and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"1) A certified copy of complaint filed by Neha Kumari /Neha Verma against me between September 2022 to November 2022 addressed to the Director General CISF."

The CPIO vide letter dated 20.06.2023 replied as under:-

"02. It is to inform that under provision of Section-24 of RTI Act 2005, the information sought by you vide representation dated 09/06/2023, cannot be provided as the CISF is an Armed Force of Union and exempted from providing information except for the cases of corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by you does not fali just within the ambit of the two categories mentioned above."

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full;

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Bids were submitted by CarVal Investors and Nithiya Capital Resources Advisors. The resolution plans involve settlement to financial creditors of Uttam Value Steels with a total upfront and contingent payment of Rs 1,078 crore and Rs 1,576 crore for Uttam Metallics.

Audited result for Cumulative

Audited result for Non-Cumulative

Sales decline 57.18% to Rs 118.66 crore

In the compliant, Raaja alleged that Kamal Haasan had approached him and borrowed a loan of Rs 10 crore before the movie’s release in 2015.

TPCC leaders interact with farmers at procurement centres

Uttam Ghosh pays homage to these martrys for India.

Uttam Ghosh pays homage to these martrys for India.

The resolution plan would allow lenders to get close to 40% of their claims for both the companies.While the joint resolution plan was approved by the committee of creditors (CoC) in April last year, SSG Capital, the other bidder for these assets contested the decision