Posted by Brandon Z. on Nov 13

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to communication dated 24.06.2024, whereby her candidature for appointment to the post of TGT (Maths) has been cancelled by Respondent No.2/National Education Society for Tribal Students ('NESTS').

2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary is that NESTS is an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. NESTS published an advertisement in 2023 inviting applications for EMRS Staff Selection Exam (ESSE)-2023 for filling up various posts in Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS) which included 686 posts of TGT (Maths). The eligibility conditions including essential educational qualifications for the post of TGT (Maths) were prescribed in the advertisement.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Orders dated 14.09.2024 and 26.10.2024 passed by the IG/Principal, CTC CRPF, Panihar, Gwalior, respondent no. 3 herein, directing the recovery of the alleged inadmissible training allowance granted to the petitioners.

2. In the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2024 itself, the petitioners have been granted an opportunity to make a representation against the same within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said notice.

13.11.2024 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

I.A. No. 4172/2023 (Application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to challenge the validity of the defendants' trademark registrations)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking permission to challenge the validity of the defendant‟s trademark registrations.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

 Matternet, a global specialist in urban drone delivery, today announced a strategic partnership with ANRA Technologies, a company who specialises in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) solutions.

It is vital to understand the essential cleaning procedures and proper PPE protocols for maintaining a pristine cleanroom environment.

The new cleanroom will add new capabilities and help to meet growing demand from new and existing customers.

Transport / Logistic issues / Storage capacity issues

3Below features three extended range instruments played by Michael Manring (Jaco Pastorius alumni, creator of the Hyperbass), Trey Gunn (Warr Guitarist with King Crimson), Alonso Arreola (Mexican bassist, writer and poet)....

Okumura to work as freelance artist while studying drawing/writing

Megastar Chiranjeevi, T Subbarami Reddy and Akkineni Nagarjuna honoured Bollywood actress Rekha and late Sridevi with ANR National Award 2019 at a grand ceremony held at the Annapurna Studios in Hyderabad on Sunday.

08.11.2024 Land Mesuring 03 kanals 02 marlas falling under khasra No. 2549/2406 Min situated at Phagmula Tehsil Pogal Paristan, District Ramban and land measuring 10 marlas falling under khasra No. 2549/2406 situated in the same village along with residential house constructed thereon is said to have been taken over by the respondents for construction of the road.

In the reply filed by the Collector, it has been submitted that the indent has been placed by Chief Engieer, Jammu vide No. CEJ/PMGSY/6706-09 dated 03.07.2023 for acquisition of land in question along with residential house in question. However, it is not mentioned in the reply as to whether any notification for acquisition of the property in question pursuant to the indent has been issued. It appears that pursuant to the indent dated 03.07.2023, the Collector has not issued the notification for initiating the process for acquisition of the property in question in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Mohd Musharaf and Sofia Kouser, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Muslim rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from official respondents.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No. 101/2021 titled Satish Kumar Jain vs. Jugal Kishore & Anr.

2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 07.03.2020 and order on sentence dated 28.08.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenging the judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') and order on sentence dated 11.01.2024 (hereafter 'the impugned order on sentence'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 103/2017 (Old SC No. 39/2017) arising out of FIR No.732/2016, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.

2. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), Sections 354/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Section 18 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 511 of the IPC read with Section 376 of the IPC as well as Section 506 of the IPC.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal1 is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 19 February 2013 in terms of which an Award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal2 has come to be upheld. In terms of the Award dated 05 October 2005, the petitioner- appellant was directed to frame a policy of regularisation in respect of the respondent workmen. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned LPA Tribunal Single Judge have essentially held against the appellant on the ground that the engagement of the respondent-workmen through a contractor was merely a ruse to overcome the obligations which would have stood attached in case it were to be recognized to be the principal employer.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant regular first appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as 'CPC') seeking the following reliefs:

Signature Not Verified

RFA 9/2022 Page 1 of 60

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:12.11.2024

18:37:54

"(a) call, summon and peruse the records of the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Jay Thareja, Ld. ADJ-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.7447/2016 titled as "Apama Ashram Vs. Mohan Jha & Ors. ";

ANISH DAYAL, J.

"Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future"

- Justice V.R Krishna Iyer.

These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1485/2024 Page 1 of 58

Signing Date:12.11.2024

12:03:39

1. The petitioner seeks directions for setting aside the Minutes of Meeting of the Sentence Review Board ("SRB") held on 30th June 2023 rejecting the premature release of the petitioner and order dated 21 st November 2023 by which the Minutes of SRB were approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; ("LG"). Petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for premature release in FIR No.48/2001, PS Rajender Nagar for offences under Sections 302/186/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. Additionally, the petitioner prays that this Court frames guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 ("DPR").

11.11.2024 Herd Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

As Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has entered Page No.# 3/3 appearance on behalf of the State respondent No.1, a copy of the petition along with the documents annexed thereto be furnished to him during the course of the day.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, for the respondent No.2.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner, namely, Shri Abir Dutta, son of Late Jagat Chandra Dutta, resident of Village/Town- Ward No.7, South Amolapatty, Mohanghat, Near Borah Hyundai, District- Dibrugarh has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in C.I.D. P.S. Case No.11/2024 (C.R. Case No. 4427/204) registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

3. The matter relates to alleged illegal claim of land acquisition compensation of land relating to Dag Nos. 8 and 9 under Jhapora Gaon of Dibrugarh Town Protection (DTP) Dyke/Mathauri that was constructed in the year 1954-56, which is Government land and allegedly purchased by father of the petitioner late Jagat Chandra Dutta during his lifetime in the year 1971.

11.11.2024 Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the Page No.# 3/3 judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and appeal as such the petitioner may be allowed to remain on previous bail or to go on bail.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Faruque Al Bash has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

Case diary is received.

The allegation in the FIR reveals that the daughter of the informant was dragged by the petitioner to an unknown place on his bike and sexually assaulted her.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sheikh Abdur Rezzaque Ahmed,

2. Rukia Khatun and 3. Sheikh Junayed Ahmed have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order, dated 28.06.2024, this Court granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and they have appeared before the I.O. and gave their statements.

11.11.2024 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Page No.# 2/6 Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 25/07/2023 vide Mankachar PS case No. 308/2023 u/s 376 AB/511 IPC read with Section 8/10 of POCSO Act and section 67 of IT Act.

3. The allegation as per FIR is that on the date of incident when the minor daughter of the informant while visited the house of her father-in-law, the present petitioner along with other co-accused No. 3 and 4 handed over the victim to accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had kissed the victim girl on her face and different parts of her body and tried to commit rape on her. They also took the photographs of the said incident and made them viral through mobiles.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No.2 as the plaintiff.

1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144672

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

Through: -

Ms. Sufaya, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The minor petitioner was born on 5th October, 2011. The case set up by the petitioner is that at the time of his birth his uncle told his biological father that since he did not have any issue, he would adopt him and, therefore, his uncle got his name entered in the parentage column of his date of birth certificate.

12.11.2024 The petitioners, through the medium of instant petition, has called in question Order No. 233 PDA of 2024 dated 6th November, 2024, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority-respondent no. 3, by virtue of which, all the adventure activities in Pahalgam permitted by the Director Tourism Kashmir vide No. DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/2747 dated 18th May, 2022, TDK/Rec/3/2022-06/2856 dated 29th June, 2022 and DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/3030 dated 6th February, 2023 have been suspended till formalities are fulfilled by the adventure agencies. The order further reveals that all concerned site incharges of Pahalgam Development Authority shall ensure suspension of the adventure activities with immediate effect.

08.11.2024

1. The short grievance of the petitioners is sourced to an order No. 141 of 2007 dated 28.11.2007 in terms whereof they along with three other persons namely Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh, Bashir Ahmad Bhat and Rachi Pal came to be promoted on regular basis to the posts of Electrician in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4820 in the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited.

2. In far as the original date of appointment of the petitioners in the service is concerned, the petitioner No. 1 Mohammad Shafi Dar is appointee of 1st April, 1994, the petitioner No. 2 Abdul Gani Rather of 1st April1994 in Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited, whereas the respondent No. 5 Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh is an appointee of 1st July, 1996.

12.11.2024 The instant application has been preferred by the applicants for seeking a direction to summon the copy of challan from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chadoosa. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the applicants that they have already moved an application way back on 6th October, 2023 before the competent court for providing certified copy of the challan as also the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. besides copy of the proceedings, but till date needful has not been done.

The CM is, accordingly, disposed of and Registry is directed to seek report of the particular court as to why till date in spite of filing of the application, the needful has not been done.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The subject matter of this petition falls within the definition of 'service matters' as contained in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has become applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, after coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The present petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.PC came to be preferred by the petitioner namely Farooq Ahmad Dar through his brother Ali Mohammad Dar.

At the motion stage this Court vide order dated 17.11.2023, called upon the petitioner to address regarding maintainability of the present petition. thereafter, none has turned up for further prosecution of the case.

Petitioners are seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed in C.C.No.503/2023 and the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Deodurga, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 171 (f) of IPC, Sections 177 and 192 (A) of IMV Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8071

02. In brief, the charge-sheet allegations are that, petitioners being the driver and owner of an Ambulance bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AK-6853 has exhibited a photo of one Sri. Shivanagouda Nayak, a BJP candidate and the said Ambulance was parked in front of Nadagoud Hospital, Arakera.

Nobody appears for the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

1. Challenging the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 1238 of 2021, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 263 of 2021, petitioners have preferred the present Application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding, qua the petitioners herein.

2. Petitioner contended in the Application that complainant stated in the FIR (First Information Report) that the opposite party no.2/FIR maker was introduced to Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal by one Subhash Kumar Roy and one Samaresh Das and relying upon the representation that the said Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal is a developer, the petitioner expressed his desire to join Mr. Agarwal as partner in his firm and thereafter Mr. Agarwal took the opposite party as a partner with him in his partnership firm namely "Shree Krishna Realtors". It is alleged that relying upon said representation the opposite party no.2 along with aforesaid person entered into a registered development agreement dated 18.12.2016 and it is further alleged that when the construction work commenced, said Sanjay Kumar Agarwal took control of the project and also taking advantage of the same took custody and control of the bank account, cheque books, vouchers papers etc. It has been further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 from time to time deposited money in the accounts of his said partner Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal but he did not cooperate with the opposite party no.2 herein /FIR maker and not only that said Sanjay had made huge withdrawal of funds and also misappropriated the funds of the firm amounting to Rs. 40 lacs in between August 2016 to March 2020 on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereafter retired from the said firm on 17th November, 2020. The allegation against the present petitioners is that said Sanjay and the petitioners are jointly fraudulently took advance money from different buyers pertaining to the said project but neither executed deed nor refunded refundable money.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, under Sections 354A/354B/323/506/509/188/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners' case is that G.R. No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt. Mita Roy, wife of Shri Pradip Roy, residing at 8B, Abhoy Mitra Street Police Station-

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

As soon as Rajkumar Pal scored the winning goal in the shoot-off, an emotional Dhanraj, glued to the TV at home, jumped in joy.

B J Rao says that for the first time in the country, ANRF has been set to comprehensively connect Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) areas

'Outside the house, he was this iconic deified figure.''Inside, he was a sorted-out, genial householder, always ready to lend a patient ear to our problems.'

2. It may be useful to note that the facts relevant for the main issue of law indicated above are not in dispute and hence do not require detailed narration. For the sake of convenience, facts will be referred to from the records of T.P. No.77/2019 which has been heard as the lead matter, unless indicated otherwise.

3|Page

3. The two respondents, Tata Communications Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are owners / operators of certain facilities which have been described as Cable Landing Operations. For these facilities they are entitled to levy three distinct charges i.e. (i) Access Facilitation Charges (AFC), (ii) Co-Location Charges(CLC) and (iii) Operation and Maintenance Charges (OMC). Prior to 07.06.2007, the charges were based purely on contract between the parties. In 2007, TRAI issued the "International Telecommunication Access to Essential Facilities at Cable Landing Stations Regulations 2007" (2007 Regulations). This introduced the requirement of framing of Cable Landing Stations - Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) to be calculated on cost based method. Such RIOs for all the three charges were required to be submitted to TRAI, the Regulator for approval. This light- touch regulation was operational till the 2007 Regulations were amended by Amendment Regulation, 2012 dated 19.10.2012. This amendment enabled TRAI to fix and specify the highest charges which could be realizable as per agreement between the parties. On 21.12.2012, TRAI fixed all the three charges vide notification which brought into effect the "International Telecommunication Landing Station Access Facilities Charges and Co-Location Charges Regulations 2012. The said Regulations (No.27 of 2012) contained 3 schedules of charges made effective from 01.01.2013.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Vishwanathan and learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant, Bharti Airtel, Mr.Gopal Jain through video-conferencing.

3. The applicant seeks a direction upon Bharti Airtel not to encash the Bank Guarantee (BG) to which it has become entitled vide judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.04.2020 whereby applicant's petition bearing T.P. No.77/2019 has been dismissed on merits. In the last paragraph of that judgment notice has been taken of an order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 14.11.2019 and in view of the said consent order this Tribunal has directed that the BG submitted to the Tribunal stands invoked for immediate payment to the non-applicant. The prayer in the MA is solely on the ground that moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal is likely to take some time because of the prevailing pandemic COVID-19.

1. Goa Foundation Through Dinesh George Dias G-8, St. Britto's Apts. Feira Alta, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa - 403507.

2. Peaceful Society Through Kumar Kalanand Mani R/o Peaceful Society Campus Honsowado-Madkai, Post: Kundai 403115, Goa .....Appellants Versus

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003

2. State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400023

3. State of Karnataka Through the Chief Secretary, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore - 560001

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.