L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jagdish Chander vs Satish Chander

3. The first respondent-plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration to the effect that he is joint owner to the extent of 435/924 shares i.e 0-04-57 hectares in the suit scheduled land. It was his case in 1 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.36299/2016 the suit that Smt. Vidya Devi, the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant was the original owner of the suit land. She executed a registered Will in favour of him and the appellant herein on 09.04.1991. As per the Will, 0-03-84 hectares of land was bequeathed to the plaintiff and 0-02-85 hectares of land was bequeathed to the appellant herein. Smt. Vidya Devi had also executed a Will in respect of other land in favour of the proforma respondent nos.2 & 3 herein. It is the allegation of the respondent no.1-plaintiff that the appellant herein by playing fraud on Smt. Vidya Devi, on 23.04.1991, got executed a fictitious gift deed without her knowledge and consent. It is further pleaded that the suit land is ancestral property and the parties are governed by Kangra Customary Law to inherit the land as such he is entitled for declaration as prayed for.

4. The appellant-defendant No.1 has contested the suit. While denying various allegations made by the plaintiff, it was the case of the appellant herein that Smt. Vidya Devi had executed a valid gift deed in his favour out of her free will, consent and without undue influence. The gift deed was registered with the Sub- Registrar as such question of fraud does not arise. 2 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.36299/2016 It was pleaded, by virtue of the gift, the appellant has become the owner of 558 shares out of 924 shares, out of which 285 shares were due on account of the gift deed. The appellant also denied the allegation of the respondent no.1-plaintiff that the suit land was ancestral property and governed by Kangra customary law.

6. With the aforesaid findings, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25.10.2016 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.383 of 2007. Consequently, the suit filed in Civil Suit No. 10 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.36299/2016 RBT1251/95/92 on the file of Sub-Judge, First Class Jawali, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

[R. Subhash Reddy] New Delhi;

February 27, 2019 11
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs Vivekananda Vidyamandir

2. It is considered appropriate to briefly set out the individual facts of each appeal for better appreciation. Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011: The respondent is an unaided school giving special allowance by way of incentive to teaching and non­teaching staff pursuant to an agreement between the staff and the management. The incentive was reviewed from time to time upon enhancement of the tuition fees of the students. The authority under the Act held that the special allowance was to be included in basic wage for deduction of provident fund. The Single Judge set aside the order. The Division Bench initially after examining the salary structure allowed the appeal on 13.01.2005 holding that the special allowance was a part of dearness allowance liable to deduction. The order was recalled on 16.01.2007 at the behest of the respondent as none had appeared on its behalf. The subsequent Division Bench dismissed the appeal holding that the special allowance was not linked to the consumer price index, and therefore did not fall within the definition of basic wage, thus not liable to deduction.

3 Civil Appeal Nos. 3965­66 of 2013: The appellant was paying basic wage + variable dearness allowance(VDA) + house rent allowance(HRA) + travel allowance + canteen allowance + lunch incentive. The special allowances not having been included in basic wage, deduction for provident fund was not made from the same. The authority under the Act held that only washing allowance was to be excluded from basic wage. The High Court partially allowed the writ petition by excluding lunch incentive from basic wage. A review petition against the same by the appellant was dismissed.

15. Resultantly, Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011 is allowed. Civil Appeal Nos. 3965­66 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos. 3967­68 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos. 3969­70 of 2013 and Transfer Case (C) No.19 of 2019 are dismissed.
Abdul Hakeem M.A. vs Mahatma Gandhi University

3. According to the appellants, they were appointed against substantive posts created by the Resolution of the Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi University (‘the University’, for short) at AICTE 1 scales of pay, through selection processes which were in complete compliance of the provisions of the concerned University Statutes; and, on completion of one year of service, the University declared the appellants to have satisfactorily completed their probation. But the University refused to implement pay revision to the teachers so appointed including the appellants describing them as appointed temporarily. This led to the filing of O.P. No.3818 of 2003 which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench in appeal preferred by the University however set aside the decision of the Single Judge and later, dismissed Review Petitions as well, leading to the filing of these appeals by special leave.

4. The facts in brief are as under:

c) The stand taken by the University before authorities like AICTE and later in submission of budget proposals, and

13. We, therefore, allow these appeals set aside the judgment and orders under appeal and restore the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Single Judge in O.P.(Civil) No.3818 of 2013.

14. No costs.

Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos. 4255-4256 of 2018 (Jacob K Daniel vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills & Anr.) Since the written submissions filed by the University show that the appointment order of the petitioner had clearly stipulated the appointment to SLP(C)No.4251-4252 of 2018 Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Ors. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. 27 be temporary, we segregate this matter and direct that it be listed before the appropriate court in due course.
Varun Pahwa vs Renu Chaudhary

6. The trial court declined the amendment on the ground that the application is an attempt to convert the suit filed by a private individual into a suit filed by a Private Limited Company which is not permissible as it completely changes the nature of the suit. It is the said order which was not interfered with by the High Court.

11. Thus, we find that it was an inadvertent mistake in the plaint which trial court should have allowed to be corrected so as to permit the Private Limited Company to sue as Plaintiff as the original Plaintiff has filed suit as Director of the said Private Limited Company. Therefore, the order declining to correct the memo of parties cannot be said to be justified in law.

12. Consequently, the orders passed by the High Court dated 20.08.2018 and by the trial court on 23.01.2018 are set-aside and the application filed by the Plaintiff to amend the plaint is allowed with no order as to costs.

The appeal is allowed.
The State Of Punjab vs Gurbaran Singh

3. The respondent was appointed as a pharmacist by the Director Health Services, Punjab on 05.09.1975 in the pay-scale of Rs.140-6-1030 on regular basis. During his tenure the respondent was posted at various districts. While being posted at Ferozepur, he tendered his resignation by letter dated 27.06.1986. The resignation was accepted by the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, Punjab. The respondent, thereafter, filed various CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………….OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.28798 OF 2018 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. VS. GURBARAN SINGH 2 representations contending that he was entitled to pension and service benefits but was granted only gratuity and General Provident Fund.

4. The respondent being aggrieved by non grant of pension, filed Civil Suit No.74 of 2009 claiming pensionary benefits in respect of service rendered by him. Since the appellants failed to file written statement, their defense was struck off. On 16.11.2012 the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bathinda, decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay to the respondent pensionary benefits with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree.

5. The decision of the Trial Court was appealed against by the appellants by filing Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013 before the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, which also came to be dismissed on 23.12.2014. The judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were challenged by filing Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. It was submitted by the appellant that the matter was covered by Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (for short ‘the Rules’) in terms of which no retiral benefits would be admissible to an employee who resigned from service. The submission was rejected and the High Court dismissed said Second Appeal on 31.08.2017. The view taken by the High Court is presently under challenge.

11. Considering the totality of the circumstances we direct:-

b) The amount which was made over to the respondent in May, 2018, as aforesaid, shall not be recovered from the respondent, but no further payments shall be released or paid to the respondent.

c) This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Anand Kumar Sharma vs Bar Council Of India . Through Secretary

4. The Appellant filed yet another application for enrolment as an advocate before the Bar Council of Rajasthan which was rejected on 29 th June, 2003. The Bar Council of India confirmed the order of 29 th June, 2003 by its resolution dated 3rd January, 2004.

7. The Appellant is a qualified medical doctor who was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In the affidavit filed in Special Leave Petitions (Civil)..CC Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013, the Appellant stated that a FIR registered against him at Police Station Dhambola on 15 th 4 April, 1988. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He further stated that he was absent from service without obtaining leave for which reason his services were terminated by the Director. The Appellant has also referred to his conviction under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Judicial Magistrate on 7 th January, 1988. He has also filed the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, Rajasthan by which his appeal against the conviction under Section 419 IPC was allowed. The suppression that was alleged against the Appellant at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh pertains to his being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in a criminal case. Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of the Appellant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation. It is in exercise of this power that the enrollment of the Appellant was cancelled. The first order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court. The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount 5 to an abuse of process. The Appellant would be better advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to his enrollment as Advocate. The orders impugned in the Appeals do not suffer from any infirmity and are upheld.

8. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly.
New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Lt. Col. J. B. Kuchhal (Dead)

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under:

6. The Award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 31.07.1992 excluding the disputed land. On 05.12.1997 the first writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Possession of plot Nos. 136M and 137M was taken by the Collector and transferred to the appellant on 10.09.1999. Order dated 05.12.1997 dismissing the first writ petition in default was recalled on 01.05.2007. This writ petition along with several other matters was directed to be placed before the larger Bench. A large number of writ petitions were ultimately decided by the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Gajraj Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1, vide judgment dated 20.10.2011 but these writ petitions were not decided by the said Bench.

12. Therefore, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned notifications in so far as the writ petitioners' lands are concerned.

(ii) Respondents shall determine compensation of disputed land at twice market value which would be determined in accordance with provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettle- ment Act, 2013, and pay the same to petitioners within three months from the date of judgment, 8 failing which they shall restore possession of dis- puted land to petitioners by removing construc- tions, if any, raised thereon.

(iii) Petitioners shall also be entitled to cost which we quantify to Rs.5,00,000/- in each set of writ petition”.

18. We are of the view that the appellant is not justified in contend- ing that the writ petitioners are not the title holders of the land. Hav- ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the direction of the High Court for determination of com- pensation of the disputed land is just and proper.

19. Therefore, we find no merit in these appeals. They are accord- 9 ingly dismissed. We make it clear that the High Court has passed the order directing determination of compensation on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The said order shall not be made appli- cable for determination of compensation in respect of other lands ac- quired under the same notification.

20. There will be no order as to costs.

March 5, 2019.
Asifkhan vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. As per the prosecution story on 21.10.2010 at about 8 AM in the morning, the complainant was standing at Bazar Pati Chowk and his brother Sardarkha was standing at some distance. At that time, it was alleged that all the accused came there and asked the complainant to allow them to take water Reason:

They arrived at the spot after ten minutes. This period was enough for their cooling in respect of the first incident, however, the prosecution evidence shows that after ten minutes, they, not only returned to the spot, but they returned with deadly knife with them. This act on the part of accused nos. 1 and 2 clearly establishes that with premeditation they returned to the spot. They returned to the spot with a specific intention. Further, from the evidence, it is clear that on reaching to the spot, they immediately caught deceased Sardarkha and gave knife blow as per the role ascribed to them by the prosecution witnesses. This fact clearly establishes that both the accused nos. 1 and 2 were nursing grudge against the deceased, because at the first instance it was the deceased who rescued PW 1 Kalekha from the quarrel with them.”

7. The High Court did not approve the reasoning of the trial court that there was no intention of the accused to kill the deceased. The High Court allowed the appeals of the State and the complainant and 6 convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The criminal appeals filed by the accused were dismissed. Acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4 was confirmed. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, these appeals have been filed.

8. This Court heard the Special Leave Petition on 06.02.2015 and dismissed the Special Leave Petition qua petitioner No.1, i.e. Nasibkhan. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition insofar as petitioner No.2, i.e., Asif Khan is concerned. These appeals, thus, are considered only on behalf of Asif Khan.

Whether, in the facts of the present case and the evidence on record, the appellant could be convicted under Section 302 with aid of Section 34 is a question to be answered.
Manik Kutum vs Julie Kutum

3. A few facts need mention for the disposal of this appeal.

4. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance from the appellant (husband) for herself and for her minor daughter.

5. By order dated 21.11.2011, the SDJM partly allowed the application and awarded Rs.2000/­ per month towards maintenance for her minor daughter but rejected the application insofar as it relates to award of maintenance to the respondent­wife on the ground that she is not the legally married wife of the appellant herein. It is against this order, the respondent­wife felt aggrieved and filed revision in the Guhati High Court.

13. We, however, find from the record that the appellant is working as Constable in RPF. His monthly salary is between Rs.30,000/­ to Rs.35,000/­ per month.

14. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper to fix Rs.8,000/­ (Rs. Eight Thousand) as monthly maintenance payable by the appellant (husband) to the respondent (wife).

16. The appellant will pay the amount of Rs.10,000/­ to the respondent(wife) on 1 st of every month from 01.03.2019 regularly.

17. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order in favour of the respondent(wife), the appeal thus stands disposed of.

March 07, 2019.
The Electronic Corporation Of India ... vs M. Shivani

2. The matter arises out of Writ Petition No.382 of 2018 filed by the Respondents in the High Court submitting inter alia that they had been working with the Appellant-Corporation through an outsourcing agency since 2010; that they had passed ITI and completed National Apprenticeship Certificate in the Appellant-Corporation itself; that the Appellant had issued Notification No.38 of 2017 for recruitment to the posts of Tradesman-B (WG- III) in different trades; that the upper age limit was prescribed as 28 years as on 30.11.2017; that there was relaxation in the age limit upto 40 years for those who had worked or were working with the Appellant-Corporation as Senior Artisan/Junior Artisan with ITI qualification plus NAC or ITI qualification plus experience of tenure based contract. It was the submission of the Respondents that they were seeking similar extension of benefit of age relaxation as they had worked through an outsourcing agency.

4. The advertisement in question was issued on 19.12.2017 and the last date for filling up applications online was 05.01.2018. The age limit as prescribed in the advertisement was 28 years for unreserved candidates but the age limit could be relaxed upto 40 years as stated above. The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by the Respondents on 02.01.2018 and was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court on 04.01.2018 with following observations:-

6. The Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 allowed the appeal and passed following directions:-

b) On 07.12.2018 since none had entered appearance, fresh notices were directed to be issued. In addition, dasti service was also permitted.

9. Having gone through the record, in our view, the assessment made by the Division Bench was completely incorrect. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and restore the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.382 of 2018.

10. No order as to costs.
M/S Icomm Tele Ltd. vs Punjab State Water Supply And Sewerage ...

2. In 2008, the Punjab State Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bhatinda issued notice inviting tender for extension and augmentation of water supply, sewerage scheme, pumping station and sewerage treatment plant for various towns mentioned therein on a turnkey basis. On 25.9.2008, the appellant company, which is involved in civil/electrical works in India, was awarded the said tender after having been found to be the best suited for the task. On 1 16.1.2009, a formal contract was entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 2. It may be mentioned that the notice inviting tender formed part and parcel of the formal agreement. Contained in the notice inviting tender is a detailed arbitration clause. In this matter, we are concerned with clause 25(viii) which is set out as follows:-

21. It is therefore always open to the party who has succeeded before the arbitrator to invoke this principle and it is open to the arbitrator to dismiss a claim as frivolous on imposition of exemplary costs.

28. For all these reasons, we strike down clause 25(viii) of the notice inviting tender. This clause being severable from the rest of clause 25 will not affect the remaining parts of clause 25. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal allowed.

(Vineet Saran) New Delhi.

March 11, 2019.
Savitaben vs The State Of Gujarat

16) came there and covered Narmadaben with mattress. Bharat (PW-12)-son of the deceased went to the field and informed his father Bhikhabhai Mithabhai Rohit (PW-4) about the incident. PW-4 went to the house and found his wife lying in burnt condition. According to PW-4, he asked Narmadaben how the 3 occurrence took place and deceased Narmadaben is said to have narrated the whole occurrence to him. Thereafter, deceased Narmadaben was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and she succumbed to injuries at 07.00 PM.

4) on 04.06.2005, case was registered under Sections 302 and 452 IPC read with Section 114 IPC. Dr. Bhargav Jhaveri (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Narmadaben and found injuries viz. first to third degree burn injuries on the face and frontal scalp hair including eyelashes, eyebrows, chest, abdomen, both the hands, both the legs except sole of left leg, back and private part of the body. As per post-mortem certificate (Ex.17) issued by PW-1, there were ninety-five percent burn injuries on the body of deceased and also opined that the death was due to extensive burns over the body. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused under Sections 302, 452 and 509 IPC read with Section 114 IPC.

(5) To bring home the guilt of the accused, in the trial court the prosecution examined Bharat (PW-12) who witnessed the occurrence, Rajesh Kumar Makwana (PW-15) and Gunvantsinh Makwana (PW-16) who covered the deceased with mattress, doctor (PW-3) who admitted the deceased in the hospital, doctor (PW-1) who conducted the post-mortem and other witnesses. Upon consideration of oral evidence and medical evidence and other facts and circumstances, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond 4 reasonable doubt and convicted both the accused under Sections 302 and 452 IPC read with Section 114 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid in para (1). In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of both the accused.

(11) In the result this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant-Savitaben is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 452 read with Section 114 I.P.C. The appellant-Savitaben is ordered to be released forthwith unless her presence is required in any other case.