L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Mgb Gramin Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

C. As the appointment on compassionate ground was denied to the respondent, he preferred the writ petition before the High Court and the learned Single Judge took the view that as the cause of action had arisen prior to the commencement of the new scheme, therefore, the case was to be considered as per the then existing scheme i.e. the 1983 Scheme which provided for compassionate appointment and not for grant of ex-gratia payment. The Court directed the appellant not only to consider the case of appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds but rather directed the appellant to appoint him. D. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by filing the Special Appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 concurring with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

7. An ‘ameliorating relief’ should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated.

14. In view of the above position, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside.

15. The respondent may apply for consideration of his case under the new Scheme and the appellant shall consider his case strictly in accordance with clause 14 of the said new Scheme within a period of three months from the date of receiving of application.

With these observations, appeal stands disposed of.
Poona Timber Merchants & Saw Mills Asso vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

5. On 7.10.2000, M/s. C.V. Shah and A.V. Bhat and the Association executed deed and cancelled the agreements for sale dated 18.8.1988 and 14.7.1991. The relevant portions of the cancellation deed are extracted below:

7. On receipt of aforesaid communication, M/s. C. V. Shah and A. V. Bhat sent letter dated 16.2.2001 to the City Engineer informing him about execution of the cancellation deed with the request to take necessary steps in accordance with purchase notice dated 15.11.2000. That letter reads as under:

2. The rate of amount communicated to the Timbers Association by the city Engg. On dt. 6-6-2001 is Quoted approximately & it can be changed. The association is bound to pay the amount as per Land Acquisition at It the landlords reject the rate & approach the count, then they shall pay the amount as per directions of the court, if any encroachment in it.

11. After two years and five months, the landowners filed an application under Section 37 of the Act and prayed that the land may be released from the reservation. The concerned Minister accepted the request of the landowners and passed order dated 6.2.2011 for de-reservation. However, that order could not be implemented because of the objections raised by some persons. The landowners then filed writ petitions for grant of a declaration that the reservation of the land will be deemed to have lapsed because the Planning Authority, i.e., the Corporation did not take steps for its acquisition within six months of the receipt of purchase notice.

21. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

22. As a sequel to the above, all the pending applications are disposed of.

August 7, 2013.
Sec.Dept.Of Atomic Energy & Ors vs M.K.Bawane

4. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

6. Not being satisfied with the rejection of the application, the respondent-employee had filed Writ Petition No.24132 of 2009 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal. The petition was allowed and the High Court has directed the appellants to give special incentive increment to the respondent-employee.

4. Any such cases pending in your circle may be disposed of based on this clarification given by Ministry of Finance.”

14. In our opinion, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in rejecting the application of the respondent-employee in view of the aforestated policy of the Government.

16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error while allowing the petition and giving direction with regard to giving incentive increment to the respondent- employee and therefore, we quash and set aside the said direction. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

………..................................... .....J (ANIL R. DAVE) ………..................................... .....J (A.K. SIKRI) New Delhi August 7, 2013
Harbhajan Kumar(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors vs Collector Laq & Colonization Dept.& Anr

2. Heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel in support of this appeal and learned counsel appearing for the Collector, Land Acquisition Department of the State of Punjab. The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of their land. When this appeal came up for hearing before this Court earlier on 4.1.2013, it was directed to be tagged with SLP(C) No.1678-1697 of 2010. The appeals arising out of those special leave petitions and some other petitions have come to be allowed by this Court by its judgment in Ashrafi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 527. In paragraph 40 of the said judgment to which one of us (Chelameswar, J.) is a party, the compensation amount has been enhanced to Rs.7,25,000/- per acre.

3. Since the present appeal is against a similar order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, we allow this appeal. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer will stand modified and the appellants will be entitled to compensation at par at the rate of Rs.7,25,000/- per acre. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

August 8, 2013.
State Of Punjab vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

4. Per contra, respondent-in-person has submitted that the complainant himself was an industrialist who evaded tax. The complainant was also running an NGO and was the chairman of an Anti- Corruption Society. The other office bearers of the said society had also raised a large number of complaints against the son of the respondent-accused. The complainant had been threatening him and even attacked him and caused injuries on 14.10.1994 in respect of which there had been complaints against him. The respondent had also filed a large number of cases in criminal courts which were settled by the officers of the CBI out of the court and in view thereof the cases were withdrawn. The parameters of interference against the order of acquittal as laid down by this Court have to be applied. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected.

8. The case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. So far as the recovery is concerned, the respondent-accused took a plea that he only had the duty to serve the notice on the complainant with regard to the tax evasion done by him and was not the authority for making an assessment order. It was his official duty to serve upon the complainant a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complainant came to his house and asked the respondent-accused to give him a glass of water as he had to take the medicine. He went inside the kitchen and came back with a glass of water and thereafter shook hands with the complainant and that is why when the hands of the respondent were washed, they turned pink.

11. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr

4. Feeling aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and non-release of the other aforesaid dues, the respondent preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity etc. in terms of Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980. The appellant, thereafter, considered the representation of the respondent but rejected the same vide orders dated 16.3.2006. The respondent challenged the rejection by filing another Writ Petition before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent filed Intra Court Appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench vide the -

15. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold -

16. We, accordingly, find that there is no merit in the instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each.
M/S Rana Girders Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors

2. One M/s. P.J. Steels Pvt. Ltd. (borrower) had taken loans/financial accommodation from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (UPFC). Because of the consistent default on the part of the said borrower in re-paying the loans, the UPFC took possession of the land and building of the borrower which were mortgaged/kept as security with the UPFC. This action was taken under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. After taking physical possession of the unit, the UPFC held public auction on pursuant to advertisement which was issued on 8th January 2002. In the said public auction conducted by UPFC, the appellant herein (appellant which was known as M/s. Sarju Steels Pvt.Ltd. at that time and has now converted into a Public Limited Company known as M/s. Rana Girders Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20th March 2002 was the highest and thus, successful bidder in respect of land and building as well as plant and machinery. Sale Deed dated 8.3.2002 was executed in favour of the appellant qua the land and building. Likewise, Agreement dated 14.3.2002 was executed in favour of the appellant conveying the ownership of the plant and machinery.

8. At that time, some demands of dues on account of Central Excise payable to respondent No.2 were pending. It appears that the borrower had filed two appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 29.8.2002 in this behalf. These two appeals were dismissed by the CESTAT on 30th April 2003 on account of non-compliance of the pre-deposit amount directed in its stay order dated 18th March 2003. Some penalties were also imposed by the adjudicating authority, under the Central Excise Act which were appealed again by the borrower. That appeal was also dismissed on 30th April 2003 and 25th May 2004 thereby confirming the demand of Customs and Excise.

9. After the conclusion of the aforesaid legal proceedings between the respondent No.2 and the borrower, following amount became due on account of duty and penalty payable by the borrower to the respondent No.2:

11. The appellant herein initially requested the Excise Department to provide the copies of the adjudication orders relating to the three cases mentioned in the notice. Thereafter, vide reply dated 7.12.2004, the appellant disputed the liability stating that the amount was not recoverable from it in terms of the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act as it had purchased the aforesaid properties in auction from UPFC “free from all encumbrances”. The Central Excise Department, however, insisted that it had become the liability of the appellant and sent further communication demanding payment failing with the threat that on failure in making payments the properties would be attached.

Dated: August 16, 2013
K.V. Rajendran vs Superintendent Of Police, Cbcid South

2. The case has a chequered history as the matter has moved from the court of the Magistrate to this Court time and again. Facts and circumstances necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy involved herein are that:

C. The appellant filed a complaint against the said RDO and other officials. The said complaint was also sent to the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State, the Director General of Police and other officials, alleging the brutal torture caused to him by the then RDO. The case was entrusted for investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID, Nagapattinam. A confidential report was forwarded to higher officials by the said DSP in this regard. However, no progress could be made in the investigation and no case was registered in respect of the complaint of the appellant.

D. The appellant approached the High Court of Madras by filing Crl. O.P. No. 19352/1998 with the prayer to direct the registration of First Information Report (FIR) based on his complaint. In view of the fact that a confidential report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID revealed that the preliminary enquiry was conducted in a proper manner, the High Court did not transfer the investigation to CBI, however, the petition was allowed vide order dated 1.3.2001 issuing the direction to register a case.

E. The DSP, SBCID filed an application i.e. Crl.M.P. No. 3713/2001 before the High Court in the disposed of case i.e. Crl.O.P. No. 19352/1998 stating that there was no post of DSP, SBCID on the date of the order as the same had been abolished, so proper directions needed to be issued. In the meanwhile, the appellant also filed another petition to transfer the case to CBI. Both the said applications were heard together and the order dated 1.10.2004 was passed modifying the earlier order dated 1.3.2001 for transferring the investigation to CBI.

G. The appellant was summoned by the DSP, SBCID on 7.7.2010 and again on 25.10.2010 and his statements were recorded. Being un- satisfied with the investigation conducted by the SBCID, the appellant filed Crl. O.P. No. 9639 of 2011 in April 2011 before the High Court, seeking transfer of the investigation to CBI. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2011.

11. The case is required to be examined in view of aforesaid settled legal propositions.

15. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

August 21, 2013
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava & Anr

2. The 1st respondent was appointed as a Lecturer on 23.3.1996 in “Ras Shastra” in Rajkiya Ayurvedic College and Chikitsalaya, Lucknow. The State Government vide notification dated 21.12.1990 notified the Service Rules, namely, Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Aur Unani Mahavidyalaya Aadhyapako Ki Seva Niyamawali, 1990 (for short, “the rules”) for the teachers of Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Colleges. Under the rules, the promotional post from amongst the Lecturers is Readers. As the vacancies in respect of Readers were not filled up, the respondent No. 1 preferred W.P. No. 1136 (S/B) of 2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, wherein the High Court took note of the statement by the learned counsel for the State and directed that it should be in the fitness of things that the Public Service Commission shall make earnest efforts to expedite the whole process relating to promotion within a period of six months. Eventually, on 15.6.2005 the U.P. Public Service Commission, (for short ‘the Commission’), the respondent No. 2 herein, recommended the names of six persons for promotion to the post of Readers. As far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, he was placed at serial No. 6 and it was mentioned therein that the vacancy in respect of which the 1st respondent had been recommended for promotion had arisen after the superannuation of one Dr. Hari Shanker Pandey on 31.7.2001. The state Government considering the recommendation of the commission issued an office memorandum on 16.8.2005 promoting the 1st respondent and given him the posting in State Auyrvedic College, Lucknow. As the 1st respondent was given seniority w.e.f. 16.8.2005 which is the date of passing of the order of promotion he felt aggrieved and the said grievance compelled him to prefer O.A. No. 134 of 2006 before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (for short “the tribunal”). The tribunal by order dated 2.2.2007 directed that the applicant therein should submit a representation to the Government within a period of one month against the order dated 16.08.2005 which shall be disposed of within two months by passing a reasoned order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the State of U.P. vide letter dated 4.6.2007 sought a clarification from the Commission about its recommendation and after receipt of the said communication from the Commission and on due deliberation vide order dated 2.1.2008 the representation of the 1st respondent was rejected and it was clearly stated that seniority had been accorded to him from the date of passing of the order of promotion i.e. 16.8.2005.

16. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the irresistible conclusion is that the claim of the first respondent for conferment of retrospective seniority is absolutely untenable and the High Court has fallen into error by granting him the said benefit and accordingly the impugned order deserves to be lancinated and we so do.

17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

August 21, 2013.
U.P. State Road Transport Corp vs C.P. Goswamy

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under :

6. The aforestated award was challenged before the High Court by the appellant-Corporation by filing Writ-C No.375 of 2003. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 7th November, 2012, and the said judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.

10. Instead of awarding back wages, in view of the facts of the case, it would be just and proper to award, in all a sum of Rs.5 lacs by way of compensation to the respondent-workman. It had been submitted that the appellant-Corporation had already paid more than Rs.3,60,000/- to the respondent-workman and if it is so, the amount so paid shall be adjusted while paying the compensation of Rs.5 lacs. Thus, we direct that by way of compensation, in all Rs.5 lacs should be given to the respondent-workman in lieu of back wages. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within four weeks from today.

11. If the respondent-workman has not been reinstated till today, the appellant-Corporation shall reinstate him within four weeks from today.

12. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is modified to the above extent. The appeal is allowed to the extent stated hereinabove. No order as to costs.

..........J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi August 21 , 2013
Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer And Anr

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

D. The Special Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 22.9.2008, rejected the said application on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of 4 days.

E. Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the said order before the High Court. The same stood dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.1.2012.

14. As the matters are squarely covered by the above referred to judgments, these appeals are devoid of any merit. The cases do not warrant any interference. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of C.A. No. 6974 of 2013 are taken, which are as under:

According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 24, p. 181:

An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence' or laches.

16. In view of above, no interference is required with impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeals lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Land Acquisition Collector,Mohali & ... vs Surinder Kaur

2. Having failed to convince the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to entertain the revision filed by them against order dated 7.5.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar in Civil Miscellaneous No.RT-22/10.3.1999/24.12.1999 refusing to tinker with judgment dated 9.4.2001 whereby he held that the respondent herein is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.24,200/- per marla, which is equivalent to 30 sq. yards, i.e., at the rate of Rs.806.67 per sq. yard, the appellants have filed this appeal.

4. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon, the Collector made a reference to the Court for determination of the amount of compensation. Additional District Judge, Ropar decided the reference vide judgment dated 9.4.2001, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

August 22, 2013.
Union Of India & Ors vs G.R.Rama Krishna & Anr

2. The respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was appointed as Engineering Assistant (Mechanical) in Andaman Lakshdeep Harbour Works (ALHW) on ad-hoc basis with effect from 17.4.1979. Though this ad-hoc period was of one year, the respondent continued to work in the capacity even thereafter without obtaining the approval of the Department of Personnel and Training. The services were continued as ALHW was facing lots of problems due to shortage of staff at various levels. He was later on promoted as Inspector of Works on ad-hoc with effect from 11.11.1984. This post was later on merged with that of Junior Engineer and thus the respondent was accorded the status of Junior Engineer.

7. Against the judgment of the Tribunal, the respondent filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta (District : Andaman). The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and modified the order of the Tribunal by directing that the respondent be appointed as Executive Engineer after observing all other formalities. This direction is given by the High Court as a special case, without setting it as precedence, as is clear from the operative portion of this order:

9. From the aforesaid, it becomes apparent that there are three alternate modes of recruitment to the Post, namely, (1) by promotion, failing which (2) by transfer on deputation (including short term contract) and failing both (3) by direct recruitment. No doubt, if some departmental candidate is available and eligible to be considered, the promotion method is to be resorted to in the first instance. However, no departmental candidate was available. Concededly, the respondent had not completed 8 years regular service as Assistant Engineer. In such circumstances only out of sympathy the High Court could not have given the impugned direction. This judicial sympathy resulting into a right in favour of respondent to appoint him contrary to the recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which are statutory in nature is clearly misplaced and needs to be denounced. Such a direction is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. As a result, the appeal is allowed restoring the order of the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. filed by the respondent. No costs.