L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Christopher Raj vs K Vijayakumar

3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows:- 

4. The respondent-complainant presented the cheque in his Co- Operative Bank Account on 16.01.2004 for collection. However, the cheque was returned from the bank on 19.01.2004 due to insufficient funds. The respondent-complainant sent a statutory notice on 12.02.2004 to the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhithurai.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent-complainant preferred appeal before the High Court. In the appeal so preferred by the respondent before the High Court, there was no representation for the appellant-accused. Upon hearing the respondent-complainant, the High Court held that the cheque was returned due to “insufficient funds” and not "as time barred cheque". The High Court further found that the respondent-complainant has proved the statutory requirements and held that the findings of the trial court is erroneous. The High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted the appellant-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed a fine of Rs.60,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved, the appellant-accused is before us.

10. In the result, the impugned orders of the High Court in Crl.A. (MD) No. 608 of 2007 dated 06.07.2018 and 23.06.2018 are set aside and these appeals are allowed and the Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 608 of 2007 shall stand restored. The matter is remitted to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to consider the matter afresh. The appellant shall appear before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 26.08.2019. The High Court shall issue notice to the respondent-complainant viz. K. Vijayakumar informing him about the date of hearing.

11. The High Court shall afford sufficient opportunity to both parties and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

July 05, 2019 5
Robin Thapa vs Rohit Dora

9. The disputed agreement is dated 18.04.2012. Summons was issued and it was received but according to the appellant, by his mother. The Trial Court has apparently accepted the case of the appellant that the mother did not bring the receipt of the summons to the notice of the appellant and that it was sometime in June, 2014 that the appellant can be credited with knowledge of the Suit. The Order dated 02.07.2014 reads as follows:

10. Order further appears to reveal that the plaintiff was present in person. The plaintiff has filed his proof affidavit. It was decided to proceed against the appellant ex parte. There is, however, a reference 3 to the application to engage an advocate by the appellant. The case stood posted for ex parte argument on 08.08.2014. As parties were not present on the said day, the case was posted to 15.09.2014. However, on 12.09.2014, the case stood transferred to another Court. No intimation was given under Rule 89A to the appellant.

13. The matter arises from a suit for specific performance. It may be true that there is a case for the respondent that the appellant has actually let out the building on rent. The appellant’s case is that this is the appellant’s residential house and the matter is a loan transaction. Specific relief is undoubtedly a discretionary relief. Appellant has submitted that the appellant is prepared to deposit the entire amount spent by the respondent towards getting sale deed executed. We would think that the interest of justice demands that subject to putting the appellant on terms, an opportunity should be given to the appellant to contest the case and the case must be directed to be disposed of within the time limit. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order subject to the following conditions:

(b) The appellant will further deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs to be paid to the respondents. This amount will also be deposited in the Execution Court within a period of one month from today.

Upon depositing the aforesaid amounts, it will be open to the respondent to withdraw the same and the sale deed will stand set aside. The respondent can also withdraw the amount of 5 Rs.92,000/- deposited by him towards balance sale consideration. In case the amounts as aforesaid are not deposited within the stipulated period, the appeal will stand dismissed and the impugned order will stand confirmed.

(c) We further direct that if the appellant complies with the conditions as aforesaid, the trial Court will take up the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but at any rate within a period of six months from the date on which the respondent brings the fulfilment of the aforesaid conditions to the notice of the trial Court.
The All Manipur Pensioners Assn. ... vs The State Of Manipur .

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

5.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

6.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the original writ petitioners – All Manipur Pensioners Association – employees/pensioners who retired pre­1996 have preferred the present appeal.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra). The decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not following the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench 27 is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre­1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who retired post­1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within a period of three months from today.

10. The instant appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sudin Dilip Talaulikar vs Polycap Wires Pvt Ltd

5. A brief recapitulation of facts would bring the matter in proper perspective for appreciation of issues involved. The respondent supplied electrical cables and wires to the appellant between 09.05.2010 to 03.06.2011. Acknowledging some payments they claimed outstanding dues of Rs.34,24,633/­. Likewise, for supplies between 01.04.2010 to 10.03.2011 they claimed dues of Rs.1,88,377/­. A notice was given to the appellant under Section 138(b) of the Act after the cheques dated 01.03.2014 and 01.03.2014 were dishonored, as the account was blocked. The respondent then instituted a prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act lodged for Rs.34,24,633/­ on 30.04.2014 with regard to the former instrument and on 01.08.2014 with regard to the latter 3 instrument. Different dates have been mentioned in different documents placed before us.

6. While the prosecution under the Act was pending, the respondent instituted the present summary suit on 24.11.2015 for a cumulative sum of Rs.36,13,410/­, being the total amount of two dishonored instruments, with an additional claim for Rs.28,05,199/­ as interest at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to a total of Rs.64,18,609/­. The Suit expressly referred to the pendency of the prosecution under the Act.

8. The appellant in its defence to the summons for judgment relied upon the institution of the prosecution under the Act prior to the suit and its unconditional withdrawal to contend that there were in fact no dues payable. The appellant further relied upon an order dated 29.10.2015 passed in the prosecution 4 under the Act requiring the respondent to produce certain original documents materials to the complaint and only subsequent to which, without producing the said documents the prosecution under the Act was unconditionally withdrawn. Denying any dealings with the respondents after 2011, the appellant questioned that there was no occasion for it to issue a cheque in the year 2014 for any alleged dues of the year 2011. It was further contended that different inks had been used in the instruments for the signatures and its contents. Defective goods on the consignment had been returned and the balance of Rs.5,00,000/­ paid, facts which were not disputed by the respondent.

9. The Civil Judge by order dated 20.07.2017 recorded the satisfaction of a triable defence but granted conditional leave to defend with an unreasoned finding based on the existence of a commercial relationship between the parties. The High Court acknowledged that there was no admission by appellant about its liability to repay any amount, but because the appellant had not disputed a commercial relationship and purchase of goods from the respondent, and in absence of any material to show 5 sufficient payment, the order for conditional leave to defend required no interference.

17. In the result, the impugned orders granting conditional leave to defend are held to be unsustainable and are set aside. The appellant is granted unconditional leave to defend.

18. The appeal is allowed.

.……………………….J. (Ashok Bhushan) ………………………..J. (Navin Sinha) New Delhi, July 15, 2019.
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Dhoulpuria .

2. 13:03:27 IST Reason: As per case of the prosecution, on 19th October, 2002 in the morning at 12.30 p.m., the informant Abdul Haq gave a written 1 report that in the intervening night of 18 th and 19th October, 2002, while he was sleeping in his railway quarter situated at Borkheda Culvert near the railway line, Kota at about 12.05 a.m., one Madan Bheel and Parmanand Bheel came to his quarter and woke him up and stated that the dead body of one unknown person was lying beneath the culvert at 916/8.10 km of the railway line, Kota (Rajasthan). Thereupon, he reached there and saw that dead body had injuries on its head, mouth and face. On inquiry, Smt. Saroti Bai Bheel disclosed that sometime before she woke up for urinating, she saw two­three persons coming by an auto rikshaw, who had placed the said body on the railway line and had gone away. One person who was standing there revealed that the said dead body was of Bajranglal, retired Constable. From the facts of the report made by informant Abdul Haq, the Police Station Incharge reached at the spot and found an offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. This report was sent with Shri Fazlur Rehman, Head Constable for registering a case to Police Station Nayapura, Kota.

3. Crime No. 679/02 was registered by the Head Constable and First Information Report was sent to the Police Station In­ 2 charge. Thereafter, the investigation was done and charge­sheet was submitted against the respondents Mahesh Kumar, Dinu @ Deendayal and Bhaiya @ Devkaran in the Court of Magistrate. Learned Magistrate handed over the case to the Sessions Court, Kota from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Fast Track, Kota.

4. The prosecution in support thereof produced 25 witnesses and got exhibited Exhibit P­1 to P­45 in its documentary evidence. Thereafter, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In defence, DW­1 Rajendra Singh was produced and the statements of prosecution witnesses Pratap and Bhupendra recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were relied as Exhibit D­1 and D­2.

15. We find no error being committed by the High Court in arriving to the conclusion as aforesaid noticed by us in the impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 2012.

16. Consequently, both the appeals are wholly devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

…………………………..J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) ………………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI) New Delhi July 16, 2019 11
Sulekha Rani vs Union Of India

2 This appeal arises from a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal 1 at its Principal Bench, New Delhi. While dismissing the Original Application filed by the appellant, the AFT has rejected her claim for grant of pension in respect of the service rendered by her deceased spouse in the Indian Army. 3 The spouse of the appellant was enrolled in the Army on 23 April 1994. He was posted at the Siachen Glacier from 13 September 1998. He was in SHAPE 1 Digitally signed by medical category. On 30 August 2000, he was downgraded to low medical category DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.07.24 18:39:36 IST Reason: 1 AFT 2 P2. He was then shifted to a counter insurgency area in Jammu and Kashmir on 19 November 2000. On 31 August 2001, he was discharged from service. About 6 years after the discharge, he died on 30 September 2007, leaving behind him the appellant and their children. A proceeding was initiated before the AFT for the grant of pension. This was denied to the appellant.

11 Having weighed the nature of the relief that should be granted to the appellant, we are of the view that the case of the appellant for grant of family pension deserves to be accepted. We direct that for the purposes of computing the family pension, the service of the deceased spouse of the appellant should be deemed to have continued until 30 September 2007. No arrears of wages shall be payable between the date of discharge and the date of death. The arrears of family pension shall be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appellant is accordingly held to be entitled to family pension on the above basis.

12 We allow the appeal in the above terms and set aside the impugned judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 16 March 2016. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

16 July 2019.
Badru (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. ... vs Ntpc Limited (Formerly National ...

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.

4. The appellants herein are the claimants (landowners) whereas the respondent No.1 is the NTPC­a Government Company for whom the land in question was acquired for public purpose and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the State and the Land Acquisition Collector.

7. The Reference Court (Civil Court) by award dated 31.03.2009 partly allowed the reference in favour of the appellants and enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,87,383/­ to Rs.5,00,000/­ per bigha. In other words, the Reference Court, after 3 appreciating the evidence, held that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/­ per bigha.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order insofar as it relates to dismissal of the 10 appellants’ (landowners) cross objection (Para 24) is set aside.

26. We, however make it clear that we have not applied our mind to the question as to whether any case was made out by the appellants (landowners) for any enhancement in award of compensation. The High Court would accordingly decide the cross objection on its merit strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of our observations made in this order.

July 16, 2019 12
Chaman Lal (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Kamlawati (D) Thr. L.Rs.

1. The subject matter of dispute is half of the land measuring 3 Biswas and 11 Bighas out of Khasra No. 1252, Khata No. 318/563 in Dholewal, Ludhiana. The land was purchased by Chaman Lal (late appellant) from one Mansa Ram on 30.7.1949. A gift deed was executed on 10.3.1958 by Chaman Lal in favour of late Smt. Gurdev Kaur, his stepmother. The controversy relates to the fact whether suit was in respect of half portion of the total land or the whole land was gifted to late Smt. Gurdev Kaur. 2

2. It cannot really be disputed that the possession of the land remained with late Smt. Gurdev Kaur. It appears that no mutation was made till the jamabandi of 1969-70 when the whole land was mutated in the name of Smt. Gurdev Kaur, who soon thereafter, sold the land to Smt. Kamla Wati on 15.3.1971. The consequent mutation was made on 24.10.1972.

5. Pendente lite the land was re sold by defendant No.2 to defendant Nos. 3 & 4, on 4.1.1995 and 6.1.1995 who were thus impleaded as the defendants. It is these defendants who are respondents 1 & 2 before us and are really contesting parties.

18. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that the status of the property is not liable to be disturbed after such a prolong period of time in the context of the facts and the legal position which has emerged since 10.3.1958. The gift deed can be read in one manner, and only in one manner.

19. We are thus not inclined to entertain the present appeal.

20. The appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

JULY 16, 2019
M/S R K Industries Unit Ii Llp vs S.C/S.T Shipbreakers Association

The skeletal facts necessary to decide this case are as follows:

With these observations the appeal is allowed. The protection granted by our order dated 29.03.2019 will continue for a period of four weeks. The appellant, as has been stated hereinabove, is free to adopt whatever proceedings is available to him in law. Any challenge made by the appellant in proceedings hereafter would be heard on its own merits. All the contentions therein are open to the appellant as well as the Gujarat Maritime Board.

[ SURYA KANT ] New Delhi;

July 16, 2019.
Wasim vs State Nct Of Delhi

1. On receipt of information on 27.10.2015 about a suicide, PW-23 Sub-Inspector Bijender Dahia attached to Police Station Aman Vihar rushed to Nithari village, Delhi. By the time he reached, the body of the deceased i.e. Moniya had already been brought down from hanging position. Ashwani (PW-12), the brother of the deceased was found sitting besides the body of the deceased. The elder brother of the Appellant was also present. A suicide note was seized. PW-23 sent the body of the deceased for post- mortem. The statement of Ashwani was recorded by PW-23. Inquest was conducted by the Executive Magistrate on the 1 next day. According to the post-mortem, the cause of death of Moniya was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem handing.

2. FIR was registered on the statement of Sunita (PW-11), the mother of the deceased on 04.11.2015. A charge sheet was filed on 05.02.2016. Later, charges were framed against the Appellant under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘ IPC’). 23 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and several documents relied upon to prove the guilt of the Appellant. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 498A and 306 IPC. Sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC and four years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC was imposed on the Appellant. The appeal filed by the Appellant was partly allowed by the High Court. The Appellant was acquitted for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC was upheld by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

3. The deceased Moniya who was working as a teacher was married to the Appellant on 02.05.2015. PW-11 Sunita deposed that her daughter Moniya was being harassed by the Appellant by demanding dowry. She testified in the 2 Court that on two occasions she gave Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the deceased for handing over the same to the Appellant to meet his demands of dowry. She stated that the same was not informed either to her husband or her son and that she made the payments from her savings. She also spoke about the demand for a bigger car. The Appellant was working in Nagercoil District, Tamil Nadu and he was demanding for air fare to travel to the place of his work. PW-11 further stated that she was informed by the deceased that the Appellant had extra marital relations with one Poonam and he informed the deceased that he intended to marry Poonam after leaving the deceased.

15. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ..…............................J [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, July 18, 2019.
Dr Ashok Sinha vs The State Of Tripura

1 “Tripura Medical College” 2 A fresh writ petition was filed before the High Court in public interest by the same petitioner who had moved the earlier proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner was that despite the earlier directions nothing had changed. In consequence, he sought to challenge the admission procedure and the fees charged from the students, contending that these should be at par with other government medical colleges in the North East. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 24 June 2016, which has given rise to the present appeal.

For the above reasons, having considered the impugned judgment, the earlier judgement of the High Court and the grievance of the appellant, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for this Court to embark upon determining the correctness of a policy decision which has been taken by the State government.

For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No costs.

July 19, 2019