L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sunil Kr.Ghosh & Ors vs K.Ram Chandran & Ors

3) Brief facts:

(b) On 01.12.1998, a Suit being Civil Suit No. 483 of 1998 was instituted in the High Court at Calcutta by two Employees' Unions in representative capacity against the proposed resolution to be passed at the extra-ordinary general meeting of the Company. Vide order dated 16.03.1999, the learned single Judge of the High Court passed an order of injunction restraining the Company from giving effect to the said Resolution and to the Agreement for Sale dated 30.09.1998. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the Company filed an appeal being APO No. 230 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. Vide order dated 13.09.1999, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Company. Thereafter, employees' unions filed SLP (C) No. 14274 of 1999 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court on 15.10.1999. Against the same, Review Petition No. 1585 of 1999 was filed which was also dismissed.

Contempt Application being No. 539 of 2002 was filed by the workers, inter alia, alleging violation of the order dated 08.10.2001 which was dismissed by the single Judge of the High Court on 20.06.2008. On 21.07.2008, the workers filed MAT No. 519 of 2008 before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2008.

10) It is settled law that without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment 1 compensation in terms of the Act. In view of the same, we are of the view that the workmen are entitled to the benefit of such direction and it is the obligation on the part of the Management- Philips India Ltd., to comply with the same. We are also satisfied that the learned single Judge was conscious of the fact that these workmen failed to avail the VRS within the stipulated time and also did not retire from the service.

13) In view of the above, we are satisfied that the appellants-

Accordingly, we direct the respondent-Philips India Ltd. to comply with the directions made by the learned single Judge vide order dated 08.10.2001, which we have quoted in earlier paragraphs, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this judgment.

14) The civil appeals are allowed on the above terms. No order as to costs.

NOVEMBER 18, 2011.
Dinesh Kumar vs Chairman.Airport Auth.Of India & Anr

3. On November 4, 2009, the sanctioning authority granted sanction to prosecute the appellant for the offences indicated above. After the sanction order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court on November 26, 2009, the charge-sheet has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) -respondent No. 2- against the appellant on November 30, 2009 in the Court of Special Judge, Ernakulam. Following that, summons came to be issued to the appellant on December 18, 2009. During the pendency of the 2 matter before the High Court, wherein the sanction order has been challenged by the appellant, the Court of Special Judge has taken cognizance against the appellant.

15. Mr. H.P. Raval has no objection if a direction in this regard is given by us.

16. In view of the above contentions and the factual and legal position indicated above, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order before the Trial Judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, appellant is permitted to appear before the Trial Court through his advocate. His personal appearance shall not be insisted upon by the Trial Court except when necessary.
Union Of India vs L.S.N. Murthy & Anr

2. The facts in brief are that in August, 1999, the appellant invited tenders for supply of fresh fruits for its troops for the period from 01.10.1999 to 30.09.2000 and respondent No.2 amongst others submitted tenders and the tender of respondent No.2 was accepted. The respondent No.2 started supply of fresh fruits on 01.10.1999 and stopped the supply 2 on 06.06.2000. On 13.06.2000, the appellant issued a notice to respondent No.2 to show-cause why action should not be initiated for such non-supply of fresh fruits. The respondent No.2 submitted its reply dated 20.06.2000 saying that the prices of all variety of fruits had increased and that it was impossible on its part to perform the contract and that the appeals made by the respondent No.2 were not considered by the authorities. The appellant then rescinded the contract with respondent No.2 by letter dated 29.06.2000 and informed the respondent No.2 that its security deposit has been forfeited and that the appellant will recover the expenditures made by the appellant for purchase of fruits during the contract period.

12. We accordingly set aside the Award of the arbitrator and the judgments of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the 12 High Court and remit the matter to the arbitrator for deciding the claims of the appellant and the respondent No.2 in accordance with the findings in the Award on Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and in accordance with this judgment. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Jaisy @ Jayaseelan vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police

1. The appellant is original accused no. 2. He was tried along with six other accused in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Chidambaram in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2004 inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). The 2 Sessions Court by judgment and order dated 25th July, 2005 acquitted original accused nos. 5 to 7 and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Sections 449, 341 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The appellant along with others carried appeals to the Madras High Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16.3.2007, the Madras High Court dismissed the said appeals. Hence this appeal by special leave.

2. Shortly stated the case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched over a period of one week prior to 9.6.2002, at 10.00 a.m. on 9.6.2002, Sivakumar, Jayaseelan, Loghu and Lakshmanan (A1 to A4 respectively) trespassed into the office of the Chairman of the panchayat i.e. Senthil Kumar (PW-5) and they wrongfully restrained Ramesh (the deceased) and indiscriminately and fatally attacked him. In the course of the same transaction, A1 is stated to have caused hurt to Ravi (PW-2) with a dangerous weapon. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses.

He submitted that PW-1 claims to be an eye witness. Since he is the brother of the deceased, he is an interested witness. His evidence, therefore, needs corroboration.

8. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
State Of Haryana vs Rajmal & Anr

4. The facts and circumstances, which are relevant, are as under:

Those were seized and taken into custody vide recovery memo. Thereafter ruqa was sent to the 3 police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was investigated.

e) At the Trial, P.W.-3/investigating officer and P.W.-2/Bir Singh, who were eye-witnesses, supported the case of prosecution and categorically deposed that accused were known to them from before and on seeing the police party, they ran away from the place by scaling the wall.

k) By impugned order-dated 20.04.2010 the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of conviction of the accused persons.

23. Therefore the impugned order of the High Court is, with respect, legally not sustainable. We therefore are unable to accept the reasons of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set-aside and that of the learned Sessions Judge is affirmed.
Punjab State Warehousing ... vs M/S Sh.Durga Ji Traders & Ors

3. Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

The trial proceeded in the normal course for six years. However, on 18th February 2003 the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the case for non appearance of the complainant even though the pleader for the appellant was present in court. The order reads thus:

Hence the present appeal by the complainant.

9. Bearing in mind the afore-stated legal position in regard to the scope and width of the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, we are of the opinion that the impugned decision is clearly indefensible. As noted above, the High Court has rejected the petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy without considering the seriousness of the nature of the offences and the fact that the Trial Court had dismissed the complaint on a hyper technical ground viz. since the complainant had been appearing in person, despite order dated 16th April 1999, exempting him from personal appearance, the said exemption order became redundant and the complainant should have sought a fresh exemption from personal appearance. We feel that such a view defies any logic. An order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or recalled. We are convinced that in the instant case, rejection of appellant's petition under Section 482 of the Code has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Availability of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal is not an absolute bar in 7 entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code. As aforesaid, one of the circumstances envisaged in the said Section, for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is to secure the ends of justice.

Undoubtedly, the Trial Court had dismissed the complaint on a technical ground and therefore, interests of justice required the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to set aside such an order so that the Trial Court could proceed with the trial on merits.

10.Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment as also the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 18th February 2003 and 9th November 2005 are set aside and the complaint filed by the appellant is restored to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall now proceed with the trial after securing the presence of the accused.

NOVEMBER 28, 2011.
Union Public Ser.Commn vs Gyan Prakash Srivastava

2. After acquiring Degree in Law from Allahabad University in 1979, the respondent got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. He practiced in the Allahabad High Court from September 1980 to September 1986. Thereafter, he worked as Assistant (Legal), Law Officer, Assistant Director of Estates (Litigation), Vigilance-cum-Legal Officer and Officer on Special duty (Litigation) in different departments of the Central Government for over two decades.

6. The Tribunal referred to paragraph 7 of the advertisement, the respondent's reply to the questions enumerated in paragraphs 9 and 10, the details of his educational qualifications and employment in different departments of the Central Government and observed:

NOTE: III: If no copies of the above certificates are sent with the application, it is liable to be rejected and no appeal against its rejection will be entertained.

20. In Writ Petition (C) No. 2734 of 2010, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 30.9.2010, the Division Bench noted that the respondent had not attached B.Sc. Degree Certificate with the application, which was an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) in Forensic Science Laboratory and reversed the order of the Tribunal by observing that production of the certificate of the Master's Degree in Zoology was not sufficient compliance of the stipulation contained in the advertisement. The Division Bench also referred to order dated 25.1.2010 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 10058/2009 and held that the Commission did not commit any error by rejecting the candidature of the respondent Dheerender Singh Paliwal.

22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Since the respondent was allowed to participate in the process of selection and he was placed at No.1 in the merit list, we deem it proper to issue the following directions -

1) within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this judgment, the Commission shall forward the respondent's name to the competent authority of the concerned department of the Central Government.

2) within next two weeks, the competent authority shall issue order of appointment in favour of the respondent.
Gajanan Samadhan Lande vs Sanjay Shyamrao Dhotre

2. The respondent - Sanjay Shyamrao Dhotre - contested the election from Akola Constituency for the 15th Lok Sabha and was declared elected.

4. The returned candidate contested the election petition and disputed that he was holding an 'office of profit' under the Government. His case was that he was elected as a Director of the Corporation from Growers constituency and the allowances received by him as an elected Director were not in the nature of profit but were paid to him by way of reimbursement of actual expenses. Moreover, the returned candidate was not appointed by the Government nor the Government has any right to remove or dismiss him from the elected office of Director of the Corporation. He also set up the case that the Government has no control over the performance of functions of the elected Director of the Corporation.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the High Court framed 14 issues. The appellant examined two witnesses, including himself and tendered documentary evidence. On the other hand, the returned candidate examined himself and one more witness who was Deputy General Manager (Audit) of the Corporation. He also 3 produced documentary evidence in support of his defence.

Essential condition that office carries remuneration in the form of pay or commission is also not satisfied.

15. Lastly, the peculiar features of an elected office of Director in the Corporation, do not bring such office within the meaning of 'office of profit'.

16. Thus, we are satisfied that the view of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by us in this Appeal.

17. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
M/S Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai issued a Caste Certificate to the appellant herein certifying that she belongs to Hindu Shimpi Caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class (Sr. No. 153) under Government Resolution No. CBC 1467/M dated 13.10.1967, Education and Social Welfare Department and as amended from time to time. In the year 2007, the appellant herein along with Mrs Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf-

Respondent No. 6 contested the elections of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from Ward No. 62 reserved for women candidate belonging to the other backward classes and the appellant won the election. As per the policy of the State Election Commission, the Caste Certificate of the appellant 2 herein was sent to the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the caste claimed and issue of validity certificate.

8) The said order of the Verification Committee was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court and by order dated 21.10.2010, it concluded that the appellant belongs to `Namdeo Shimpi' caste which does not fall under Entry 153 of the relevant Government Resolution dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. It is relevant to point out that though some other sub-castes of caste `Shimpi' in (OBC) have been mentioned in Entry 153, admittedly, `Namdeo Shimpi' has not been included under the original caste `Shimpi'. The relevant protion of the Entry 153 is as under:

17) Under these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

DECEMBER 05, 2011.
M/S.Industrial P.I.Corpn.Orrisa Ltd vs M/S. Tuobro Furguson Steels P.Ltd. & Ors

2. The facts relevant to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties are brief and may be stated thus. A Foundry Unit situated at Ganeswarpur Industrial Estate, Balasore, by the side of NH-5, along with land, building, plant and machineries was taken over by the Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, as its original promoters namely, M/s Josna Casting Centre, defaulted in payment of its dues. The taken-over Unit was put to sale vide advertisement dated February 8, 1999 issued in Oriya and English newspapers inviting offers for purchase of the Unit. A copy of the sale advertisement is at Annexure P1 which gives a complete description of the Industrial Unit along with all the relevant details. It is significant to note that in the advertisement it was stipulated that the sale would be on `AS IS WHERE IS' basis.

6. On March 24, 2000, the appellant - Corporation once again wrote to respondents asking them to pay the over due interest of Rs.3,51,445/- as on March 31, 2000 and to execute the necessary documents.

"According to the petitioner, after taking possession of the said Unit, it found that because of missing of some vital parts of the machines and machineries, huge arrear electric dues and lack of grant of recommendation for I.P.R. the Unit does not worth Rs.40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs) and, therefore, petitioner made correspondences with opposite party No.1 seeking reliefs on those accounts besides requesting to reduce the rate of interest on the differential amount to be paid in instalments and that when opposite party No.1 turned a deaf ear to all such approaches and representations, petitioner opted to withdraw from the Industrial Unit and surrender the same in favour of opposite party No.1. With such assertion, petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing opposite party No.1 to give the rehabilitation package (as mentioned in the prayer portion of the writ petition) or alternative to direct opposite party No.1 to return the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakhs) which was paid by it in September, 1999 with interest at the prevailing Bank rate."

(Rupees Thirty Two Lacs) in instalments and along with interest, as stipulated in the letter. The Corporation had, therefore, not only the right to retain Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) paid to it as part consideration but also to realise the balance amount of consideration, in accordance with law.

17. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we find, for the reasons stated above, that the order of the High Court is completely unsustainable. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).

December 5, 2011
Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade vs Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market & ...

2. The dispute in these Appeals concerns allotment of one large gala in the Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market, Vashi. The rival claimants are the appellant and common respondent Nos. 5 and 2 in these Appeals - Narayan Nivrutti Shinde (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant respondent').

14. A look at the above provision would show that cost of supervision is paid to the State Government by the person purchasing produce in the market or market area. It is the cost recovered by the State Government for the expenses incurred for the staff appointed by it to supervise the purchase of agricultural produce in the market or market area regulated by the Market Committee under the 1963 Act. The determination of cost of supervision is notified by the State Government from time to time and does not exceed five paise per hundred rupees of the purchase price.

19. We, accordingly, hold that the appellant is entitled to one small gala in the Fruit Market at Vashi.

21. The impugned judgment of the High Court is 10 modified and the Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.
M/S Nagpur Golden Transport Co. & Ors vs M/S Nath Traders & Ors

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.3 booked a consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant for transportation from Coimbatore to respondents No.1 and 2 at Gwalior in March, 1997. While the appellant was transporting the consignment in a truck, there was an accident and the monoblock pumps were damaged. The respondents No.1 and 2 2, therefore, did not take delivery of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps at Gwalior. In the circumstances, the appellant returned the 198 damaged monoblock pumps to the respondent No.3.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 then filed Complaint No.101 of 1998 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, and their case in the complaint was that they had paid the price of the consignment to respondent No.3 and were entitled to Rs.3,61,131/- towards the price of the monoblock pumps and damages of Rs.70,000/-, loss of profit Rs.14,000/- as well as cost of Rs.5,000/- and interest @ 18% per annum on the amount claimed by them. The appellant resisted the claim contending that the claim was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short `the Act'). The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in its order dated 27.01.1999, held that the appellant as a common carrier was the insurer of the goods in transit and if the goods have been damaged, the appellant was liable to respondents No.1 and 2 for negligence. The District Consumer Disputes Forum, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,131/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 01.04.1997 till the date of payment and Rs.500/- as counsel fee and further sum of Rs.500/- as 3 cost of the case.

4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal No.202 of 1999 before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order dated 07.10.1999 held that there was no legal infirmity in the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, awarding the sum of Rs.3,60,131/- but took the view that levy of interest @ 18% per annum was penal and instead directed the appellant to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,60,131/- from the date of filing of the complaint (02.03.1998) till the date of payment. The appellant filed a revision but by the impugned order dated 18.02.2003 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision.

9. We, therefore, remand the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, with the direction to issue notice to the parties and after taking evidence, if necessary, order the return of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps by respondent No.3 to the appellant and if the 198 damaged monoblock pumps are not available with respondent No.3, to find out the value of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps realized by the respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3 to pay the said value to the appellant. The appeal is allowed to 7 the extent indicated above. No costs.