L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Harmesh Chand

The High Court by its impugned judgment and order issued a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated January 17, 2003 whereby the contract of the respondent herein had been cancelled, and the order dated March 30, 2003 by which the District Magistrate, Kapurthala was directed to recover the amount of Rs.3,43,138/- from the account of the respondent herein at Kapurthala. The High Court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein to permit the petitioner respondent to continue to work in pursuance of the contract awarded to the respondent on October 5, 2002. The contract was for a term of two years which has expired on October 4, 2004.

The grievance of the appellant is that the High Court ought not to have gone into seriously disputed questions of fact in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) challenged the action of the appellant contending that he was prevented by the appellant from working the contract. This was disputed by the appellant. It was submitted before us by reference to the record of an earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent wherein his case was that he was prevented from working the contract by the Truckers' Union acting at the behest of the earlier contractor. In any event, since the facts were seriously disputed by the appellant, and no factual finding could be recorded without consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, it was not an appropriate case in which the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction. The parties could have approached a civil court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

The interim order stands dissolved. We observe that any claim relating to the period during which the interim order was in force, may also be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law, if required to do so, in any dispute in future between the parties relating to the subject matter of this petition. This appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to the costs.
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Dilipbhai Shaligram Patil

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary because the High Court's order on the face of it is unsustainable. Respondent filed the writ petition questioning the order of discharge passed by the Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara by order dated 23.11.1993. Civil Special Application 1346 was filed by the respondent on 30.11.1993. On the said date notice was issued on the application and was made returnable on 10.12.1993. Reply was field by the appellant-State on 16.12.1993. On 11.1.1994 an interim order was passed directing reinstatement of the respondent pending disposal of the petition. Finally the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 31.3.2004. It was clearly indicated in the order that the interim reliefs stood vacated. Subsequently, the review application was filed which was dismissed on 13.9.2004. Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal 2475 of 2004 which was allowed. The High Court's conclusions inter alia are as follows:

The order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. Since the High Court has not dealt with the matter on merits, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
Baraka Overseas Traders vs Director General Of Foreign Trade And ...

The facts of the case are that to enable Indian exporters to compete effectively in the international market a scheme was framed by the Central Government named the `Duty Exemption Scheme'. Under this Scheme, import of certain specified input items required for the manufacture and export of resultant products was allowed with duty exemption benefits. For getting this benefit, the applicant exporter had to apply for licence with the details of the input requirements. In case, the standard input/output norms (SION) for a particular export product were already notified at the relevant point of time, the licences are normally issued by the Licensing Authority concerned without making reference to the Advance Licensing Committee. In case, the SION is not fixed, the application is to be considered by the Committee.

Against the order of the DGTF dated 19.2.1999, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by way of Special Leave.

As already stated above, under the Duty Exemption Scheme, whether the licence is in the `norms category' or `no norms category', in either case it is transferable. Hence, in our opinion, the DGTF wrongly refused the appellant's request for endorsement of transferability of the licences in question.

For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 24.3.2000 as well as the order of the DGTF dated 19.2.1999 are set aside. The DGTF is directed to endorse the transferability of the licences in question as prayed for by the appellant.

There shall be no order as to costs.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Shri Ganpat Raj

Respondent filed Civil Writ Petition no.943 of 2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying, inter alia, to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the present appellants to pay interest @ 18% on delayed payment of pension, arrears of pension, DGRC, computation of pension and arrears of GPF arrears and other retirement benefits. The writ petition was sent to Lok Adalats for settlement being a pension matter and the matter was allowed on 4.3.2003 without any settlement compromise between the parties. It is to be noted that the appellants contested the claim and filed written statement to the writ petition. Lok Adalat awarded 12% interest for the delayed payments. A writ petition was filed by the appellants before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order dated 4.2.2003 assed by the Lok Adalat in Civil No.943 of 2000. The same was dismissed holding that the petition was misconceived. Though the High Court accepted that the disposal by the Lok Adalat was not the proper course, yet it was held that on merits respondent was entitled to relief.

What was challenged in Writ Petition 16246 of 2004 to which this appeal relates related to the powers of disposal of cases by the Lok Adalat. In view of findings recorded that matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat, High Court ought to have directed restoration of writ petition filed by respondent i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 943 of 2000 for disposal in accordance with law.

The inevitable result is that appeal has to be allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. It cannot be lost sight of that the matter is pending for long. Let Civil Writ Petition 943 of 2000 be restored to its original position. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya

J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6134-6135 of 2005] WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2006 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6252 of 2005] S.B. SINHA, J :

Processes were directed to be issued on the said statement for alleged commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

As the law laid down in the aforementioned decisions are clearly attracted in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly and the processes issued by the court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against Appellants herein are quashed. The appeals are, thus, allowed.
Noble Resources Ltd vs State Of Orissa & Anr

The said resolution was evidently taken in view of the increase of the rates of iron ore fines in the international market, which has gone up manifold. Yet again the Board Committee On Sales Policy of the Respondent No.2 decided as follows :

Contractual matters are, thus, not beyond the realm of judicial review. Its application may, however, be limited.

In the writ petition it was averred :

60,000 MT+-

10% Sudamin Metal, London 63.30 59.80 13.86 20.03.04 C-Grade-

1,20,000 MT +-

1,20,,000 MT +-

1,20,000 MT +-
M. Gurudas & Ors vs Rasaranjan & Ors

The property bearing Survey No. 97/2 is said to have been acquired by Brahmanandadas by way of a deed of sale executed by Khaja Ghulam Sheriff from 18.07.1955. It is furthermore not disputed that Kadrappa has transferred three properties in favour of Nirmala as a trustee, referring her to be the foster daughter of Oblappa and describing the said properties to be held in trust. The Appellants herein contend that Nirmala, during her life time, never claimed to be an adopted daughter and she did not have any interest in the joint family properties. In fact in a writ petition questioning acquisition of some properties which were the subject matter of writ petition No. 15217-21 of 1987, she had allegedly admitted that the properties which were subject matter of acquisition were separate and distinct.

The said reliefs were claimed inter alia on the premise that Nirmala was the adopted daughter of Obalappa. However, an application for amendment of plaint was filed on or about 5.08.2002 stating that the parties being belonging to Brahmo Samaj faith, Nirmala could claim as natural daughter of Kadarappa. In the said application for amendment, however it was averred that Nirmala was adopted when she was about three years old.

The said order was modified by an order dated 29.09.2005 directing that the development of the said property would be subject to restriction in regard to dealing therewith. An application for modification of the said order was filed which has been dismissed by an order dated 15.11.2005.

As to the other ceremonies, their performance is not necessary to the validity of an adoption.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if these appeals are disposed of with the following directions:

The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. Costs of these appeals shall abide by the result of the suit.
Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs The Chairman, Upsc And Ors

The Archaeological Survey of India, however, issued unconditional offer of appointment to the selected candidates, inter alia, stating :

Upon interpretation of the terms, this Court is satisfied that the Fourth Respondent did not hold the requisite essential qualifications and, thus, was not eligible to hold the post. Furthermore, we do not have sufficient materials to hold as to on what basis, the Archaeological Survey of India opined differently in the cases of persons named in Ground 'G' of the writ petition of the First Respondent. We may, however, notice that the same has been explained. Mr. Viswanathan submitted that no explanation has been offered in respect of Dr. Ramesh. We refrain ourselves from going into the said question, simply on the proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept and the equality clause contained therein cannot be said to have any application in a case of illegality.

For the views we have taken, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to advert to the other contentions raised by the learned counsel.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
M.P. State Electricity Board vs Union Of India & Ors

A meeting of the officers of the both the States was held by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home on creation of new States on 10.1.2001. On a complaint made by the State of Madhya Pradesh that the revenues were being collected illegally by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short "CSEB"), it was recorded:

Several correspondences also passed between the respective State Governments and the Boards as well by and between them and the Central Government.

Liabilities as per order dt.

In the backdrop of the aforementioned events and particularly in view of the fact that the Central Government had passed the impugned orders in terms of its undertaking given before the High Court of Delhi and upon compliance of the principles of natural justice, it is difficult for us to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel that the Central Government has failed to apply its mind.

Illegality, if any, committed by CSEB in taking over of the assets of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board without there being any formal order of the Central Government in terms of Section 58(2) of the 2000 Act by itself may not be enough to arrive at the conclusion that the cut-off date fixed would be vitiated in law.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the cut-off date fixed by the Central Government cannot be said to be so arbitrary so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logical corollary of our finding would be that the said date has been fixed in supersession of the earlier orders.

We have noticed hereinbefore that the said order has been issued in supersession of all earlier orders. The writ petitions filed by the CSEB questioning the validity of the said orders, therefore, become infructuous.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where the Court would exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition filed by MPSEB is dismissed and the transfer cases filed by CSEB are allowed. No costs.
Tea Auction Ltd vs Grace Hill Tea Industry And Anr

The plaintiff is the appellant before us. It filed a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High Court claiming a decree for a sum of Rs.37,26,498/- with interest against the respondents. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the said court was also obtained. An application was filed for recording a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure on 23rd May, 2002. On the said application, notice of motion was to be served upon the defendants/respondents. The notice was returnable on 12th June, 2002. On the said notice, nobody had appeared on behalf of defendant No.1. A direction for filing of Affidavit in opposition was issued upon the plaintiff's application. Allegedly the said order was communicated to the respondent No.1 by Registered Post. The matter was again listed on 15th July, 2002. On that date nobody appeared on behalf of defendant No.1. A judgment and decree, upon admission for a sum of Rs.37,26,428/- along with interest, was passed against defendant No.1.

Defendant No.2 was a tea broker of defendant No.1. It was impleaded as the guarantor of defendant No.1. No decree, however, was passed against it. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant thereagainst as no decree had been passed against defendant No.2. The said appeal was dismissed. The defendant-respondent No.1, thereafter, filed an application for recalling the said ex-parte decree, inter alia, contending that they came to know about the institution of the said suit only when a memorandum of appeal together with a copy of the stay petition was served upon them in August, 2002.

I respectfully agree with the above view. The Court is competent to ask the defendant to pay a portion of the decretal amount or of the costs while setting aside the ex parte decree, but such conditions should not be unreasonable or illegal.

While setting aside a decree, conditions can be imposed but such conditions should not be unreasonable or harshly excessive.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if respondent No.1 herein is directed to furnish security to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs. Such security should be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Single Judge. The security, other than the deposit of the amount in cash, should be furnished within 12 weeks from the date. Plaintiff-Appellant would be entitled to press his application for passing a decree on admission. Defendant-Respondent No.1 would also be entitled to file his objection as to why a decree under Order XII Rule 6 shall not be passed. Such a cause, if not already filed, must be filed within 8 weeks from date.

This appeal is allowed to the extent aforementioned. No costs.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Man Singh

On a finding that in retrenching the respondent the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court although set aside the order of termination of the services of the respondent but granted back- wages only from 1986. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant refused to interfere therewith.

We direct the appellant to pay the aforementioned amount to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment. This appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs.
Jay Engineering Works Ltd vs Industry Facilitation Council And Anr

J U D G M E N T [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 909 of 2005] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4127 OF 2006 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 991 of 2005] S.B. SINHA, J :

In the said Scheme, the award made in favour of the Respondents finds place in the category of 'Dormant Creditors'. The liabilities of the Appellant vis-`-vis the Respondent No. 2 was, therefore, indisputably a subject matter of the said Scheme. The High Court, in our opinion, committed an error in proceeding on the premise that the awarded amount had not been included and could not be included in the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme, the same being part of transactions which took place after 21.11.1997 ignoring the revised scheme made in the year 2003.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Before parting with this case, however, we may observe that we have not adverted to the question raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents as to whether the Board while implementing the scheme could reduce the quantum of the liability of creditors, as we are of the opinion that such a contention need not be gone into at this stage. It will, therefore, further be open to the Respondent No. 2 to approach the Board, if any occasion arises therefor.

The impugned judgments are set aside. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
Antonio S.C. Pereira vs Ricardina Noronha (D) By Lrs

It further appears that Ricardina, wife of Eurico, filed an application before the Custodian for declaring southern half of Mayem as 'non-evacuee property'. A prayer was also made for restoration of possession in her favour. A suit being Civil Suit No.1/96/A was also filed restraining the Custodian from releasing the suit properties in favour of Ricardina till disposal of Suit No.154/1993/A. However, the said suit was withdrawn. By an order dated 16.09.1997, the application filed by the Ricardina (since deceased) was dismissed.

It has not been disputed that the Civil Court would be the final authority in this behalf. If that is so, the Administrator would be bound by the judgment of the Civil Court.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that with a view to do complete justice between the parties, the following directions shall be issued :

The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. The parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall pay and bear their own costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi

The respondent, Brahma Dutt Tripathi, was a Short Service Commission Officer commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant during the Chinese Aggression in 1963. He was released from the Indian Army with effect from 31.3.1969. He applied for Commission in National Cadet Corps (NCC). He was appointed under the Scheme floated by the Government of India for rehabilitation of Short Service Commission Officers in the Army and he joined the NCC on 11.12.1969. The Scheme of 21.12.1963 was issued under provisio (iii) to Rule 16 of NCC Rules, 1948. The Scheme under which the respondent was appointed was a composite Scheme. We will deal with the Scheme at an appropriate time.

16. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned order of the High Court dated 19th February 2003 and the order dated 14th July, 1997 passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The T.A. No. 551 of 1987, filed by the respondent, stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Mohammad Chand Mulani vs Union Of India & Ors

2. The appellant was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime-I), Pune, during the year 2002. An FIR relating to an offence of possessing counterfeit stamps punishable under sections 120-B, 255, 258, 259, 260, 263-A, 420, 471, 472, 474 read with section 34 IPC, was registered against certain persons, on 7.6.2002 as C.R. No.135/2002 at Bund Garden Police Station. The initial investigation was conducted by Mr. Prakash Deshmukh, Senior Police Inspector, Bund Garden Police Station, under the guidance of Additional Commissioner of Police, Pune (Shri S.M. Mushrif), Dy. Commissioner of Police (Zone-II) and the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Crime I (appellant). A charge-sheet was filed on 3.9.2002 followed by a supplementary charge-sheet filed on 25.11.2002.

3. The State Government created a Special Investigating Team (SIT for short) for investigation into the said bogus stamp case, headed by Mr. S K Jaiswal, DIG on 2.11.2002. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 25.11.2002. On 22.12.2002, Sri S.K. Jaiswal, DIG, granted approval to apply section 3(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOC Act' for short) in regard to C.R. No.135/2002 of Bund Garden Police Station. SIT submitted one more original charge-sheet in C.R. No. 135/2002 before the Special Judge, Pune, under MCOC Act, numbered as Special Case No.2/2003 on 27.3.2003. Supplementary charge- sheets were by SIT filed on 15.9.2003 and 3.2.2004. This Court by order dated 15.3.2004 transferred the investigation of this case along with several other cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short). CBI filed a supplementary charge-sheet on 27.5.2005.

4. The appellant was associated with the investigation of that case, from the date of registration of FIR (7.6.2002) till the first charge-sheet was filed (on 3.9.2002). The appellant retired on 31.8.2003. As the investigation by the SIT disclosed involvement of the appellant in the said bogus stamp case, he was arrested on 4.12.2003. He was arraigned as accused No.61 in the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 3.2.2004, and was charged under sections 120-B, 216, 218, 221 IPC r/w sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of MCOC Act and section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

13. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the Special Court, Pune, to enlarge the appellant on bail on his furnishing security to its satisfaction in a sum of Rs. two lakhs with two solvent sureties for like sum, subject to the following conditions :

14. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of an opinion with regard to merits. The entire consideration is with limited reference to grant of bail. It is needless to say that the trial court while deciding the matter on merits, will not be influenced by anything stated by this Court while disposing of applications for bail.