Tractors Ltd.& Ors vs Harihar Singh & Anr

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). By the said 1 petition appellants had prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.1 and the order of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, R. S. Ghat, Barabanki, dated 8th February, 2005 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and issuance of summons to the appellants. The learned magistrate recorded statements of the complainant under Section 200 of Code as well as of the witness under Section 202 of the Code and thereafter issued summons to the appellants to start proceedings. The appellants took the stand that the proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. It was pointed out that the summons issued were never served and bailable warrant of arrest and subsequently non-bailable warrant has been issued and even proceedings under Section 82 of the Code have been initiated. The High Court accepted that without service of summons the issuance of bailable as well as non-bailable warrant was uncalled for. It was also directed that the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Code was to be stayed and on the appellants appearing before the concerned court the proceedings shall continue. The application was accordingly disposed of. 2

(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. The case at hand squarely falls within the parameters indicated in category (7) of Bhajan Lal's case (supra). The factual scenario as noted above clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Proceedings are accordingly quashed.

11. Appeal is allowed.
Virender Chaudhary vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. & Ors

8. Fifth respondent filed a writ petition questioning the decision of the first respondent herein in not awarding the dealership in his favour. A letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May 2004 whereafter he started his business. In his writ petition, however, the 5th respondent did not make any prayer for setting aside the allotment made in favour of the appellant. On that ground, the writ petition was adjourned sine die by an order dated 23.11.2004. Only on 16.3.2006, an application for amending the writ petition was filed. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action.

15. The Superior Courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition but emphasize is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches.

18. Considering the fact that starting of a business in LPG dealership requires a huge investment and infrastructure therefor is required to be provided and a large number of employees are to be appointed therefor, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in not taking these factors into consideration in proper perspective. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly.

19. The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

November 7, 2008
M.A.Rumugam vs Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy

6. On 5.06.2003, the appellant filed a suit before the learned District Munsif Court at Nagappattinam against the President, Union Council Member and other persons for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing damage to the footpath in his property under the pretext of widening and laying road. In the said suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to find out whether any coconut trees were found dead. The Advocate Commissioner submitted its report on 15.06.2003 stating:

Consequently connected Crl. M.Ps are closed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to establish that the statement has been made in good faith, during the course of trial."

18. Respondent was furthermore discharged by the learned Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the police authorities could not complete the investigation within a period of six months.

20. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the question, as to whether a totally false complaint has been made as against the respondent or not as he was not even in India prior to the date of occurrence, is required to be gone into by the learned Trial Judge.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

November 07, 2008
Chandrashekar A.K vs State Of Kerala & Anr

5. On or about 1.01.1996, appellant made a representation requesting payment of arrears of pay revision inter alia on the ground that he, having been in service on 1.01.1992, was entitled to the benefit of the said OM dated 19.07.1995. The said prayer was rejected by respondent by an order dated 31.01.1996, stating:

6. Appellant made another representation before respondent No. 1 on 14.02.1996 which has been turned down by the Government of Kerala by a letter dated 30.07.1996, stating:

7. Appellant filed a writ petition upon serving a legal notice on the respondents.

19. Mr. Vishwanathan is correct in his submission that the Division Bench committed a serious illegality insofar as it held that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It did not do so. as it was not so, but having considered the merit of the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 14

November 07, 2008
Mukund Swarup Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors

By the said judgment, this Court also considered and disposed of the cases relating to States of Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana. Cases of other States were adjourned for hearing. The cases relating to other States have subsequently been heard individually and they are being disposed of by this order.

LPG/Ichhawar) and Smt. Rohit Samant (Case No.221/MP/2003 - LPG/Harsud)] were borderline cases, where two views were possible. In view of it, the allotments in their favour are not disturbed. We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of their allotment. Bihar :

9. 372/AP/20 Kethavat Bheeiya (RO/Venkateshwar Nagar, 03 Nalgonda) We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of allotment.

Maharashtra :

15. 305/Mah./20 Prashant D.Mahajan (RO/Maltekdi, Amravati) 03

16. 310/Mah./20 Bala Saheb Mahadeo (LPG - Bhum, Osmanabad) 03 K.Shirsagar

17. 311/Mah./20 Vikram Ganpatrao (RO/Latur) 03 Gojamgunde

18. 312/Mah./20 Anita O.Pande (RO/Hingria Road, Nagpur) 03

S.No Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location .

1. 127/UP/20 Manisha Singh (RO/Balia) 03

2. 130/UP/20 Alok Kumar Verma (LPG - Chhibramau, Kannauj) 03

3. 131/UP/20 Suman Devi (RO/ Mehandipur, Barabanki) 03

5. 137/UP/20 Poonam Singh (LPG - Nanpura, Bahraich) 03 Chaudhary

6. 145/UP/20 Chandramani Kant (LPG - Bhinga, Shrawasti) 03 Singh

7. 146/UP/20 Ram Kumar Verma (RO/Barbar Town, Lakhimpur 03 Kheri)

8. 151/UP/20 Anand Kumar (RO/Chilwaria, Bahraich) 03

9. 157/UP/20 Saroj Agnihotri (RO/Jhansi Town) 03 We therefore allow the above nine applications and set aside the cancellation of allotments.

11. The Committee's report in regard to other cases is accepted. The approval by the Committee in respect of 112 allotments is accepted and consequently, the cancelling of allotments in those cases is set aside. Wherever the Committee has not approved the allotment as not being on merits, and the allottees have not filed objections to the Committee's report or filed objections belatedly (which were not accepted), the non- approval of selection/allotment are upheld.

12. The four public sector oil companies (IOCL, BPCL, HPCL and IBPCL) shall take appropriate consequential action. T.C. Nos.100 to 108 of 2002 and T.C. No.57 of 2006 are disposed of accordingly.

SLP [C] Nos.11556 and 11568 of 2002 :
V.K.Mehta vs Secy, Urban Imporvement Trust (Uit)

The appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Ajmer, [for short, `the District Forum'] for awarding compensation on grounds, inter alia, that though a vacant plot was allotted to him for construction of house in a sanctioned scheme in the year 1986 but amenities like roads, drainage, electricity and water connection were not provided to him. The said petition was dismissed and the order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the State Commission']. Against the said order, when the matter was taken to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the National Commission'], the matter has been remitted to the State Commission. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

....3/-

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside, complaint filed by the appellant is allowed and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rupees five lakhs, which must be paid within a period of three months from today to him by Banker's cheque or Demand Draft in his favour upon a Scheduled Bank at Ajmer.
State Of H.P vs Prem Singh

2. On the allegation that the respondent had sexually ravished PW- 1 and had outraged the modesty of not only P W- 1, but of several other girl students of the school where the respondent was a teacher, law was set in motion. The respondent was further charged for commission of offences relating to threatening the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to somebody else. The accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 37 6 , 35 4 and 50 6 of the Indian Pen al Code, 18 6 0 (in short 'the I PC').

3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh found the accused guilty of all the offences, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years', six months' and six months' respectively. In appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and directed acquittal of the respondent.

7. That being the position, we allow the appeal of the State to the extent that the respondent is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 5 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. The sentences are two years' and six months' rigorous imprison ment respectively. It is stated that the appellant has suffered more than that period of custody. If that being so, he need not surrender to custody,. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Gulam Mohd. @ Gulal Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat

3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows;

An application in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr.P.C.') and Section 49 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short `POTA') was filed. The applicant is facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and Sections 3(1)(A)(B), 3(3), 4, 20, 21(2) B, 22(3)(A)(B) of POTA and Sections 25 (1)B, C, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1950 (in short `Arms Act'). According to the applicant, on 3.4.2003 five boys were picked up from a park of Ahmedabad City and on 4.4.2003 first information report was lodged wherein commission of offences punishable under the POTA were included. Case was registered as CR.No.6 of 2003. According to the applicant he was picked up by the Crime Branch and was kept in illegal custody. Certain news items were published in newspapers on 30.6.2003. It is pointed out that another co-accused under trial in another case was not 2 produced. The counsel appearing for him made a statement before the Court that he was in illegal custody of Crime Branch. The name of that co-accused is Rafiq and same stand was taken. Notice was issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge fixing the date 16.7.2003. The appellant was shown to have been arrested in the present case on 15.7.2003. A confessional statement purported to have been recorded under Section 32 of POTA on 8.8.2003. The appellant does not know Gujarati and, therefore, the question of making a confessional statement does not arise and he did not sign before the Deputy Commissioner. Though he was produced before the Magistrate for confirmation in terms of section 32(5) of POTA, he was remanded to judicial custody. He made a retraction from the so-called confession on 9.8.2003. It was pointed out that the so-called confession under Section 32 of POTA is not admissible as the provision is entirely different from Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 The trial Court rejected the application prima facie with the following observations:

4. The order of rejection was challenged before the High Court which, as noted above, dismissed the appeal.

7. It also referred to the evidence which indicated that the appellant had collected money from one Mohd. Saiyed and Tanvir and ultimately handed over the money to Mufti Sufian and, therefore, it cannot be said that except the confession under Section 32 of POTA, there is no other evidence.

11. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Mahmood Rajasa Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat

3. Factual details have been indicated in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.4876 of 2006) disposed of today.

4. Appellant was arrested in connection with POTA Case No.12 of 2003 arising out of ICR No.6 of 2003 of the DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under IPC, Arms Act and POTA. An application for bail was filed in terms of Section 49(6) and (7) of POTA. The bail application was rejected primarily on the ground that the appellant was found in possession of country made revolver and foreign made pistols and undisputedly same was recovered from his possession. Ten live cartridges were also recovered from another co-accused. The statement of the co-accused was recorded under Section 32 of POTA. The High Court held that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Though, there was allegation of illegal custody no material was placed in that regard. In view of the reasons recorded by the High Court and the trial Court for rejecting the bail application, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeal.

8. The appeal is dismissed.
State Of U.P vs Ilyas

2. Two appeals were filed i.e. one by Multan and the other by the present respondent. The High Court by the impugned judgment directed their acquittal. According to the High Court the identification was not established and that arrest of the respondents was doubtful and they cannot be treated to have been arrested in the manner stated by the prosecution.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

6. Since the High Court's reasonings were perverse the impugned judgment is set aside. However, the respondent is convicted for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC for which he was originally charged. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. He shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Yashwant Co-Op.Processors Ltd.Etc vs Union Of India & Ors

2. Appellants claim that they are engaged in the business activity of bleaching, dyeing and processing of grey fabrics. They claim that such grey fabrics are supplied to them by power loom industries for job-work. They were called upon to furnish Return in Form A and Form B of Textiles Committee (Cess) Rules, 1975 on the basis that they undertook work of manufacturing, that what they (appellants) called as job-work was in fact a process of manufacturing and, consequently, they (appellants) were liable to pay cess under the provisions of the Textiles Committee (Cess) Act, 1963.

Each of the appellants shall deposit with the Department the outstanding amount shown against its name within eight weeks from today.

(ii) Each of the appellants whose name appears in Chart-II (who incidentally are also writ petitioners in the Bombay High Court) shall, without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the writ petition, file its monthly Returns before the AO within twelve weeks from today. At the same time, along with the Returns, each of the appellants whose name appears in Chart-II shall deposit the outstanding amount with the Department for the period 2001-02 and 2002-03. On such deposit, which will be under protest, the AO will set aside the ex parte Assessment Order passed earlier and the AO shall hear and pass an Assessment Order on such Returns on merits within three months from the date of filing of the said Returns. If the appellants fail to deposit the outstanding amount as indicated in Chart-II, then the ex parte order passed earlier by the AO and the notice of demand issued earlier will stand and the Department would be at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings against such appellant (assessee).

8. On the appellants' satisfying the above conditions, the writ petitions dismissed by the Bombay High Court on the ground of delay shall 6 stand restored to the file of the High Court. Needless to mention that, if any of the above conditions remain unsatisfied then the writ petition filed by the processor shall not be restored to the file of the Bombay High Court and in such eventuality, the impugned order of the High Court dated 18.4.2007 shall stand. In other words, till the above conditions are satisfied, the High Court shall not proceed to entertain the writ petitions mentioned in Chart-I, which concerns the period December, 1998 to December, 2000.

9. Before concluding, we may state that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and we keep all contentions on both sides on merits expressly open.

10. Accordingly, the civil appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10272/2007 (From the judgement and order dated 18/04/2007 in WP Nos.2959, 2909, 2910, 2922, 2926, 2927, 2928, 2929, 2930, 2951, 2953 & 2960 of 2007 of the HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) YASHWANT CO-OP.PROCESSORS LTD.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief )(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL) (FOR ORDERS) Date: 12/11/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
Manoramabai And Ors vs Municipal Council And Anr

2. The first respondent Municipal Council, filed a suit for ejectment against three defendants (Shamrao, Dayaram and second respondent). The trial Court decreed the suit. The first defendant filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal he died and his seven LRs were brought on record. The first Appellate Court rejected the appeal on 20.2.1993. Aggrieved by the rejection, the LRs of the first defendant filed a second appeal (SA No.92/1993) before the High Court of Bombay. The second appeal was admitted and was pending for more than a decade. No dates of hearing were being given. One of the LRs of the first defendant, namely appellant No.3 before the High Court (Dadasao Shamrao Saoji), died in the year 1996. An application for setting aside the abatement with an application for condonation of delay and an application for bringing LRs of the deceased third appellant were filed in the year 2003. The High Court rejected the applications on .......2.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff (first respondent) filed an application for dismissal of the second appeal on the ground that the appeal having abated in respect of third appellant should be deemed to have abated in regard to all the appellants. The High Court accepted the said contention and dismissed the appeal on 13.12.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants in the second appeal have filed this appeal by special leave challenging the orders dated 27.7.2005 and 13.12.2006.

Bhagvathy Devaswom Vs. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 321. Reference can also be made in this behalf in Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195. If the said principles are applied, it becomes evident that the delay ought to have be condoned and the application for setting aside abatement ought to have been allowed and the LRs of the third appellant ought to have been brought on record. Accordingly, the order dated 27.7.2005 is set aside and the three applications allowed. The delay is condoned. Abatement is set aside. The appellants are permitted to bring the LRs of deceased third respondent on record. As a consequence, the order dated 13.12.2006 is also set aside.

6. We allow this appeal, accordingly. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the appeal which has stood restored to its file as consequence of our order and endeavour to dispose it of within six months.