L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Siddalingayya vs Gurulingappa .

2) The Controversy involved in the appeal lies in a narrow compass. Few facts set out hereinbelow would make the controversy clear.

3) The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the suit out of which this appeal arises.

4) The appellant filed a civil suit being O.S. 286 of 1993 against the respondents (defendants) in the Court of Munsiff - Indi (Bijapur) for recovery of Rs.45,000/- by way of damages. According to the appellant, the respondents illegally demolished his construction and thereby caused monetary loss and injury to him and hence the suit to recover the monetary loss suffered by him.

5) The respondents entered appearance but failed to file their written statement despite time granted by the Court.

7) The defendants, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the Principal Civil Judge at Bijapur being R.A. No.103 of 1997. By judgment dated 04.12.2002, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court. Felt aggrieved, the defendants filed 3 second appeal being R.S.A. No.220 of 2003 before the High Court.

9) It was held that the Trial Court did not grant sufficient opportunity to the respondents to file written statement, due to which they had to suffer the decree without any contest causing prejudice in defending the suit. The High Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs.11,000/- on the defendants to be paid to the plaintiff as a pre-condition for filing the written statement within the extended time granted.

8) By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the second appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the two Courts below remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the respondents (defendants) to file written statement.

The record of the case be sent back forthwith to the Trial Court, if requisitioned here.

25) The appellant (plaintiff) to appear before the Trial Court on 3.10.2017 with the copy of this order to enable the Trial Court to proceed in the trial of the suit, as directed above.

……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

September 05, 2017 11
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Sandeep Kumar Jain .

4. For the purpose of convenience, the facts in brief are gathered from Civil Appeal arising from SLP Civil No. 35947 of 3 2010. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents in SLP (C) No.35947 of 2010 are holders of regular state carriage permits awarded by the State Transport Authority on the route known as Meerut-Mawana-Behsuma-Meeranpur-Bijnore via Dewal Bridge. The permits were granted in favour of the some of the respondents on 4/5-9-1989 and to certain other respondents on 11.5.1994. Meerut-Bijnore was a non-notified route when the permits were granted to the respondents, so also the other route Muzaffarngar-Bopa-Morna-Revali Ghat-Bijnore was a non-notified route when the permits were granted to the respondents. Muzaffarnagar-Bhopa-Morna-Revali-Ghat-Bijnore route came into existence in 1960 and the operators on the said route had to cover the route through a pantoon bridge which had been constructed on Revali Ghat. The Scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was published in the year 1962 in respect of the concerned route. However, on 15.11.1977, the Scheme in respect of another route under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was also published.

(l) The Approved Scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the Route / Area covered by the Scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the Scheme and to the extent to which such exception is allowed.

13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court is not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Regional Transport Authority. Particularly, when the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7305-7306 of 2003decided on 17.1.2006 cancelling 48 permits on the route in question. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the judgment and orders of the Regional Transport Authority as well as of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are 13 restored. Consequently, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.35947 of 2010 is allowed and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 69 of 2011 stands dismissed. No costs.

September 05, 2017.
M/S Raptakos, Brett vs M/S Ganesh Property

2) Brief facts:

12) Further, on and after 18.04.1991, the date of decree in T.S. No. 1481 of 1986, the continuation of possession by the 1 1 appellant-Company was fully on the basis of the orders passed by the City Civil Court in F.A.T. No. 1786 of 1991, later re-numbered as F.A. No. 253 of 1992. It was a conditional order allowing the appellant-Company to continue in possession on condition of paying an amount of Rs. 2,500/- . The amount so fixed by the Court after considering the claim of the Respondent for enhancement of the amount of compensation for continuation of possession after the expiry of the lease period. Though this order has not been challenged by the respondent, it was allowed to stand for about six years until the appeal was finally heard and dismissed on 11.08.1997. It was on the basis of the above conditional order that the appellant-Company had acted upon and enjoyed the benefits conferred by the order on both parties. In the circumstances, the respondent is estopped from claiming any amount as mesne profits during the period from 18.04.1991 to 11.08.1997, i.e., the date on which F.A. No. 253 of 1992 was finally disposed off.

13) In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the respondent having 1 2 given up its claim for mesne profits in Suit No. 1481 of 1986, the subsequent suit being Suit No. 457 of 1998 is clearly hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Code. For ease of reference, Order II Rule 2 is extracted hereunder:

Conclusion:-

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017.
The Manager Palathingal A.M.L.P. ... vs Sethumadhavan P.K. .

3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant school was a junior primary school up to the level of Class IV. Vide order dated 16th June, 2015 the appellant school was upgraded to the level of upper primary school i.e. it was permitted to run from Class V to Class VIII also. The order of the government dated 16th June, 2015 permitting the school to be upgraded was challenged by respondent No.1, who is the Manager of a school being run in the vicinity. The main ground of challenge was that the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short ‘KER’), had not been followed and no notice was given to the schools in the vicinity to raise any objection with regard to the upgradation. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER was not followed. The order of the State Government was set aside but permission was given to the appellant school to permit the students already admitted, to continue their education in the school till the next academic year. The learned Single Judge also directed that it 3 would be open to the Government to take a fresh decision in the matter after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER. The appellant filed Writ Appeal No.669 of 2016 which was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

7. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge and allow the instant appeal. Pending application(s) stand(s) disposed of.
Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

3. According to the Appellant-Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd., scheduled date of completion of work was 19.05.2011 but the progress of work was quite slow which compelled the Appellant to cancel certain remaining works by its letters dated 18.07.2014, 24.10.2014, 30.06.2015 and 08.07.2015. By its letter dated 29.07.2015 the Respondent alleged that the delays in the project were not attributable to the Respondent and after setting out certain grievances, the letter thereafter sought to invoke arbitration submitting further that arbitration be through a retired Judge of the High Court, the relevant portion of the letter being:-

(b) he withdraws from his office or the parties agree to the termination of his mandate.

The condition precedent for approaching the Chief Justice or his designate for taking necessary measures under sub-section (6) is that

(iii) a person/institution who has been entrusted with any function under the agreed appointment procedure, failing to perform such function.

22. The principles which emerge from the decisions referred to above are:-

B. In cases governed by 1996 Act after the Amendment Act has come into force:-

24. In the circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in exercising jurisdiction in the present case and it ought not to have interfered with the process and progress of arbitration. We therefore accept the challenge raised by the Appellant and reject that raised by the Respondent. Consequently, appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.25206-25207 of 2016 are allowed while those arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.503-504 of 2017 stand dismissed. The arbitration, in pursuance of the appointment of the Arbitrator on 19.08.2015, shall proceed in accordance with law.

25. The appeals are disposed of in aforesaid terms, without any order as to costs.
D. Sarojakumari vs R. Helen Thilakom

2. The Management of the Samuel LMS High School, Parassala, invited applications for filling up the post of Music Teacher on direct recruitment basis. The Appellant and Respondent No.1 both applied for the said post. The appellant was appointed as Music Teacher on 12.07.1999 in Samuel LMS High School, Parassala. Though Respondent No.1 had applied for being considered for appointment as Music Teacher in the Samuel LMS High School, but after she was not selected in the process of direct recruitment, she raised a plea that since the Management of both the schools are same, she was entitled to be promoted as Music Teacher on the basis of her seniority in the Light to the Blind School, Varkala. In this regard, she first filed a petition before the District Educational Officer who accepted her petition and held that the case of Respondent No.1 was covered under Rule 43 of Kerala Education Rules (for short KER). The appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Education. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed and the main ground raised by Respondent No.6 herein was that the two Schools were separate units. It was contended that the Samuel LMS High School was run for all children, whereas the Light to the Blind School, Varkala, was meant 3 only for differently abled children. It was pointed out that Respondent No.6 had never maintained a common seniority list for these two schools and this was never challenged by Respondent No.1 or any other member of the staff. The Director, Public Instruction held that both schools had different identities and Rule 43 was not applicable. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a representation which was rejected by the State Government in which it was held that these two schools were separate units and Respondent No.6 had been treating the schools run by them for specially challenged children as separate entities.

11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised.

12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside order dated 25.07.2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition O.P.No.36563 of 2002 as being not maintainable.
Atma Singh vs Gurmej Kaur (D) And Ors.

2. The   facts   of   the   case   are   not   in   dispute   and lie   in   a   very   narrow   compass.     The   appellant   has filed Civil Suit No. 220 of 2001 for a declaration that   the   plaintiff   is   the   owner   and   in   joint Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI possession   of   the   half   share   of  the  land   owned   by Date: 2017.09.20 10:28:12 IST Reason: Pal Singh deceased son of Narain Singh. Narain Singh 2 had   three   sons   namely   Atma   Singh,   the   appellant, Mohan   Singh,   respondent   No.5   and   Pal   Singh.     The defendant   No.1,   Gurmej   Kaur   was   wife   of   Narain Singh.   Narain Singh, who was the owner of land in dispute  died   in  the  year   1952   intestate.     He   left behind   his   above   three   sons   and   wife   Gurmej   Kaur. Gurmej Kaur immediately after death of Narain Singh remarried   with   one   Inder   Singh.   Pal   Singh,   son   of Narain   Singh   died   in   the   year   1972   intestate.     He was not married and so had no children.   Estate of Pal Singh was mutated in favour of Gurmej Kaur, his mother.     Thereafter,   Suit   No.   220   of   2001 was   filed   by   the   appellant.     The   Trial   Court dismissed   the   suit   holding   that   defendant   No.   1, Gurmej   Kaur   being   the   real   mother   of   deceased   Pal Singh   and   she   being  Class   I  heir   shall   succeed   to Pal Singh after his death.  The appeal was filed by the   appellant,   which   too   was   dismissed   on 07.02.2006,   against   which   second   appeal   was   filed. The   High   Court   in   its   judgment   reaffirmed   the decision of Court below.   The High Court held that 3 although after death of Narain Singh, Gurmej Kaur, on   account   of   her   re­marriage   will   loose   right   in estate   of   Narain   Singh   but   have   every   right   to inherit the estate of her son, Pal Singh in terms of Section  8   of   the   Hindu   Succession   Act,   1956.     The plaintiff appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court have come up in this appeal.

15. We thus are of the view that Section 2 of the 1956 Act in no manner affect the right of defendant No.1 to succeed the estate of her son Pal Singh and after the death of Pal Singh, she was rightly held 14 to   succeed   the   properties   of   Pal   Singh.     The   suit filed by the plaintiff has been correctly dismissed by all the Courts below.   We thus do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

Civil Appeal No(s).11094/2017 ATMA SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS GURMEJ KAUR (D) AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 13-09-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv.

Mr. Ambreesh Kumar Aggarwal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv.

Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv.

Appeal is dismissed in terms of signed Reportable judgment.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
All Escorts Employees Union vs The State Of Haryana

4) In addition to the aforesaid facts noticed at a glance, it is desirable to set out other facts also so that the factual narration is complete:

25) In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to deal with the issue raised in these appeals as the issue does not survive. Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 20 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) Thus, leaving the question of law open, these appeals are dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 21 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) (REVISED) ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844/2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 27020-27021/2015) ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14-09-2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

Application for impleadment stands disposed of.

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.] Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 22 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844/2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 27020-27021/2015) ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14-09-2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Padikh, Adv.

Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Uday Manaktala, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.] Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 23 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)
Ratanlal vs Prahlad Jat

2. A charge sheet No.22 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009 was presented under Sections 302, 201, 342, 120-B IPC against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and three others. Charges have been framed under the aforesaid Sections against the accused persons. Statements of 28 witnesses have been recorded in the trial. The statements of Sawarmal and Chandri have been recorded as PW4 and PW5 respectively. Thereafter, both moved applications before the Sessions Judge under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-recording their statements on the ground that the previous statements were made under the influence of the police. In the applications, the witnesses have stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no role in the incident.

3. The Sessions Judge by the order dated 24.4.2012, dismissed the applications observing that the 28 witnesses had already been examined in the case so far. The witnesses were also cross-examined at length and it cannot be said that they were in any kind of pressure and that the applications were filed with a 3 view to favour the accused persons. Prahlad Jat and Mahavir, the two accused persons, moved the petition before the High Court for quashing the said order and the High Court has allowed the applications of PW4 and PW5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, urged that PW4 and PW5 were examined in the Court on different dates in the months of November and December 2010 and in March 2011. Out of total 35 witnesses, 28 witnesses have already been examined and they were cross-examined at length. PWs 4 and 5 filed applications before the trial court for further examination on 27.2.2012 and 26.3.2012 respectively. During police investigation and examination conducted by the prosecution, they had supported the prosecution story. The applications have been filed with an intention to provide assistance to the accused persons which cannot be permitted in law. The applications are highly belated and no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned for the delay. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Sessions Judge.

6. The appellant is the paternal brother of the deceased and is one of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of PW4 and PW5 was recorded on different dates in the months of November and December 2010 and in March 2011. Both of them had supported the case of the prosecution. After passage of about 14 months, PW4 and PW5 filed applications under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., inter alia, praying for their re-examination as witnesses for the reason that the statements recorded earlier were made on the 5 instructions of the police. The Sessions Judge dismissed the application by holding as under:

The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter without taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded after the order of the High Court.

September 15, 2017.
Fekan Yadav vs Satendra Yadav @ Boss Yadav @ Satendra ...

7. It is evident from the FIR that the appellant has informed that his son, Bittu Kumar was a student of Baal Siksha Niketan Karpi, Arwal. On 3.1.2017 at about 3 p.m. Bittu Kumar left for school from his residence by boarding a tempo in village Ramapur Mushari. But he did not reach the school and on 4.1.2017 the appellant came to know that his son, Bittu Kumar had disappeared on the way. Six months prior to the incident, the first respondent had threatened the appellant that he will be made issueless. Three months prior to the incident, the first respondent, Satendra Yadav had gone to the school of Bittu Kumar and called him outside the school. However, Bittu Kumar did not join the first respondent. That is why the appellant has 4 raised his suspicion against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that they have kidnapped his son. Learned Sessions Judge examined the case diary and found that the witnesses examined by the IO during the investigation had supported the case of the prosecution. The victim boy has not been traced so far.

8. The High Court without assigning any reasons has granted the anticipatory bail. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court dated 27.4.2017 in Crl.Misc. No.12482 of 2017 is hereby set aside.

September 19, 2017.
Yeshchandra (D) By Lrs. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

3. After the Act was amended, Phoolchand filed his return and in his return he did not say that he had leased out any land to Yashchandra, the original plaintiff who was also the original appellant before this Court, who is deceased and is now represented by his legal representatives. It is the admitted case of the parties that Yashchandra was related to Phoolchand. Yashchandra filed a petition before the competent authority under the Act claiming that he was an occupancy tenant on the eastern part of the land of Phoolchand measuring 25 acres and claimed that this land had been leased out to him vide lease deed dated 21st November, 1968 on a rental of Rs. 500/- per annum. He further claimed that since he was in 4 occupation of the land he had got the rights of occupancy tenant under Section 169 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). The competent authority rejected the objections and declared 20.88 acres of land of Phoolchand as surplus under the Act.

9. In view of the above discussion we find no error in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.