L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs G. Hemalathaa

1. The Respondent is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) issued a Notification dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 320 vacancies to the posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The Respondent was successful in the preliminary examination conducted on 09.06.2018. The written test was conducted on 11th and 12th August, 2018. Results of the written test were announced on 19.09.2018 and the name of the 1 Respondent did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Interviews were conducted from 27.09.2018 to 05.10.2018 and the final results of successful candidates were published on 05.12.2018. The Respondent came to know that another candidate belonging to the same community to which she belongs (Most Backward Class) was selected in spite of her performance not being satisfactory. The Respondent made a representation to the Commission to furnish her marks in the written examination. On 07.01.2019, the Commission conveyed to the Respondent that her Law Paper 1 written examination was invalidated in view of violation of the Instructions to Applicants (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Instructions’) issued by the Commission.

2. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for a direction to declare her result and appoint her as a Civil Judge, provided she has secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the Most Backward Class category. The High Court directed the Commission to announce the results of the Respondent in Law Paper-1 of the main written examination. If she was found qualified, the Commission was directed to conduct the interview of 2 the Respondent as a special case. The Commission was further directed to complete the exercise and announce the final result of the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the High Court, this appeal is filed.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission 5 are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission1.

12. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.

13. In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
M/S N Ramachandra Reddy vs The State Of Telangana

4. Necessary facts in nutshell, for disposal of this appeal are as under:

(a) The bidders shall exhibit proof of owning “Batch Type Hot Mix Plant” of capacity 100-120 TPH and such Batch Type Hot Mix Plant shall be located within a distance of 100 Kms from the last point of working reach for which bids are invited.

(b) The bidders to furnish necessary certificates from the concerned District Officers of R & B where such plants have been located and the District Officers of R & B shall inspect and certify with route maps on the (1) location (2) distance from last point of work reach and (3) ownership of such plants for which the bidders are intending to bid.

6. Pursuant to tender notice, there were two offers by the bidders i.e the fourth respondent as well as the appellant herein. The technical bids were opened on 18.05.2018 at 04:00 P.M. and as the fourth respondent as well as the appellant were qualified in the technical bid, the Part-II bid i.e the price bid was opened on 31.05.2018 at 03:00 P.M.

17. It is not in dispute that the appellant owns a Hot Mix Plant and at the request of the appellant, the District Officers have issued a certificate. The said certificate was to be filed along with ‘Part A’ of the documents, relating to technical bid. 9 [email protected].(c) No.8185 of 2019

[email protected].(c) No.8185 of 2019

15 [email protected].(c) No.8185 of 2019

30. The learned Single Judge, by observing that there being no specific mala fides against any individual, has held that, no fault can be attributed to the Chief Engineer in getting the re-verification done, by obtaining a report from the independent authority. Further, by recording a finding that the scope of interference in the matter relating to tenders, in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is 18 [email protected].(c) No.8185 of 2019 confined to decision-making process only, has dismissed the Writ Petition.

44. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 13.03.2019 passed in Writ Appeal No. 153 of 2019, by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and confirm the order dated 14 (2016) 3 SCC 340 25 [email protected].(c) No.8185 of 2019 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23501 of 2018. No order as to costs.

August 28,2019 26
M/S Ganga Bhavani Constructions vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence of one year imposed upon Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish, the appellant-M/s. Ganga Bhavani Constructions has preferred this appeal. (3) The appellant-M/s. Ganga Bhavani Construtions has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from the second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao on 04.04.2007. The appellant executed a promissory note in favour of respondent no.2. Additionally, the appellant also issued a cheque on 17.04.2008. Upon presentation of the same, the said cheque was returned with endorsement “payment stopped by drawer” on Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH 18.04.2008.

Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 17.04.2012, convicted the 2 appellant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The First Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2018 dismissed the revision petition upholding the conviction of the appellant observing that the appellant had admitted his signature on the cheque and has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The High Court while affirming the conviction has reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant from two years to one year. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(7) Since the second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao, who is present in the Court in-person, has stated that he received the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) pursuant to the Compromise, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) deposited before the Trial Court shall be refunded to the appellant.
Syed Zainul Abedeen vs Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Waqf.

5. To be noticed at this stage, the survey conducted by the Commissioner Wakfs under the Act, 1954 holding the subject property as a Wakf–Al­Allah in its report dated 2 nd January, 1965 was not the subject matter of challenge in the suit filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff.

56. Notice of suits by parties against the Board—No suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act purporting to be done by it in pursuance of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at, the office of the Board, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.” 10

19. Indubitably, the suit was preferred beyond the period of limitation and a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by all the three Courts and we find no manifest error in the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below which needs our interference.

22. We find no error in the orders passed by the Courts below which calls for our interference.

23. Consequently, the appeal is without substance and accordingly dismissed.

24. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Ex.Sepoy (Washerman) Ram Khilawan vs Union Of India

3) The appellant was enrolled in the Army as a Washerman on October 23, 1987. He was discharged from service on medical grounds on August 31, 1993 due to “CNS (IN) Seizure” when he 1 Tribunal 1 was put in Low Medical Category BEE on August 27, 1992.

Appellant, aggrieved against the discharge, submitted statutory complaint on August 11, 2007 wherein, the stand of the appellant was that no show-cause notice was given to him by the Commanding Officer who sanctioned discharge under Rule 13(3) Item III (v) of the Army Rules, 1954 2. Such statutory complaint was declined on October 12, 2007, inter alia, on the ground that though the appellant has given his option to serve in the sheltered appointment but no sheltered appointment was available commensurate with the trade to suitably employ in the public interest. Therefore, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Order 46 of 1980 read with Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Rules.

4) The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but subsequently on commencement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow. The learned Tribunal found that the appellant was placed in permanent Low Medical Category BEE and was discharged from service on August 31, 1993 with only 05 years 11 months and 08 days of service. The Classified Specialist has put the following restrictions on the appellant:

(a) The employment of permanent low medical category personnel, at all times, is subject to the availability of suitable alternative appointments commensurate with their medical category and also to the proviso that this can be justified in the public interest, and that their retention will not exceed the sanctioned strength of the 4 regiment/corps. When such an appointment is not available or when their retention is either not considered necessary in the interest of the service or it exceeds the sanctioned strength of the regiment/corps, they will be discharged irrespective of the service put in by them.

13) Having said so, in terms of clause (b) of General Principles of Army Order 46 of 1980, he is entitled to be retained for ten years being in the rank of personnel of Other Ranks. Since, he joined the service on October 23, 1987, he would be deemed to be discharged only on October 22, 1997.

14) As a consequence thereof, the appellant became entitled to pension in addition to disability pension which was granted to him for a period of five years. However, the appellant will not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period up to the date of discharge inter alia on the ground of no work no pay but he shall be entitled to arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to filing of Writ Petition No. 61717 of 2007 which was transferred to the Tribunal. The arrears of pension be paid to the appellant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8

15) In view of the above, the appeals are allowed.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2019.
Shishupal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home ...

3. The police carried out investigation and filed a charge- sheet. While the trial was on, during the examination-in-chief of PW-1, an order has been passed exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant as an accused. This order was sought to be assailed in a revision petition which was dismissed. Thus, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

1. The role ascribed to the appellant was that he came with a country made revolver at the site but the deceased Satyapal was fired upon by two other accused which caused the death. This is what has been stated in the examination-in-chief of PW-1. 2

10. We thus set aside the orders of the High Court as well as the trial Court leaving it open to the trial Court to consider the issue of exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant, if it so feels, based on aforesaid principles.

11. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

SEPTEMBER 03, 2019.
M.J.Thulsiraman vs Commr.

3. The genesis of this dispute lies in the year 1987, when the appellants’ predecessor­in­interest filed an application under Section 63(a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras for a declaration to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” is a private property belonging to him, with a duty cast on him to perform certain private charities. This application was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.1990, and the appeal against the above order, before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras, also came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.03.1994. Being aggrieved, the appellants’ predecessor­ in­interest then filed a civil suit, being Original Suit No. 4510 of 1994, under Section 70(2) of the Act, challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. However, this civil suit also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.03.1999. An appeal being Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000 was thereafter filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein due to the demise of the appellants’ predecessor­in­interest the present appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. The High Court 2 dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2008. The appellants thereafter filed the present Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave. This Court, vide order dated 14.05.2010, directed that status quo as to possession is to be maintained during the pendency of this appeal.

24. Therefore, taking into consideration the existing law and the facts of the present case, we hold that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the rock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as defined 12 under the Act, and the same is not the private property of the appellants. The well reasoned judgment passed by the High Court, impugned before us, therefore warrants no interference.

25. Appeal is consequently dismissed, with no costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Needless to say that the status quo granted vide order dated 14.05.2010 stands vacated.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2019.
Vijay Nathalal Gohil vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. Stated briefly, the appellant was married to the deceased. They had two children. The Trial Court/High Court found that the appellant and the members of his family ill- treated the deceased and there were frequent altercations Reason: between the husband and the wife. The appellant had even left his wife at the home of her parents at Rajkot where she 2 lived for some time. However, she was later brought back and the appellant and the deceased started living in a room adjacent to the embroidery factory of the appellant.

3. On 21.05.1990, the appellant went to the police station and reported the death of his wife. He stated that she had consumed poison. His statement and the statements of some others were recorded on the same day. It appears that the appellant gave a bottle of poison to the police in the presence of panchas claiming that the deceased had consumed poison from the said bottle.

4. Thereafter investigation was started and an FIR was registered. Postmortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted. The postmortem examination indicates murder.

13. We are of the view that the trial court and the High Court rightly took the view, in effect, that the chain of circumstances could not lead to any conclusion other than the conclusion which has been arrived at in this case. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal which is affirmed and accordingly the appeal dismissed.

(Heard by HON’BLE INDIRA BANERJEE AND HON’BLE SANJIV KHANNA) Date : 03-09-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pragya Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Anoop Khanduri, Adv.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Jyothir. R vs Sunisha N.S.

13. The Appellant secured final marks of 548.4722 in the NEET­ UG examination, after including the marks awarded to him in the Sports (Individual) category.

The Appellant raised a challenge only after the category wise list of reserved candidates was published on 28.06.2019, when the Appellant chose to file his Writ Petition on 01.07.2019 after the seats were allotted in the Sports quota.

25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer of the Appellant to consider Respondent No. 5 in the Sports (Team) Quota is unsustainable on merits. It is made clear that for the purposes of admission to the M.B.B.S course in the Sports Quota, the position awarded to the candidates in the final Rank List published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 28.06.2019, shall be the basis for granting admission by the authorities.

26. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed. The interim Order passed 19.08.2019 is vacated. Pending applications, if any, are dismissed.

Leave granted.

The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the Civil appeal Nos. 7025­7026 of 2019.

September 5, 2019.
M/S Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

1. Welfare economics, enlightened self-interest and the pressure of trade unions led larger factories and establishments to introduce schemes that would benefit their employees, including schemes like that of the 1 provident fund.1 However, with an increasing number of small factories and establishments coming into the market, the employees of such fledgling units remained deprived of these benefits. In order to diffuse such benefits in establishments across the market, the legislature promulgated the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The said Act was enacted with the avowed object of providing for the security of workers in organised industries, in the absence of any social security scheme prevalent in our country. To avoid any hardship to new establishments, a provision was made for exempting them from the aegis of the said Act, for a period of five years. This period was reduced to three years in 1988 and the exemption provision was completely removed from 22.9.1997.

Conclusion:

42. We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the findings qua all the three appellants satisfy the functional integrality and the general unity of purpose test, and the same are met in the facts of the present case.

44. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to impose costs on all the three appellants, but of varying amounts. As there was no case whatsoever of BCCL, Jaipur, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4475/2010, we, thus, dismiss that appeal with costs of Rs.50,000/-, while imposing costs on the other two appellants of Rs.20,000/- each.

45. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

September 12, 2019.
Mohan Chandra Tamta (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Ali Ahmed (D) Thr Lrs

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 Khalil Ahmed and defendant no.2 Ali Ahmad were permitted to stay in some portion of this house by Lalta Prasad Tamta. Over a period of time the building started subsiding and the ground floor got embedded in the earth and only two storeys were left. In 1960, Lalta Prasad Tamta issued notice to the said two defendants to vacate the house but they refused to do so. He then filed Suit No.115 of 1960 for their eviction. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 denied the title of Lalta Prasad Tamta over the property and claimed that they were the tenants of defendant no.3 Mustaffa Shah Khan, who was not a party in this suit. The said suit instituted by Lalta Prasad Tamta was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1961 filed before the District Judge, Nainital, was also dismissed.

9. The present appellant filed a second appeal in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court in the first round set aside the judgment of the first appellate court, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession. An appeal was filed by one Smt. Murtaza Jahan in this Court on the ground that she was also one of the legal heirs and no notice had been served upon her. This Court allowed the appeal only on that short ground and remanded the case to the High Court.

8. Defendant no.2, i.e. the tenant, filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No.10 of 1975 but no appeal was filed by defendant no.3 Mustaffa Shah Khan against the decree passed by the trial court. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the 6 plaintiff’s suit holding that plaintiff is the owner of the property only to the extent of 3/4th share and since defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the tenants of defendant no.3 they are not liable to be evicted.

13. The tenants remain tenants whoever be the landlord/owner. Once defendant no.3 Mustaffa Shah Khan had not challenged the decree of the trial court with regard to his title, defendant nos. 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to challenge the finding of ownership with which they are not directly concerned. Therefore, the appeal filed by them before the District Judge on the issue as to whether the plaintiffs had become the full owner of the property or not, was not maintainable. They could have challenged the decree on other grounds but not on this ground.

14. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the judgment dated 31.03.2009 of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital in Second Appeal No.670 of 2001 and restore the judgment and decree dated 23.03.1975 of the trial court decreeing the suit in favour of the appellants. The appeal stands disposed of 9 accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
S. Bhaskaran vs Sebastian (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors.

2. The brief facts from which this appeal arises are as follows:

3. From 1987-88, three suits relating to the temple properties were filed. Among these, O.S. No. 8664/1988 is relevant to the instant appeal. This suit was filed on behalf of the temple by one K.S. Jaganathan and S. Bhaskaran (Appellant herein) in their capacity as trustees, seeking permanent injunction against Gnanambal and her husband, who were tenants in the suit properties (Respondents 1-7 herein) at that time. One Umapathymurthy (represented by Respondents 8-14 herein) was impleaded in this suit as a defendant. In his written statement, he claimed that he was the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy and that he had been dispossessed from the trusteeship of the temple by his younger brother, K.S. Sabapathy.

By allowing them to re-open the question of trusteeship by way of an application in an execution petition, the High Court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. Since the findings of the Trial Court had attained finality, the decision of the executing court dated 31.01.2007 by which E.A. No. 5750/2003 was dismissed, should have been affirmed. Thus, 6 the impugned judgment is not only illegal, but also without jurisdiction.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1007 of 2007 passed by the High Court. The order of the City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2007 in E.A. No. 5750/2003 is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 7