sentence-transformers safetensors new sentence-similarity feature-extraction generated_from_trainer dataset_size:16465 loss:MatryoshkaLoss loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss custom_code en arxiv:1908.10084 arxiv:2205.13147 arxiv:1705.00652 base_model:Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5 base_model:finetune:Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5 license:apache-2.0 model-index autotrain_compatible text-embeddings-inference endpoints_compatible region:us
---
base_model: Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5
language:
- en
library_name: sentence-transformers
license: apache-2.0
metrics:
- cosine_accuracy@1
- cosine_accuracy@3
- cosine_accuracy@5
- cosine_accuracy@10
- cosine_precision@1
- cosine_precision@3
- cosine_precision@5
- cosine_precision@10
- cosine_recall@1
- cosine_recall@3
- cosine_recall@5
- cosine_recall@10
- cosine_ndcg@10
- cosine_mrr@10
- cosine_map@100
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
tags:
- sentence-transformers
- sentence-similarity
- feature-extraction
- generated_from_trainer
- dataset_size:16465
- loss:MatryoshkaLoss
- loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
widget:
- source_sentence: How does the court determine the validity of land acquisition when
    it comes to property rights and the classification of land as waste or arable?
  sentences:
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Land Acquisition Act of 1894:** The main legal issue is the interpretation
    and application of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, specifically Sections 4,
    5-A, 6, 16, and 17.

    * **Public Purpose:** The court considers whether the acquisition of land for
    a limestone quarry is a public purpose, as declared by the State Government.

    * **Jurisdiction:** The case revolves around the jurisdiction of the State Government
    to acquire land under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act, and the applicability
    of Section 5-A of the Act.

    * **Property Rights:** The court considers the property rights of the zamindar,
    including the rights to subsoil and mineral resources.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The land in dispute is a forest area with a large number of trees, and the State
    Government declared it as needed for a public purpose.

    * The land was taken possession of by the Collector under Section 17(1) of the
    Act, which the court finds to be ultra vires.

    * The State Government directed the Collector to take possession of the land without
    making a preliminary finding that it is waste or arable land.

    * The land was not provided with any compensation for the limestone removed.

    * The zamindar had ancestral rights to the land, and the Government''s grant of
    land to the Raja in 1781 and 1803 did not reserve any mineral rights for the Government.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The Supreme Court upholds the High Court''s decision to quash the notifications
    issued by the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

    * The court holds that the land is not waste or arable land, and therefore, the
    State Government had no authority to direct the Collector to take possession of
    it under Section 17(1) of the Act.

    * The court also finds that the State Government''s decision to apply the provisions
    of Section 17(4) of the Act was ultra vires, as it was not a valid exercise of
    power.

    * The court rules that the zamindar has property rights to the land, including
    subsoil and mineral resources.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Smt Somavanti v. State of Punjab**, [1964] 2 SCR 383

    * **King Emperor v. Shibnath Banerjee**, AIR 1922 PC 147

    * **Jaichand Lal Sethia v. State of West Bengal**, AIR 1963 SC 1015

    * **Estate and Trust Agencies Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust**


    **Additional Key Points:**


    * The court references various precedents, including **Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi
    Debi**, to establish the property rights of the zamindar to the land and subsoil
    minerals.

    * The court also considers the subsequent events, proceedings, and conduct of
    the parties over a long period of time, which supports the interpretation of the
    sanads.

    * The court holds that the State Government has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions
    of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act to the land in dispute and to order that the
    provisions of Section 5-A of the Act will not apply to the land.

    * The court orders that the notifications of the State Government dated October
    4, 1950 and December 12, 1950 are ultra vires and should be quashed.

    * The court also orders that the further proceedings taken in the land acquisition
    case after the issue of the notification should be quashed, including the award
    dated January 7, 1952 and the reference made to civil court under Section 18 of
    the Act.'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Applicability of Section 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922:** The main
    legal issue is the interpretation of the proviso to Section 13, which deals with
    the computation of income, profits, and gains in accordance with the method of
    accounting regularly employed by the assessee.

    * **Wasting Asset:** The court considered the impact of a wasting asset, such
    as a cinematograph film, on the computation of taxable profits.

    * **Stock Valuation:** The court held that the value of the unexpired exploitation
    rights of the film should be taken into account when computing the taxable profits
    of the firm.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The respondents were a firm constituted under a deed dated December 12, 1947.

    * The firm acquired the exploitation rights for a cinematograph film "Apoorva
    Chinthameni" for Rs 1,00,000.

    * The firm filed a voluntary return declaring a net profit of Rs 28,643 for the
    year 1948-49.

    * The Income Tax Officer estimated the value of the unexpired exploitation rights
    at Rs 65,000 and computed the net profits of the firm at Rs 93,642.

    * The firm challenged the valuation of the exploitation rights, and the case was
    referred to the High Court.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The High Court held that the Income Tax Officer had no power to force a different
    system of accounting on the assessee, and the firm''s method of accounting was
    acceptable.

    * The court reduced the valuation of the unexpired exploitation rights to Rs 40,000.

    * The court held that the Income Tax Officer had not complied with the provisions
    of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and the assessment made by the Income
    Tax Officer was incorrect.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Section 10 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922**

    * **Section 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922**

    * **Section 2(15) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922**

    * **Secretary, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Arunachal Chettiar**

    * **CIT v. Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd., Ahmedabad**

    * **CIT v. Mcmillan & Co.**'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Transfer of Land:** The main legal issue is the transfer of land by the tenant
    to the respondent Nos. 3 to 9, and subsequently to the respondent No. 2, which
    was in breach of the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,
    1948.

    * **Section 43 and 32(R) of the Tenancy Act:** The court considered the provisions
    of Section 43 and 32(R) of the Tenancy Act, which deal with the transfer of land
    by tenants.

    * **Post-Facto Non-Agricultural Use Permission:** The court also considered the
    issue of post-facto non-agricultural use permission, and whether the respondent
    No. 2 was entitled to such permission.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The land in question was given to one Baldevbhai Atmarambhai as a new tenure
    land under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948.

    * The land was sold to one Vaidehi Park Cooperative Housing Society, and subsequently
    to the respondent No. 2 - Radhaswami Co-operative Society.

    * The transfer of land was in breach of the provisions of Section 43 and 32(R)
    of the Tenancy Act.

    * The respondent No. 2 had applied for post-facto non-agricultural use permission,
    and was willing to pay the premium.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The court upheld the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which had allowed
    the revision application filed by the respondent No. 2.

    * The court directed the Collector to consider the application of the respondent
    No. 2 for post-facto non-agricultural use permission, on the condition that they
    pay the premium.

    * The court refused to interfere with the direction given by the Tribunal, and
    dismissed the petition.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Himmatbhai Amrabhai Sagathiya v. State of Gujarat Through Principal Secretary
    (Appeals)**, Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 2010

    * **Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai v. State of Gujarat**, reported in (2014) 5 SCC
    199.'
- source_sentence: In what circumstances can third parties challenge decisions made
    by Administrative Tribunals, and what remedies are available to them?
  sentences:
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:** The main legal issue is the interpretation
    of Section 22(3)(f) of the Act, which deals with the power of review by an Administrative
    Tribunal.

    * **Power of Review:** The court considered the scope of review by an Administrative
    Tribunal, holding that it is similar to the power granted to a civil court under
    Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

    * **Scope of Review:** The court held that review is not permissible after the
    dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court, as the order
    of the Tribunal becomes final and binding.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * **Gopabandhu Biswal''s Case:** The case revolves around the promotion of Gopabandhu
    Biswal, an Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military Police, to the Indian Police
    Service (IPS) cadre.

    * **Tribunal''s Decision:** The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, held
    that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of the
    Orissa Military Police constituted a single cadre prior to 5-11-1980.

    * **Review Applications:** Several review petitions were filed by third parties,
    challenging the Tribunal''s decision.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * **Review of Tribunal''s Decision:** The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal
    was not entitled to review its earlier judgment dated 24-12-1991 in TA No. 1 of
    1989.

    * **Limitation of Review:** The court held that review is not permissible after
    the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal''s decision becomes
    final and binding.

    * **Remedy for Third Parties:** The court held that third parties can file separate
    applications before the Tribunal in their own cases, but review is not a viable
    option.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle** (1996) 3 SCC 463

    * **Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda** (1997) 6 SCC 78

    * **K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India** (1997) 6 SCC 473'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Appointment and Recruitment:** The main legal issue is the appointment and
    recruitment process under the Bihar State Electricity Board.

    * **Right to Appointment:** The court considered the right of candidates to be
    appointed even if a vacancy exists.

    * **Merit List and Panel:** The court held that the employer is not bound to offer
    unfilled vacancies to candidates next below the selected candidates in the merit
    list.

    * **Waiting List:** The court also held that the employer is not bound to prepare
    a waiting list in addition to the panel of selected candidates.

    * **Scheduled Tribe Candidate:** The court considered the case of a Scheduled
    Tribe candidate who was appointed despite a dispute over his status, and held
    that the employer''s decision to appoint him was valid.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The Bihar State Electricity Board (appellant) advertised 100 vacant posts of
    Operators in 1986 and 70 vacant posts of Assistant Operators.

    * A written test and interviews were held, and a panel of 22 candidates was prepared
    for appointment.

    * 18 out of 22 selected candidates did not turn up, leaving 18 vacancies unfilled.

    * Respondents 1 to 7, who had applied pursuant to the 1986 advertisement and were
    on the merit list at Serial No. 23 and downwards, moved the High Court for appointment
    against the unfilled vacancies.

    * In a separate case, a Scheduled Tribe candidate was selected against a post
    reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate, but the respondent Board doubted his
    status, leading to a dispute.

    * The dispute was resolved in favour of the Scheduled Tribe candidate, who was
    found to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe, and he was appointed by the High
    Court.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which had set aside
    the order of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court.

    * The court held that the respondents did not have an indefeasible right to appointment,
    and the employer was not bound to offer the unfilled vacancies to candidates next
    below the selected candidates in the merit list.

    * The court also held that the employer was not bound to prepare a waiting list
    in addition to the panel of selected candidates.

    * In the case of the Scheduled Tribe candidate, the court held that the employer''s
    decision to appoint him was valid despite the dispute over his status.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India**, (1991) 3 SCC 47

    * **Jai Narain Ram v. State of U.P.**, (1996) 1 SCC 332

    * **Purushottam v. Chairman, MSEB**, (1999) 6 SCC 49'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Jurisdiction of the Court:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of
    the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the Award under the Arbitration Act,
    1940.

    * **Section 31(4) of the Act:** The court held that Section 31(4) of the Act confers
    exclusive jurisdiction on the court to which an application is made in any reference,
    ousting the jurisdiction of any other court.

    * **Section 14(2) of the Act:** The court also considered Section 14(2) of the
    Act, which provides for the filing of the Award in the court, and held that the
    arbitrator must file the Award in the court that would have jurisdiction to entertain
    the suit.

    * **Court''s Control over Arbitration Proceedings:** The court held that when
    this Court appoints an arbitrator, it retains complete control over the arbitration
    proceedings, and the Award must be filed in this Court.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The dispute arose from a contract for the construction of a building between
    the appellant and the 1st respondent.

    * The parties entered into an arbitration agreement, and the 2nd respondent was
    appointed as the sole arbitrator.

    * The 2nd respondent was later replaced by the 3rd respondent, and the arbitrator
    made the Award and filed it in the Delhi High Court.

    * The 1st respondent moved a petition to the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration
    that the Award should be filed in the Supreme Court.

    * The court considered the principles from various cases, including Kumbha Mawji,
    Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal, and Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The Supreme Court held that the court which would have jurisdiction to entertain
    the suit forming the subject-matter of the reference would have jurisdiction to
    entertain the Award.

    * The court held that the arbitrator must file the Award in the court that would
    have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction
    to entertain the Award.

    * The court rejected the argument that the right of appeal under Article 136 would
    be denied if the Award is filed in the Supreme Court.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Ct.A.Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar v. Ct.A.Ct. Subramaniam Chettiar**, (1960) 2 SCR
    209

    * **State of M.P. v. Saith & Skelton (P) Ltd.**, (1972) 1 SCC 702

    * **Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury**, 1957 SCR 488

    * **Kumbha Mawji v. Union of India**

    * **Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal**'
- source_sentence: 'What are the legal implications of preventive detention under
    the COFEPOSA Act regarding the communication of grounds for detention?

    2. How does Article 22(5) of the Constitution protect the rights of individuals
    in preventive detention cases?

    3. What responsibilities do the Advisory Board and the Central Government have
    when it comes to considering representations made by individuals detained under
    preventive detention laws?'
  sentences:
  - "**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Ad-hoc Promotion:** The court considered\
    \ the applicant's eligibility for ad-hoc promotion to the grade of CIT, taking\
    \ into account the following factors:\n\t+ Whether the promotion of the officer\
    \ will be against public interest.\n\t+ Whether the charges are grave enough to\
    \ warrant continued denial of promotion.\n\t+ Whether there is any likelihood\
    \ of the case coming to a conclusion in the near future.\n\t+ Whether the delay\
    \ in the finalization of proceedings, departmental or in the court of law, is\
    \ directly or indirectly attributed to the Government servant concerned.\n\t+\
    \ Whether there is any likelihood of misuse of official position which the Government\
    \ servant may occupy after the ad-hoc promotion, which may adversely affect the\
    \ conduct of the departmental case/criminal prosecution.\n* **Sanction for Prosecution:**\
    \ The court considered the validity of the sanction for prosecution against the\
    \ applicant.\n* **Public Interest and Protection of Accused:** The court weighed\
    \ the public interest against the protection of the accused in the grant of sanction\
    \ for prosecution.\n* **Malafide and Contemptuous Conduct:** The court found malafide\
    \ and contemptuous conduct of the respondents and malice in law proved.\n* **Doctrine\
    \ of Res Judicata:** The court applied the doctrine of res judicata to prevent\
    \ re-agitation of the issue.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The\
    \ applicant, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, was suspended in 1999 and the suspension was\
    \ revoked in 2014.\n* The applicant was entitled to salary and allowances from\
    \ 2012 to 2014.\n* The respondent's department had issued charge sheets against\
    \ the applicant in 2006 and 2011, which were challenged by the applicant.\n* The\
    \ CVC issued guidelines on the grant of sanction for prosecution, which were followed\
    \ by the respondent's department.\n* The Hon'ble Supreme Court found malafide\
    \ and contemptuous conduct of the respondents and malice in law proved in its\
    \ judgment dated 22.11.2013.\n* The applicant's juniors were promoted as Additional\
    \ Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax.\n* The applicant\
    \ was considered for grant of ad-hoc promotion earlier on multiple occasions,\
    \ but the CBI recommended that he should not be considered for promotion due to\
    \ the serious nature of the cases against him.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n*\
    \ The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) revoked the suspension of the applicant\
    \ w.e.f. 12.01.2012.\n* The applicant was entitled to salary and allowances from\
    \ 12.01.2012 to 10.01.2014.\n* The respondents were directed to pay the applicant's\
    \ entitlement within two months.\n* The applicant's case for ad-hoc promotion\
    \ was allowed, and he was promoted as per the OM dated 14.09.1992.\n* The CAT\
    \ directed the respondents to complete the consideration for ad-hoc promotion\
    \ of the applicant within eight weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of the\
    \ order.\n\n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **SI Roop Lal v. Lt. Governor through Chief\
    \ Secretary, Delhi**, (2000) 1 SCC 644\n* **Tribhuivandas Purshottamdas Thakur\
    \ v. Ratilal Motilal Patel**, (1968) 1 SCR 455 : (AIR 1968 SC 372)\n* **Lala Bhagwan\
    \ v. Ram Chand**"
  - "**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Preventive Detention:** The case\
    \ revolves around the legality of the preventive detention of the appellant under\
    \ the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities\
    \ Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act).\n* **Section 3(3) COFEPOSA Act:** The main legal issue\
    \ is the interpretation of Section 3(3) of the Act, which deals with the communication\
    \ of grounds of detention.\n* **Preventive Detention under Article 22(5):** The\
    \ case also involves the interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution,\
    \ which deals with the right of a person to make a representation against an order\
    \ of detention.\n* **Representation to the Advisory Board:** The court held that\
    \ the Advisory Board was duty-bound to consider the representation made by the\
    \ detenu, and the Central Government was also required to consider the representation,\
    \ as per the Constitution.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The appellant\
    \ was apprehended at the airport and US dollars worth Rs 1.39 lakhs were recovered\
    \ from his person.\n* Foreign currency equivalent to 5.34 lakhs of rupees was\
    \ also recovered from his brother.\n* The order of detention was passed on 25-3-1994,\
    \ and the grounds of detention were served on 30-3-1994.\n* The appellant made\
    \ a representation to the Advisory Board, which was not addressed to the Central\
    \ Government.\n* The Central Government disposed of the representation on 12-7-1995,\
    \ after a delay of 12 months.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n* The High Court dismissed\
    \ the writ petition filed by the appellant.\n* The Supreme Court upheld the decision\
    \ of the High Court and held that:\n\t+ The delay in serving the grounds of detention\
    \ did not infringe Section 3(3) of the Act.\n\t+ The Central Government was not\
    \ obliged to consider the representation made to the Advisory Board.\n\t+ The\
    \ delay in disposing of the representation did not vitiate the order of detention.\n\
    \n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **Haru Das Gupta v. State of W.B.**, (1972) 1 SCC 639\n\
    * **Gracy v. State of Kerala**, (1991) 2 SCC 1"
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Dowry and Cruelty:** The case revolves around allegations of dowry demands
    and cruelty by the husband (petitioner) towards his wife.

    * **Section 498-A IPC:** The main legal issue is the application of Section 498-A
    of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with cruelty by the husband or his
    relatives towards a married woman.

    * **Regularization of Daily Wagers:** The case also involves the regularization
    of daily wagers in the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat.

    * **Article 226 of the Constitution:** The court''s decision is guided by Article
    226 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power of the High Court
    to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights
    conferred by Part III of the Constitution.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The case involves the regularization of daily wagers in the Forest Department
    of the State of Gujarat.

    * The petitioners, daily wagers, have been working in the Forest Department for
    several years.

    * The State Government had passed a resolution in 1988 to regularize daily wagers
    in other government departments, but not in the Forest Department.

    * The petitioners have been asserting their rights for a long time and have been
    dragged into multiple rounds of litigation.

    * The State Government had passed an order in 2011 rejecting the petitioners''
    representation for regularization, which was challenged in a Miscellaneous Civil
    Application.

    * The petitioners have placed on record the scheme framed by the Maharashtra State,
    Revenue and Forest Department for daily wagers of their Forest Department, which
    is similar to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The High Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to quash the
    order passed by the Principal Secretary, Forests and Environment Department, State
    of Gujarat, on April 21, 2011.

    * The court directed the State Government to frame a scheme for giving quasi-permanent
    status to the daily wagers in compliance with the judgment dated October 29, 2010.

    * The court also reiterated the direction to the State Government to consider
    the case of the petitioners for regularization, afresh, in light of the facts
    of each individual case.

    * The court noted that the State Government''s defense that the order passed in
    Special Civil Application was not revived and the order was challenged in Miscellaneous
    Civil Application does not appeal to it.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union**, (2013) 12 SCC 417

    * **Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988**

    * **Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, State of Gujarat Resolution dated
    20.12.2005**

    * **Scheme framed by the Maharashtra State, Revenue and Forest Department for
    daily wagers of their Forest Department**'
- source_sentence: How does the identification of suspects in low visibility conditions
    impact the credibility of witness testimonies in criminal proceedings?
  sentences:
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Local Inspection:** The main legal issue revolves around the legality of the
    local inspection conducted by the High Court judges under Section 539-B of the
    Criminal Procedure Code.

    * **Proper Appreciation of Evidence:** The court''s holding emphasizes the importance
    of properly appreciating the evidence on record, which was not done by the High
    Court judges in this case.

    * **Identification in Darkness:** The court''s ruling highlights the significance
    of identifying the assailants in the dark and the impossibility of doing so based
    on the High Court''s findings.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * **Incident:** The alleged murder occurred on December 24, 1971, at approximately
    3:30 a.m.

    * **Witnesses:** Raja Ram (PW 2) and Dwarika (PW 3) were eyewitnesses to the incident.

    * **High Court''s Visit:** The High Court judges conducted a local inspection
    at a place with no artificial light on January 11, 1974, at 7:30 p.m.

    * **Identification:** The High Court judges found it difficult to recognize faces
    even within a foot, leading them to reject the prosecution evidence.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * **Local Inspection:** The High Court''s local inspection was deemed illegal,
    as it was not conducted at the actual site of the alleged crime or any other place
    necessary for appreciating the evidence.

    * **Rehearing:** The case was remanded to the High Court for rehearing and disposal
    within three weeks.

    * **Proper Appreciation of Evidence:** The court emphasized the importance of
    properly appreciating the evidence on record, which was not done by the High Court
    judges.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Section 539-B CrPC:** The court cited this section, which allows judges to
    conduct a local inspection for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence
    on record.

    * **Cases:** The court referred to several decisions of High Courts, which held
    that the omission of recording a memorandum of relevant facts observed during
    a local inspection was a mere irregularity.'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Seniority and Promotion:** The case revolves around the issue of seniority
    and promotion of Sales Tax Officers Class I in the Sales Tax Department of the
    State of Maharashtra.

    * **Service Law:** The main legal issue is the application of the Maharashtra
    Sales Tax Officers Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1982, and the Maharashtra Services
    (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982.

    * **Interpretation of Statutes:** The court considered the interpretation of the
    word "may" in Rule 4-A of the Recruitment Rules, which provided that the Government
    may, in consultation with the Public Service Commission, make appointments in
    relaxation of the prescribed quota.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The appellants are direct recruits as Sales Tax Officers Class I, appointed
    after following the prescribed procedure.

    * The respondents are departmental promotees to the post of Sales Tax Officers
    Class I.

    * The Government of Maharashtra filled 747 posts of Sales Tax Officers Class I
    en bloc by giving promotions to the promotees in violation of the statutory quota
    rules.

    * The appointments of the promotees were provisional and fortuitous, and their
    period of service was excluded in computing their seniority.

    * The Government of Maharashtra inserted Rule 4-A retrospectively, allowing for
    appointments to be made in relaxation of the quota rule.

    * The Tribunal held that the Government did not make efforts to make appointments
    by nomination for more than three years and that the promotees'' appointments
    were fortuitous.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The High Court upheld the appeal and quashed the seniority lists published in
    1991, 1993, and 1994.

    * The court directed the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list of
    promotees and nominees (direct recruits) on the basis of dates of appointment.

    * The court held that the period of fortuitous service will have to be excluded
    in computing the seniority of the promotees.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India**, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 : 1993 SCC
    (L&S) 694 : (1993) 24 ATC 545'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957:** The case revolves
    around the interpretation of Section 9(3) of the Act, which deals with the power
    of the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule and enhance or reduce the
    rate of royalty in respect of any mineral.

    * **Section 9(3) Proviso:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of the
    proviso to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 9, which prohibits the Central Government from
    enhancing the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during
    any period of four years.

    * **Royalty Rates:** The court considered the appropriateness of the royalty rates
    for limestone, specifically the inferior grade, and whether the Central Government
    had violated the provisions of Section 9(3) by enhancing the rate of royalty.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The petitioner companies have been quarrying limestone from leased areas and
    paying royalty at the rate of Re. 0.75 per tonne since 1962.

    * The Central Government issued a notification in 1968, dividing limestone into
    two categories: superior grade and inferior grade, with different royalty rates.

    * The petitioner companies continued to pay royalty at the rate of Re. 0.75 per
    tonne, treating the entire limestone as falling within the inferior category.

    * The Central Government issued a subsequent notification in 1970, abolishing
    the two categories and increasing the royalty rate for limestone to Rs. 1.25 per
    tonne.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The High Court held that the Central Government''s power under Section 9(3)
    to enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral includes the power to
    enhance the rate for one category of a particular mineral, even if it has the
    effect of enhancing the rate for another category.

    * The court ruled that the 1968 notification had the effect of enhancing the royalty
    rate for limestone, and therefore, the Central Government was precluded from enhancing
    the rate again within a period of four years.

    * The court held that the 1970 notification was invalid as it was issued in violation
    of the provisions of Section 9(3) and the proviso thereto.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Bagalkot Udyog Ltd., Bombay v. Union of India (AIR 1971 Mysore 363)**

    * **Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. The Union of India (Civil Writ Petition
    No. 1343 of 1970, decided on 6th September 1971)**'
- source_sentence: What legal considerations are involved in determining a person's
    citizenship status when foreign nationality is claimed in criminal proceedings?
  sentences:
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Acquiescence in Arbitrator''s Appointment:** The Supreme Court held that if
    parties to a reference agree beforehand to the method of appointment or acquiesce
    in the appointment made with full knowledge of the circumstances, they cannot
    object to such appointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings.

    * **Succession of Arbitrator:** The court ruled that the successor arbitrator
    was competent to complete the arbitration proceedings, despite the predecessor
    arbitrator''s entry into reference.

    * **Principles of Natural Justice:** The court rejected the contention that there
    was a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the parties had knowledge
    of the change of the incumbent and had acquiesced in the proceedings.

    * **Award''s Validity:** The court held that the award was unassailable, as it
    did not contain any patent mistake of law or gross misstatement of facts resulting
    in miscarriage of justice or equity.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The petitioner company undertook the work of widening and strengthening pavements
    in National Highways No. 7, Madurai-Kanyakumari Road.

    * The work was divided into fourteen Reaches, and fourteen separate agreements
    were entered into between the petitioner and the Superintending Engineer, National
    Highways, Tirunelveli.

    * The predecessor arbitrator, Thiru Mohan, entered into reference but was transferred
    before completing the award.

    * The successor arbitrator, Thiru J.R. Cornelius, completed the arbitration proceedings
    with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and upheld the High
    Court''s judgment, which had upheld the District Judge''s dismissal of the challenge
    to the award.

    * The court held that the award was unassailable and that the parties had acquiesced
    in the appointment of the successor arbitrator.

    * The court rejected the contentions that the successor arbitrator had no jurisdiction
    to complete the arbitration proceedings and that there was a violation of the
    principles of natural justice.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Chowdhury Murtaza Hossein v. Mussumat Bibi Bechunnissa**, 3 IA 209 : 3 Sar
    663 : 3 Suther 342

    * **Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta**, AIR 1956
    Cal 470 : 1955 Cri LJ 1243

    * **N. Challappan v. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board**, (1975) 1 SCC
    289

    * **Prasun Roy v. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority**, (1987) 4 SCC
    217

    * **Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.**, (1967) 1 SCR 105
    : AIR 1967 SC 1030'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Market Value Determination:** The case revolves around the determination of
    market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

    * **Section 4 of the Act:** The main legal issue is the application of Section
    4 of the Act, 1894, which deals with the notification for land acquisition.

    * **Fair Market Value:** The court considered the principles for determining the
    fair market value of the land acquired, including the geographical situation,
    existing use, proximity to roads and highways, and market value of adjacent lands.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The land acquisition was initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
    at the rate of Rs. 357.13 per bigha.

    * The land owners/claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
    Act, 1894, and the Tribunal enhanced the market value to Rs. 4,896/- per bigha.

    * The Tribunal allowed 5% solatium and damages under Section 48-A, etc.

    * The land in question was situated in an industrially developed area, near Panki
    Railway Station and Kalpi Road.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The High Court upheld the principles laid down by the Apex Court for determining
    the fair market value of the land acquired.

    * The court held that the Tribunal had rightly enhanced the market value to Rs.
    4,896/- per bigha.

    * The court also held that the Tribunal had considered the relevant factors, including
    the size of the land, proximity to roads and highways, and market value of adjacent
    lands.

    * The court directed the Tribunal to consider the above-mentioned factors while
    determining the market value of the land.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer**, 1

    * **V.M. Salgoacar and brother Ltd. v. Union of India**, 1

    * **Shakuntalabai (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra**, 2

    * **Meerut Development Authority through its Secretary v. Basheshwar Dayal (since
    deceased) through his L. Rs**, First Appeal No. 454/2003 and other connected matters,
    decided on 1.8.2013'
  - '**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**


    * **Determination of Citizenship:** The main legal issue is the determination
    of the respondent''s citizenship status, specifically whether he had acquired
    Pakistani nationality and lost Indian citizenship.

    * **Section 9 of the Citizenship Act:** The court considered the application of
    Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which requires the Central Government
    to determine whether a person has acquired foreign citizenship.

    * **Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts:** The court held that the jurisdiction of
    criminal courts to record a conviction or acquittal is limited when the question
    of acquisition of foreign citizenship is involved.

    * **Burden of Proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners'' Act:** The court noted
    that the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners'' Act, 1946, is immaterial
    when an issue triable exclusively by the Central Government has properly arisen.


    **2. Significant Facts of the Case:**


    * The respondent was charged with overstaying in India after his permit expired,
    allegedly due to his foreigner status.

    * The respondent claimed to be an Indian citizen, born in Gujarat, and had gone
    to Pakistan as a minor after a quarrel with his father.

    * The respondent produced credible evidence to prove his Indian citizenship, including
    his birth certificate and school records.

    * The prosecution relied on the respondent''s Pakistani passport and visa application,
    which stated that he had migrated to Pakistan in 1950.


    **3. Court''s Ruling:**


    * The High Court had acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution had
    failed to prove that he had acquired Pakistani nationality.

    * The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution had proceeded
    with the case despite knowing that the question of acquisition of foreign citizenship
    was involved.

    * The court quashed the charge against the respondent, allowing him to be discharged.


    **4. Citations:**


    * **Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala**, (1966) 3 SCR 706 : AIR 1966 SC 1614 :
    1966 Cri LJ 1217

    * **Shanno Devi v. Mangal Sain**, (1961) 1 SCR 576 : AIR 1961 SC 58 : (1961) 1
    SCJ 201

    * **State of A.P. v. Abdul Khader**, (1962) 1 SCR 737 : AIR 1961 SC 1467 : 1961
    (2) Cri LJ 573

    * **Abdul Sattar v. State of Gujarat**, AIR 1965 SC 810 : (1964) 2 SCJ 461 : (1965)
    1 Cri LJ 759

    * **Akbar Khan v. Union of India**, (1962) 1 SCR 779 : AIR 1962 SC 70 : (1962)
    1 SCJ 665'
model-index:
- name: SentenceTransformer based on Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5
  results:
  - task:
      type: information-retrieval
      name: Information Retrieval
    dataset:
      name: dim 768
      type: dim_768
    metrics:
    - type: cosine_accuracy@1
      value: 0.014994232987312572
      name: Cosine Accuracy@1
    - type: cosine_accuracy@3
      value: 0.558246828143022
      name: Cosine Accuracy@3
    - type: cosine_accuracy@5
      value: 0.5813148788927336
      name: Cosine Accuracy@5
    - type: cosine_accuracy@10
      value: 0.7450980392156863
      name: Cosine Accuracy@10
    - type: cosine_precision@1
      value: 0.014994232987312572
      name: Cosine Precision@1
    - type: cosine_precision@3
      value: 0.18608227604767394
      name: Cosine Precision@3
    - type: cosine_precision@5
      value: 0.11626297577854669
      name: Cosine Precision@5
    - type: cosine_precision@10
      value: 0.07450980392156863
      name: Cosine Precision@10
    - type: cosine_recall@1
      value: 0.014994232987312572
      name: Cosine Recall@1
    - type: cosine_recall@3
      value: 0.558246828143022
      name: Cosine Recall@3
    - type: cosine_recall@5
      value: 0.5813148788927336
      name: Cosine Recall@5
    - type: cosine_recall@10
      value: 0.7450980392156863
      name: Cosine Recall@10
    - type: cosine_ndcg@10
      value: 0.36183625351034987
      name: Cosine Ndcg@10
    - type: cosine_mrr@10
      value: 0.23922987495651962
      name: Cosine Mrr@10
    - type: cosine_map@100
      value: 0.2489550480323753
      name: Cosine Map@100
  - task:
      type: information-retrieval
      name: Information Retrieval
    dataset:
      name: dim 512
      type: dim_512
    metrics:
    - type: cosine_accuracy@1
      value: 0.01730103806228374
      name: Cosine Accuracy@1
    - type: cosine_accuracy@3
      value: 0.5490196078431373
      name: Cosine Accuracy@3
    - type: cosine_accuracy@5
      value: 0.5767012687427913
      name: Cosine Accuracy@5
    - type: cosine_accuracy@10
      value: 0.7312572087658593
      name: Cosine Accuracy@10
    - type: cosine_precision@1
      value: 0.01730103806228374
      name: Cosine Precision@1
    - type: cosine_precision@3
      value: 0.18300653594771243
      name: Cosine Precision@3
    - type: cosine_precision@5
      value: 0.11534025374855825
      name: Cosine Precision@5
    - type: cosine_precision@10
      value: 0.0731257208765859
      name: Cosine Precision@10
    - type: cosine_recall@1
      value: 0.01730103806228374
      name: Cosine Recall@1
    - type: cosine_recall@3
      value: 0.5490196078431373
      name: Cosine Recall@3
    - type: cosine_recall@5
      value: 0.5767012687427913
      name: Cosine Recall@5
    - type: cosine_recall@10
      value: 0.7312572087658593
      name: Cosine Recall@10
    - type: cosine_ndcg@10
      value: 0.358422658056147
      name: Cosine Ndcg@10
    - type: cosine_mrr@10
      value: 0.23891863935116628
      name: Cosine Mrr@10
    - type: cosine_map@100
      value: 0.24928953887708072
      name: Cosine Map@100
---

# SentenceTransformer based on Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5

This is a [sentence-transformers](https://www.SBERT.net) model finetuned from [Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5](https://huggingface.co/Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5) on the json dataset. It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for semantic textual similarity, semantic search, paraphrase mining, text classification, clustering, and more.

## Model Details

### Model Description
- **Model Type:** Sentence Transformer
- **Base model:** [Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5](https://huggingface.co/Alibaba-NLP/gte-base-en-v1.5) <!-- at revision a8e4f3e0ee719c75bc30d12b8eae0f8440502718 -->
- **Maximum Sequence Length:** 8192 tokens
- **Output Dimensionality:** 768 dimensions
- **Similarity Function:** Cosine Similarity
- **Training Dataset:**
    - json
- **Language:** en
- **License:** apache-2.0

### Model Sources

- **Documentation:** [Sentence Transformers Documentation](https://sbert.net)
- **Repository:** [Sentence Transformers on GitHub](https://github.com/UKPLab/sentence-transformers)
- **Hugging Face:** [Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/models?library=sentence-transformers)

### Full Model Architecture

```
SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 8192, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: NewModel 
  (1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode_cls_token': True, 'pooling_mode_mean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_max_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_lasttoken': False, 'include_prompt': True})
)
```

## Usage

### Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)

First install the Sentence Transformers library:

```bash
pip install -U sentence-transformers
```

Then you can load this model and run inference.
```python
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("Tejasw1/gte-base-case-law-v2")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    "What legal considerations are involved in determining a person's citizenship status when foreign nationality is claimed in criminal proceedings?",
    "**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Determination of Citizenship:** The main legal issue is the determination of the respondent's citizenship status, specifically whether he had acquired Pakistani nationality and lost Indian citizenship.\n* **Section 9 of the Citizenship Act:** The court considered the application of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which requires the Central Government to determine whether a person has acquired foreign citizenship.\n* **Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts:** The court held that the jurisdiction of criminal courts to record a conviction or acquittal is limited when the question of acquisition of foreign citizenship is involved.\n* **Burden of Proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act:** The court noted that the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, is immaterial when an issue triable exclusively by the Central Government has properly arisen.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The respondent was charged with overstaying in India after his permit expired, allegedly due to his foreigner status.\n* The respondent claimed to be an Indian citizen, born in Gujarat, and had gone to Pakistan as a minor after a quarrel with his father.\n* The respondent produced credible evidence to prove his Indian citizenship, including his birth certificate and school records.\n* The prosecution relied on the respondent's Pakistani passport and visa application, which stated that he had migrated to Pakistan in 1950.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n* The High Court had acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove that he had acquired Pakistani nationality.\n* The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution had proceeded with the case despite knowing that the question of acquisition of foreign citizenship was involved.\n* The court quashed the charge against the respondent, allowing him to be discharged.\n\n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala**, (1966) 3 SCR 706 : AIR 1966 SC 1614 : 1966 Cri LJ 1217\n* **Shanno Devi v. Mangal Sain**, (1961) 1 SCR 576 : AIR 1961 SC 58 : (1961) 1 SCJ 201\n* **State of A.P. v. Abdul Khader**, (1962) 1 SCR 737 : AIR 1961 SC 1467 : 1961 (2) Cri LJ 573\n* **Abdul Sattar v. State of Gujarat**, AIR 1965 SC 810 : (1964) 2 SCJ 461 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 759\n* **Akbar Khan v. Union of India**, (1962) 1 SCR 779 : AIR 1962 SC 70 : (1962) 1 SCJ 665",
    "**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Acquiescence in Arbitrator's Appointment:** The Supreme Court held that if parties to a reference agree beforehand to the method of appointment or acquiesce in the appointment made with full knowledge of the circumstances, they cannot object to such appointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings.\n* **Succession of Arbitrator:** The court ruled that the successor arbitrator was competent to complete the arbitration proceedings, despite the predecessor arbitrator's entry into reference.\n* **Principles of Natural Justice:** The court rejected the contention that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the parties had knowledge of the change of the incumbent and had acquiesced in the proceedings.\n* **Award's Validity:** The court held that the award was unassailable, as it did not contain any patent mistake of law or gross misstatement of facts resulting in miscarriage of justice or equity.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The petitioner company undertook the work of widening and strengthening pavements in National Highways No. 7, Madurai-Kanyakumari Road.\n* The work was divided into fourteen Reaches, and fourteen separate agreements were entered into between the petitioner and the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli.\n* The predecessor arbitrator, Thiru Mohan, entered into reference but was transferred before completing the award.\n* The successor arbitrator, Thiru J.R. Cornelius, completed the arbitration proceedings with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n* The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and upheld the High Court's judgment, which had upheld the District Judge's dismissal of the challenge to the award.\n* The court held that the award was unassailable and that the parties had acquiesced in the appointment of the successor arbitrator.\n* The court rejected the contentions that the successor arbitrator had no jurisdiction to complete the arbitration proceedings and that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.\n\n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **Chowdhury Murtaza Hossein v. Mussumat Bibi Bechunnissa**, 3 IA 209 : 3 Sar 663 : 3 Suther 342\n* **Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta**, AIR 1956 Cal 470 : 1955 Cri LJ 1243\n* **N. Challappan v. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board**, (1975) 1 SCC 289\n* **Prasun Roy v. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority**, (1987) 4 SCC 217\n* **Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.**, (1967) 1 SCR 105 : AIR 1967 SC 1030",
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]

# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [3, 3]
```

<!--
### Direct Usage (Transformers)

<details><summary>Click to see the direct usage in Transformers</summary>

</details>
-->

<!--
### Downstream Usage (Sentence Transformers)

You can finetune this model on your own dataset.

<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>

</details>
-->

<!--
### Out-of-Scope Use

*List how the model may foreseeably be misused and address what users ought not to do with the model.*
-->

## Evaluation

### Metrics

#### Information Retrieval

* Datasets: `dim_768` and `dim_512`
* Evaluated with [<code>InformationRetrievalEvaluator</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/evaluation.html#sentence_transformers.evaluation.InformationRetrievalEvaluator)

| Metric              | dim_768    | dim_512    |
|:--------------------|:-----------|:-----------|
| cosine_accuracy@1   | 0.015      | 0.0173     |
| cosine_accuracy@3   | 0.5582     | 0.549      |
| cosine_accuracy@5   | 0.5813     | 0.5767     |
| cosine_accuracy@10  | 0.7451     | 0.7313     |
| cosine_precision@1  | 0.015      | 0.0173     |
| cosine_precision@3  | 0.1861     | 0.183      |
| cosine_precision@5  | 0.1163     | 0.1153     |
| cosine_precision@10 | 0.0745     | 0.0731     |
| cosine_recall@1     | 0.015      | 0.0173     |
| cosine_recall@3     | 0.5582     | 0.549      |
| cosine_recall@5     | 0.5813     | 0.5767     |
| cosine_recall@10    | 0.7451     | 0.7313     |
| **cosine_ndcg@10**  | **0.3618** | **0.3584** |
| cosine_mrr@10       | 0.2392     | 0.2389     |
| cosine_map@100      | 0.249      | 0.2493     |

<!--
## Bias, Risks and Limitations

*What are the known or foreseeable issues stemming from this model? You could also flag here known failure cases or weaknesses of the model.*
-->

<!--
### Recommendations

*What are recommendations with respect to the foreseeable issues? For example, filtering explicit content.*
-->

## Training Details

### Training Dataset

#### json

* Dataset: json
* Size: 16,465 training samples
* Columns: <code>anchor</code> and <code>positive</code>
* Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
  |         | anchor                                                                            | positive                                                                               |
  |:--------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | type    | string                                                                            | string                                                                                 |
  | details | <ul><li>min: 2 tokens</li><li>mean: 26.38 tokens</li><li>max: 72 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 333 tokens</li><li>mean: 563.51 tokens</li><li>max: 1134 tokens</li></ul> |
* Samples:
  | anchor                                                                                                                                                  | positive                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
  |:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | <code>What factors do courts consider when evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimonies in murder trials?</code>                                | <code>**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**<br><br>* **Culpable Homicide:** The court considered the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.<br>* **Section 302 IPC:** The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC for the death of Ishwardeen.<br>* **Section 34 IPC:** The court also upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 34 IPC for the death of Ishwardeen, considering the common intention of the accused.<br><br>**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**<br><br>* The deceased, Ishwardeen, was killed in a alleged incident involving the accused, Bhagwan Das, Sheo Mohan, and Shanker @ Sheo Shanker.<br>* The incident occurred on August 18, 1983, at the house of Bhagwan Das, where Ishwardeen and his family were residing.<br>* The accused had allegedly demanded rent from Ishwardeen and had threatened to evict him from the house.<br>* Ishwardeen was killed by the accused, who allegedly gave him 8-9 knife blows.<br>...</code> |
  | <code>What principles guide the court's decisions on wage fixation in cases involving government undertakings?</code>                                   | <code>**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**<br><br>* **Wage Structure:** The main legal issue is whether the wage structure of a government undertaking in the public sector should be different from that of an undertaking in the private sector.<br>* **Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:** The court considered the applicability of this provision in the context of wage fixation.<br>* **Article 39 and 43 of the Directive Principles of State Policy:** The court examined the constitutional implications of making a distinction between laborers in the public and private sectors.<br>* **Region-cum-Industry Principle:** The court upheld the principle of region-cum-industry in wage fixation.<br>* **Gratuity Scheme:** The court considered the validity of the gratuity scheme introduced by the Tribunal, which provided for payment of gratuity to workmen upon retirement or termination of service.<br>* **Fair Wages:** The court examined the issue of fair wages and whether the Tribunal had violated the accepted...</code>                |
  | <code>- What role does the recommendation of a State Government play in the land exemption process under the Punjab Towns Improvement Act, 1922?</code> | <code>**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**<br><br>* **Acquisition of Land:** The main legal issue is the acquisition of land by the Improvement Trust under the Punjab Towns Improvement Act, 1922.<br>* **Exemption of Orchards:** The court considered whether the Improvement Trust was bound to exempt orchards from acquisition under Section 56 of the Act.<br>* **Article 14 of the Constitution:** The court held that the Improvement Trust did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution by exempting some orchards while acquiring others.<br>* **Quasi-Judicial Capacity:** The court held that the Improvement Trust acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when determining claims under Section 56 of the Act, but is not bound to give reasons for its decisions.<br>* **Locus Standi:** The court observed that the appellants had no locus standi to invoke Section 56 of the Act, as the acquisition of their land had not been discovered to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme.<br>* **Power to Exempt Lands:** The court held that t...</code>                |
* Loss: [<code>MatryoshkaLoss</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#matryoshkaloss) with these parameters:
  ```json
  {
      "loss": "MultipleNegativesRankingLoss",
      "matryoshka_dims": [
          768,
          512
      ],
      "matryoshka_weights": [
          1,
          1
      ],
      "n_dims_per_step": -1
  }
  ```

### Evaluation Dataset

#### json

* Dataset: json
* Size: 867 evaluation samples
* Columns: <code>anchor</code> and <code>positive</code>
* Approximate statistics based on the first 867 samples:
  |         | anchor                                                                            | positive                                                                               |
  |:--------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | type    | string                                                                            | string                                                                                 |
  | details | <ul><li>min: 2 tokens</li><li>mean: 26.91 tokens</li><li>max: 94 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 318 tokens</li><li>mean: 568.71 tokens</li><li>max: 1120 tokens</li></ul> |
* Samples:
  | anchor                                                                                                                                                     | positive                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
  |:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | <code></code>                                                                                                                                              | <code>**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**<br><br>* **Deemed Tenancy:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of Section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, which deals with deemed tenancy.<br>* **Right to Cultivate Land:** The case revolves around the right of the appellant to cultivate the land and appropriate the produce, despite being a servant of the respondent.<br>* **Employer-Employee Relationship:** The court considered the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the respondent, whether it was that of an employer-employee or a landlord-tenant.<br><br>**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**<br><br>* The respondent owns three agricultural lands in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra.<br>* The appellant's father, Umaji, was appointed a pujari by the landlord to worship the idols in the temple and look after the management of the dharamshalas.<br>* The appellant was allowed to cultivate the lands and take the crops in lieu of payment for his services as a pujari...</code> |
  | <code>What is the significance of the burden of proof in tax cases involving the failure to file returns on time?</code>                                   | <code>**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**<br><br>* **Burden of Proof:** The main legal issue is the burden of proof required to establish the absence of "reasonable cause" for the assessee's failure to file returns within the specified time.<br>* **Penalty under Section 271(1)(a):** The court considered the nature of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether it requires the element of "mens rea" (guilty mind).<br>* **Civil Obligation vs. Criminal Liability:** The court distinguished between civil obligation and criminal liability, holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is civil in nature and does not require proof of "mens rea".<br><br>**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**<br><br>* The assessee, I.M. Patel and Co., failed to file returns for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67, leading to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a).<br>* The assessee argued that the burden was on the Revenue to prove absence of "reasonable cause" for the delay.<br>* The court held t...</code> |
  | <code>In what circumstances can an industrial tribunal adjudicate on issues related to retrenchment compensation versus reinstatement of employees?</code> | <code>**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**<br><br>* **Transfer of Employment:** The main legal issue is whether Respondent 3 was transferred from the appellant corporation to the subsidiary company Sindhu Hotchief, and whether he continued to be an employee of the appellant corporation.<br>* **Retrenchment Compensation:** The court considered the entitlement of Respondent 3 to retrenchment compensation from the appellant corporation.<br>* **Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal:** The court examined whether the State Government had the jurisdiction to refer a question of reinstatement as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal.<br>* **Competency of State Government Reference:** The court held that the State Government was not competent to refer a question of reinstatement as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal.<br><br>**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**<br><br>* Respondent 3 was employed by the appellant corporation as an Accounts Clerk and was later transferred to Sindhu Hotchief.<br>*...</code> |
* Loss: [<code>MatryoshkaLoss</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#matryoshkaloss) with these parameters:
  ```json
  {
      "loss": "MultipleNegativesRankingLoss",
      "matryoshka_dims": [
          768,
          512
      ],
      "matryoshka_weights": [
          1,
          1
      ],
      "n_dims_per_step": -1
  }
  ```

### Training Hyperparameters
#### Non-Default Hyperparameters

- `eval_strategy`: epoch
- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 16
- `gradient_accumulation_steps`: 8
- `learning_rate`: 2e-05
- `num_train_epochs`: 4
- `lr_scheduler_type`: cosine
- `warmup_ratio`: 0.1
- `bf16`: True
- `tf32`: True
- `load_best_model_at_end`: True
- `optim`: adamw_torch_fused
- `batch_sampler`: no_duplicates

#### All Hyperparameters
<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>

- `overwrite_output_dir`: False
- `do_predict`: False
- `eval_strategy`: epoch
- `prediction_loss_only`: True
- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 16
- `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 8
- `per_gpu_train_batch_size`: None
- `per_gpu_eval_batch_size`: None
- `gradient_accumulation_steps`: 8
- `eval_accumulation_steps`: None
- `torch_empty_cache_steps`: None
- `learning_rate`: 2e-05
- `weight_decay`: 0.0
- `adam_beta1`: 0.9
- `adam_beta2`: 0.999
- `adam_epsilon`: 1e-08
- `max_grad_norm`: 1.0
- `num_train_epochs`: 4
- `max_steps`: -1
- `lr_scheduler_type`: cosine
- `lr_scheduler_kwargs`: {}
- `warmup_ratio`: 0.1
- `warmup_steps`: 0
- `log_level`: passive
- `log_level_replica`: warning
- `log_on_each_node`: True
- `logging_nan_inf_filter`: True
- `save_safetensors`: True
- `save_on_each_node`: False
- `save_only_model`: False
- `restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint`: False
- `no_cuda`: False
- `use_cpu`: False
- `use_mps_device`: False
- `seed`: 42
- `data_seed`: None
- `jit_mode_eval`: False
- `use_ipex`: False
- `bf16`: True
- `fp16`: False
- `fp16_opt_level`: O1
- `half_precision_backend`: auto
- `bf16_full_eval`: False
- `fp16_full_eval`: False
- `tf32`: True
- `local_rank`: 0
- `ddp_backend`: None
- `tpu_num_cores`: None
- `tpu_metrics_debug`: False
- `debug`: []
- `dataloader_drop_last`: False
- `dataloader_num_workers`: 0
- `dataloader_prefetch_factor`: None
- `past_index`: -1
- `disable_tqdm`: False
- `remove_unused_columns`: True
- `label_names`: None
- `load_best_model_at_end`: True
- `ignore_data_skip`: False
- `fsdp`: []
- `fsdp_min_num_params`: 0
- `fsdp_config`: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
- `fsdp_transformer_layer_cls_to_wrap`: None
- `accelerator_config`: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
- `deepspeed`: None
- `label_smoothing_factor`: 0.0
- `optim`: adamw_torch_fused
- `optim_args`: None
- `adafactor`: False
- `group_by_length`: False
- `length_column_name`: length
- `ddp_find_unused_parameters`: None
- `ddp_bucket_cap_mb`: None
- `ddp_broadcast_buffers`: False
- `dataloader_pin_memory`: True
- `dataloader_persistent_workers`: False
- `skip_memory_metrics`: True
- `use_legacy_prediction_loop`: False
- `push_to_hub`: False
- `resume_from_checkpoint`: None
- `hub_model_id`: None
- `hub_strategy`: every_save
- `hub_private_repo`: False
- `hub_always_push`: False
- `gradient_checkpointing`: False
- `gradient_checkpointing_kwargs`: None
- `include_inputs_for_metrics`: False
- `include_for_metrics`: []
- `eval_do_concat_batches`: True
- `fp16_backend`: auto
- `push_to_hub_model_id`: None
- `push_to_hub_organization`: None
- `mp_parameters`: 
- `auto_find_batch_size`: False
- `full_determinism`: False
- `torchdynamo`: None
- `ray_scope`: last
- `ddp_timeout`: 1800
- `torch_compile`: False
- `torch_compile_backend`: None
- `torch_compile_mode`: None
- `dispatch_batches`: None
- `split_batches`: None
- `include_tokens_per_second`: False
- `include_num_input_tokens_seen`: False
- `neftune_noise_alpha`: None
- `optim_target_modules`: None
- `batch_eval_metrics`: False
- `eval_on_start`: False
- `use_liger_kernel`: False
- `eval_use_gather_object`: False
- `batch_sampler`: no_duplicates
- `multi_dataset_batch_sampler`: proportional

</details>

### Training Logs
| Epoch      | Step    | Training Loss | Validation Loss | dim_768_cosine_ndcg@10 | dim_512_cosine_ndcg@10 |
|:----------:|:-------:|:-------------:|:---------------:|:----------------------:|:----------------------:|
| 0.0777     | 10      | 5.905         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.1553     | 20      | 3.9366        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.2330     | 30      | 3.1478        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.3107     | 40      | 2.7177        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.3883     | 50      | 2.8248        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.4660     | 60      | 2.5161        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.5437     | 70      | 2.801         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.6214     | 80      | 2.5435        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.6990     | 90      | 2.6737        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.7767     | 100     | 2.093         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.8544     | 110     | 2.0493        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.9320     | 120     | 2.3742        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 0.9942     | 128     | -             | 0.1152          | 0.3597                 | 0.3548                 |
| 1.0146     | 130     | 2.154         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.0922     | 140     | 1.5879        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.1699     | 150     | 1.6099        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.2476     | 160     | 1.1991        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.3252     | 170     | 1.2376        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.4029     | 180     | 0.9834        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.4806     | 190     | 0.998         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.5583     | 200     | 1.3221        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.6359     | 210     | 1.0819        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.7136     | 220     | 1.0908        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.7913     | 230     | 0.8594        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.8689     | 240     | 0.9206        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.9466     | 250     | 1.1421        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 1.9932     | 256     | -             | 0.0889          | 0.3605                 | 0.3552                 |
| 2.0291     | 260     | 0.9855        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.1068     | 270     | 0.6844        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.1845     | 280     | 0.9561        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.2621     | 290     | 0.5256        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.3398     | 300     | 0.7203        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.4175     | 310     | 0.5236        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.4951     | 320     | 0.6667        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.5728     | 330     | 0.8384        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.6505     | 340     | 0.6691        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.7282     | 350     | 0.6873        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.8058     | 360     | 0.4794        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.8835     | 370     | 0.678         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.9612     | 380     | 0.8187        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 2.9922     | 384     | -             | 0.0835          | 0.3584                 | 0.3589                 |
| 3.0437     | 390     | 0.6694        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.1214     | 400     | 0.5088        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.1990     | 410     | 0.6298        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.2767     | 420     | 0.4416        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.3544     | 430     | 0.4806        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.4320     | 440     | 0.5014        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.5097     | 450     | 0.4587        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.5874     | 460     | 0.6462        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.6650     | 470     | 0.5893        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.7427     | 480     | 0.5307        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.8204     | 490     | 0.4171        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.8981     | 500     | 0.5588        | -               | -                      | -                      |
| 3.9757     | 510     | 0.578         | -               | -                      | -                      |
| **3.9913** | **512** | **-**         | **0.0804**      | **0.3618**             | **0.3584**             |

* The bold row denotes the saved checkpoint.

### Framework Versions
- Python: 3.11.5
- Sentence Transformers: 3.3.0.dev0
- Transformers: 4.46.1
- PyTorch: 2.5.1+cu124
- Accelerate: 0.34.2
- Datasets: 3.0.0
- Tokenizers: 0.20.1

## Citation

### BibTeX

#### Sentence Transformers
```bibtex
@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
    title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
    author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
    month = "11",
    year = "2019",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
}
```

#### MatryoshkaLoss
```bibtex
@misc{kusupati2024matryoshka,
    title={Matryoshka Representation Learning},
    author={Aditya Kusupati and Gantavya Bhatt and Aniket Rege and Matthew Wallingford and Aditya Sinha and Vivek Ramanujan and William Howard-Snyder and Kaifeng Chen and Sham Kakade and Prateek Jain and Ali Farhadi},
    year={2024},
    eprint={2205.13147},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    primaryClass={cs.LG}
}
```

#### MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
```bibtex
@misc{henderson2017efficient,
    title={Efficient Natural Language Response Suggestion for Smart Reply},
    author={Matthew Henderson and Rami Al-Rfou and Brian Strope and Yun-hsuan Sung and Laszlo Lukacs and Ruiqi Guo and Sanjiv Kumar and Balint Miklos and Ray Kurzweil},
    year={2017},
    eprint={1705.00652},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    primaryClass={cs.CL}
}
```

<!--
## Glossary

*Clearly define terms in order to be accessible across audiences.*
-->

<!--
## Model Card Authors

*Lists the people who create the model card, providing recognition and accountability for the detailed work that goes into its construction.*
-->

<!--
## Model Card Contact

*Provides a way for people who have updates to the Model Card, suggestions, or questions, to contact the Model Card authors.*
-->