L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashalata Bhowmik

3. The first respondent is the mother of deceased Dilip Bhowmik. The second respondent is his wife and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his children. On 20.5.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. Dilip Bhowmik was returning from Kathaltali to his house by driving his vehicle bearing No. TR-01-U-0530. When he reached near the bridge of Agartala Railway Station situated on the bye-pass under Amtali police station, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was initially rushed to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital, Hapania. Thereafter, he was referred to AGMC and GBP hospital, Agartala, where he was declared dead. At the time of the accident he was aged 43 years. The respondents alleged that the deceased was a businessman and his monthly income was Rs.15,000/-. They filed a claim petition seeking compensation amounting to Rs.68,15,000/-. The claim petition was opposed by the appellant-insurer. The Tribunal passed an award granting total compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,57,800/-.

9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towards compensation. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent per annum 5 from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.

10. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms without any order as to costs.

August 31, 2018.
Smt. Kavita vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ...

2. A Notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, U.P., dated 15th June, 2017 on the basis of requisition given by 32 members out of 59 members of the Kshettra Panchayat, expressing no confidence against the appellant who was the Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Lakhawati at the relevant time. The notice had fixed the meeting date as 1st July, 2017 i.e. on the 17th day from the date of notice. The appellant challenged the said notice by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad on two counts. First, that the Collector had failed to hold an enquiry into the validity of signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud. Second, that there was no clear 15 days’ notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. The Division Bench, after considering the factual position emanating from the record before it, negatived both 3 the contentions and eventually dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant vide the impugned judgment.

8. In view of the above, the ground urged by the appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired into the validity of the signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud, had been justly negatived by the High Court. Hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. As no other contention has been urged, the appeal must fail.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

September 05, 2018.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shriram .

2. The factual matrix as advanced by the prosecution, necessary for the disposal of this case is that, one Sarita Bai was married to respondent no. 1 on 23.04.1998. Ever since her marriage, she was alleged to have been tortured and ill treated by her in-laws, including her husband i.e. respondent no. 1 and mother-in-law i.e. respondent no. 3.

3. On 14.07.1998, Sarita Bai (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) committed suicide at her in-laws’ (respondents) place by consuming poison. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by the police and respondents were charged under Sec. 498-A/34, 304-B/34 of IPC and alternatively under Sec. 306/34 of IPC. Trial Court after examining the witnesses and evidence available on record, found the respondents guilty for committing offence under Sec. 498-A/34 and Sec. 306/34 of IPC. Therefore, vide order dated 22.11.1999, respondents were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for offence committed under Sec. 498-A/34 and rigorous imprisonment of 5 years for offence committed under Sec. 306/34 of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

9. In the light of above-stated findings and reasons, the case is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

….……………………J (N.V. RAMANA) ..….……………………J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI, 5th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
Maj. Amod Kumar vs Union Of India

2. The   facts   material   for   the   purposes   of   deciding   the   present   Writ Petitions have been set out hereinbelow. 

3. The Petitioners are personnel belonging to the Army Service Corps (“ASC”).   The   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   Nos.   918   and 1077/2017 are Officers holding the ranks of Major and Lieutenant 2 Colonel respectively, while the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 965/2017 is holding the rank of Sepoy.

The   Petitioners   have   impugned   Posting   Orders   issued   by   the Respondents, posting them to operational units/operational areas. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 918/2017 – Major Amod Kumar, who was serving as an Officer of the ASC, was posted to 44 Rashtriya Rifles as a Mechanical Transport Officer vide Order dated July 20, 2017. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 965/2017 – Sepoy Prahalad Singh was serving in the ASC, having being trained for driving special vehicles. He was posted to 4 Rashtriya Rifles vide Order   dated   September   4,   2017.   The   Petitioner   in   Writ   Petition (Civil)   No.   1077/2017   –   Lieutenant   Colonel   Shubhankar   Mishra, who was serving as an Officer of the ASC, was posted to 694 Coy ASC   (Tank   and   Transport) as an Officer  Commanding  vide  Order dated September 15, 2017.

policies or instructions.

Date : 06.09.2018  These matters were called on for pronouncement  of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv.

Mr. Ilam Paridi, Adv.

Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Adv.

Ms. Kamakshi S.Mehlwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Hon'ble Ms. Justice   Indu Malhotra pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton   Fali   Nariman   and   Hon'ble   Ms.   Justice   Indu Malhotra.

These   petitions   are   dismissed   in     terms   of   the signed reportable judgment.  There shall be no order as to costs.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju vs Union Of India

6. Term of Office. – The Presiding Officer of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty-two years, whichever is earlier.”

24) The writ petition and the transferred cases filed by these petitioners, accordingly, stand allowed with no order as to costs. As a result, those petitioners in whose favour there is an interim stay would be allowed to continue. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2018 shall be taken back in service forthwith, with continuity of service and salary of intervening period.

SEPTEMBER 07, 2018.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2018 etc. Page 21 of 21
Narayana Gramani And Ors. vs Mariammal And Ors.

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, which lie in a narrow compass, few facts need mention hereinbelow.

10. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the two courts below and, in consequence, dismissed the  suit  giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the plaintiffs.

26. In   the   light   of   aforementioned   four   reasons,   we are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   impugned judgment   is   not  legally  sustainable  and,  therefore, it has to be set aside.

28. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the   appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law by properly framing the substantial question(s) of law on the question of ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land and then to examine as to whether the findings on the said question recorded by two Courts suffer from any error(s) or not.

29. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   we   have   not applied   our   mind   on   the   merits   of   the   controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh as observed above   and,   therefore,   the   High   Court   will   decide   the appeal strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of our observations.

30. Since the matter is quite old, we request the High Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably   within   6   months   from   the   date   of   this judgment.

September 11, 2018  17
M/S Shriram Epc Limited vs Rioglass Solar Sa

3. The brief facts that are necessary for determination of the present SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2018.09.13 17:07:45 IST Reason: controversy are as follows:

25. We, therefore, hold that the learned Single Judge of the Madras High 23 Court is correct, and the fact that a foreign award has not borne stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 would not render it unenforceable for the reasons given in our judgment. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

(Indu Malhotra) New Delhi.

September 13, 2018.

Date :  13.09.2018   This matter  was called on for pronouncement    of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Hiroo Advani, Adv.

Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Garg, Adv.

Ms. Amrita Grover, Adv.

Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.

Mr. Tariq Khan, Adv.

Hon'ble   Mr.   Justice     Rohtinton   Fali   Nariman pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra.

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

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh vs The State Of Gujarat

2. On 4.2.1993 at about 7 pm one blue colored Maruti Fronty car without a number plate was stopped by Constable Manuji Knauji Rajput. It was driven by Noormahammad Mahammadyasin Shaikh (herein after referred to as A-1) in a drunken state. Apparently, a police inspector at the Dariapur Police Station received information that A-1 was in the business of transportation of illegal weapons together with Abduvahab Abdulmajid Pathan (hereinafter referred to as A-3) and that there are some cartridges in the Maruti Fronty car. The car was then searched.

3. According to the prosecution six live cartridges were found in the backside of the car in the cavity next to the speaker. These cartridges had the name ‘L.V London’ on them and they were meant for use in a .45 revolver, which is a prohibited bore. The rest of the prosecution story deals with how the weapons have said to be recovered from the house of A-4.

21. We thus hold that the conviction of Salim Shamsuddin Shaikh (A-2) cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside. Accused No. 4 -Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh

The Search

33. Both the appeals are allowed accordingly.
M/S Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail ... vs M/S Jade Elevator Components

3. The contract, namely, Commission Processing Contract (hereinafter referred to as „the Contract‟) was entered into between the parties on 11.09.2014 in respect of supply of certain products under the Contract. In the course of performance of the Contract, as certain differences had arisen and the parties were unable to amicably settle the disputes which fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, the petitioner appointed Justice V.S. Agarwal, former Judge, High Court of Judicature at New Delhi as the sole arbitrator. On 30.03,2018, the petitioner called upon the respondent to consent to the appointment of the sole arbitrator within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the notice. The respondent received the said notice on 31.03.2018 and the respondent in its reply dated 05.04.2018 refused to concur and consent to the appointment of the sole arbitrator. Because of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner has been compelled to move this Court for appointment of the sole arbitrator. When the matter was 3 listed before this Court after service of notice, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the reply dated 05.04.2018 given by the counsel for the respondent. In the said reply, the facts asserted by the petitioner have been disputed. That apart, it has been stated that the claims put forth are beyond the provisions of the Contract.

11. In the case at hand, as we find, Clause 15 refers to arbitration or court. Thus, there is an option and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause and, therefore, we have no hesitation, in the obtaining factual matrix of the case, for appointment of an arbitrator and, accordingly, Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar, formerly a Judge of this Court, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties. The learned Arbitrator shall be guided by the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The learned Arbitrator shall make positive efforts to complete the arbitration proceedings as per the Act of 2015.

12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the sole Arbitrator. Learned counsels for the parties are also at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Arbitrator.

13. The arbitration petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

..………………………….CJI.

September 14, 2018
Venugopal Padayachi vs V. Pichaikaran(Dead) Through Lrs.

1. On the basis of a document dated 20th March 1959, which was styled as ‘simple mortgage’, Original Suit No.2249 of 1981 was filed by the respondent/original plaintiff praying for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession.

7. The High Court thus arrived at a finding that the defendant could have got into possession on “some understanding”, which was not the case set up by any of the parties. Holding the arrangement under the mortgage to be continuing, it accepted the appeal and passed a decree of redemption holding that the plaintiff was entitled to deposit the mortgage amount with simple interest within a time frame.

8. The original defendant is presently in appeal by special leave challenging the view so taken by the High Court. It must be mentioned here that during the pendency of this appeal, both the plaintiff and the defendant have expired. The heirs of original plaintiff were brought on record and were served in the matter but they have chosen not to appear in this Court. 4

15. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the judgment under appeal and dismiss Original Suit No.2249 of 1981, with no order as to costs.

September 18, 2018
Janabai vs Additional Commissioner

3. The High Court, by the impugned order, has ruled:-

22. If we follow the principle stated in Sagar Pandurang Dhundare, indubitably the appeal has to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order are to be set aside. It is apt to mention here that in Sagar Pandurang Dhundare, there has been reference to Section 53(1), (2) and (2-A). For the sake of completeness, it is profitable to reproduce the said provision:-

(3-B) Any order made by the Collector in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (2A) or (3) shall be subject to appeal and revision in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah. XLI of 1960).

(4) Whoever, not being duly authorised in that behalf removes earth, sand or other material from, or makes any encroachment in or upon an open site which is not private property, shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of an encroachment, with further fine, which may extend to five rupees for every day on which the encroachment continues after the date of first conviction.‖ 20

30. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same stands dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

..………………………….CJI.

September 19, 2018
M/S. Trans Asian Shipping Services ... vs M/S. Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd. ...

2. The petitioner is an Indian company and the respondent company is registered in Bangladesh. It is averred that the petitioner is a multinational company having operations in the Indian Sub-Continent, Middle East and South East Asia and is actively engaged in diversified activities with its core business being shipping especially transportation of containerized cargo. Its activities are 2 related to various shipping operations all over the world and, therefore, it engages agents in various countries to undertake for and on behalf of it such functions. It involves their combined transport operations in the name of “Trans Asia Line”. It is urged that the valid subsisting agreement renewed from 31st March, 2010 was terminated only on 31st March, 2012 with respect to the combined transport operations. It is asserted that the respondent committed breach of various terms and conditions of the agency agreement leading to disputes between the parties. The petitioner is entitled to recover dues of USD 134875.8829. Various documents have been filed to show how the amount is due. It is asserted that though the petitioner company sent arbitration notice to the respondent requesting the latter to nominate the arbitrator within 15 days of the receipt of the same so that the arbitration board could deal with the disputes, yet there was no response from the respondent. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

..………………………….CJI.

September 19, 2018
Smt. Shamim vs The State Of Delhi

The   appellant   has   been   convicted   by   the   High   Court under   Sections   302/307/34,   I.P.C.   and   sentenced   to   life imprisonment,   after   reversing   her   acquittal   ordered   by   the trial   court.       The   appellant   has   further   been   denied   the benefit   of   any   remission   in   sentence,   till   she   completes twenty­five years of custody.

2.  The Trial Court convicted four of the seven accused and acquitted   the   appellant   and   two   others.   The   High   Court dismissed   the   appeals   against   convictions,   declined   to 1 interfere   with   the   acquittals,   with   the   exception   of   the appellant.

3. On 27.03.2006 at night, Pappu and Anisha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) were shot dead on the first floor of their house.  PW­2, Heena suffered multiple injuries on her neck   with   a   razor.   The   deceased   and   PW­2   are   the brother/mother/sister respectively of PW­1, Ishrat Ali.  PW­4, Shabnam is the daughter of the appellant, who married PW­ 1, against the wishes of the appellant.   PW­3, Md. Imran is the brother of PW­1.   The parties resided in houses across each other with common topography, divided by a lane 5 to 6 feet wide.     PW­1 and PW­4 after their marriage had shifted to a separate residence.  PW­3 upon returning home saw the appellant standing outside his house, followed by the other accused coming out of the house with blood stained clothes. The witness entered the house to find the corpses and PW­2 in an injured condition unable to speak, and informed PW­1 and PW­4 who then came to the spot. Earlier, in the evening, PW­2 had noticed the appellant standing on the verandah of her   own   house   looking   towards   the   house   of   the   witness. 2 PW­4 stepped out on the verandah when the appellant told her that the incident was the consequence of the witness not listening to her, and that she had got the deceased killed and her husband will meet the same fate.

4.     The   Trial   Court   convicted   four   accused   under   Sections 449/302/307/34   and   awarded   life   imprisonment.   The appellant   was   acquitted   on   benefit   of   doubt   with   regard   to her   presence,   failure   to   recover   her   blood   stained   ‘chunni’ and lack of any evidence with regard to conspiracy.

16.   Sentencing has always been a vexed question as part of the principle of proportionality.  The issue however need not detain us further as once the appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. there appears no justification to single her out for differential treatment for sentencing.  In any   event   the   High   Court   has   not   ascribed   any   special reasons for the same.  We are therefore unable to sustain the direction for denial of remission to the appellant for twenty­ five years and set aside the judgement to that extent only.   12

17.  Consequentially we find no merit in the appeal except to the extent indicated.

18. The appeal is allowed only to the extent indicated.
Bhagwat vs The State Of Maharashtra

1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of his wife at home by burn injuries on 06.04.2003. The deceased expired the next day. The High Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 498-A IPC regarding dowry demand.

11. The conviction of the appellant therefore calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed. 8

12. We are informed that the appellant has completed approximately 15 years of custody. If that be so, let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority so that necessary assistance is made available to the appellant through the concerned District Legal Services Authority with regard to the consideration for remission in accordance with law, if the appellant, so desires.

September 19, 2018 9
Subhash Mahto vs The State Of Bihar

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.

-Suresh Kumar while proceeding towards his home took deceased Ramanand Mahto on the scooter along with Ram Briksh Mahto. All of them proceeded to their house. At about 10.30 p.m. to 11.45 p.m., when they reached in front of the tea stall of Lalan Mahto situated at Begampur Mandai Mohalla, accused - Ramachandra Gareri and his father Lachhu Gareri started attacking deceased Ramanand Mahto with Bhujali and Dab respectively. The appellant - Subhash Mahto and others namely, Asmani Mahto, Rishi Mahto, Uma Nath Mahto, Subhash Mahto, Rameshwar Mahto, Bijendra Mahto, Ramroop Mahto, Dukhit Mahto 2 are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased- Ramanand Mahto and, thereafter, Lachhu Gareri and Ramchandra Gareri chopped the head of the deceased by their weapons. On seeing PW-2 (Ram Briksh Mahto) and PW-1 (Santosh Kumar) coming to the spot of occurrence. The accused persons dragged the headless body and threw nearby ditch. The appellant-accused viz. Subhash Mahto is said to have packed the severed head in a plastic bag and ran away with the accused - Ramachandra Gareri.

5) and Ram Brikesh Mahto (PW-2), the Trial Court convicted Ramachandra Gareri and Lachhu Gareri under Section 302 IPC and others under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court gave benefit of doubt to Anant Lal Mahto, Rishi Mahto and Asmani Mahto and confirmed the conviction of the other accused.

5. The overt-act attributed to the appellant - Subhash Mahto is that he caught hold of deceased- Ramanand Mahto and that he put severed head of the deceased in a plastic bag and ran away with the accused - Ramachandra Gareri. 3

8. In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.