---------

For the Petitioners : Ms. Shamma Parveen, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

---------

th 02/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 370/ 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is present.

3. Learned A.P.P., submits that case diary is required to assist this Court in the matter, hence prays for time to procure the case diary.

4. Heard. On prayer of learned A.P.P, office to list this case on 08.06.2020.

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

02/Dated: 07th May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 323, 354(A), 354(B), 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.PP and on perusal of the deposition of the victim, i.e., P.W. - 1, at Annexure - 2, it appears that during the trial, the victim has deposed that accused Bajrang along with three other accused had caught hold of her and she has identified Bajranj but has not identified the petitioners. In cross- examination she has categorically stated that the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence.

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

---------

th 05/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioner, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioner/ appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2017.

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall file the requisites of notice under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, to be served upon O.P. No.02, at the earliest.

2. On prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, office to list this case on 09.06.2020.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

2. Manoj Mahato @ Manoj Kr. Mahato

3. Mantu Mahato @ Mantu Lal Mahato

4. Kirtichand Mahato @ Kiriti Bhushan Mahato

5. Nem Chand Mahato

6. Gopal Mahato --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and his alias name in the body of the petition tallies with his name in the complaint petition, Aadhar Card, impugned order and also in the body of vakalatnama except where petitioner has inscribed his signature. Therefore, the same may be ignored.

In view of the submission made, let the instant defect be ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in present circumstances, undertakes to remove the remaining defect no. 9(ii) and (iii) regarding filing of certain pages within a week. Defect no. 9(v) is ignored as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, last page of the restoration application is not of much relevance. Defect no. 9 (iv) is also ignored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) which relates to page no. 19 of the petition may be ignored as page is otherwise legible and complete except the last line which is not of much significance. Accordingly, defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) is ignored. So far defect no. 9(iii) is concerned which relates to non-filing of duly certified typed copy of handwritten pages at Annexure-2 & 3, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also ignored.

2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.P. Case No. 96/2019 for the offences registered under sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Miss Babita Mittal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Md. Shamim @ Sotti in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 499 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4917 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 25(1)(A)(B)(C) of the Arms Act, has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Gulli Mandal @ Gurudeo Mandal in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 08 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, has been moved by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Karmu Mahato @ Karmu Mahto --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P through Video Conferencing.

2. Amit Kumar Paswan @ Amit Kumar --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birendra Burman, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through Video Conferencing.

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

---------

th 04/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioners, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioners/ appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, II, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.361 of 2016.

2. Relevant facts are that plaintiff has filed suit for recovery against the defendant no.1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing of coating powder and trading of decorative and industrial paints and thinner since 1994. The defendant is a limited company and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the manufacturing of electrical panels. The defendant through its directors/ officials approached the plaintiff for purchase of the coating powder and industrial paints and thinner and at the time of commencement of the business, the terms of business, as specifically printed on or contained in the plaintiff's invoices were agreed by the defendant and thereafter business dealings and transactions started between the parites hereto in 2004 and since 15.04.2004 they have been maintaining a running account.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-98/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-96/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-94/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-92/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-90/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-97/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-95/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-86/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-88/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed.

CR No.-84/2020 Page No.-1 of 3

3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-93/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-87/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-85/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-91/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-89/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-83/2020 Page No.-1 of 4 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. . To link the Debit Authorization Form with the loan agreement involved, an account statement was placed on record. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, intimating return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1.2 Notice to the respondent was dispensed with, as the respondent had not yet been summoned by the Trial Court.

2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the complaint primarily for the reason that the complainant despite availing several opportunities had not filed the ECS mandate. Further the account statement filed did not bear any stamp and was not even signed. Therefore, noticing that several opportunities have already been afforded to the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-78/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 impugned Order on the ground that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in observing that the ECS mandate was not on record. It is pointed out that the petitioner/ complainant along with the complaint had placed on record a ' Debit Authorization Form issued by the customer" i.e. the respondent to the petitioner bank. It is argued that the Debit Authorization Form is akin to ECS mandate. The petitioner/complainant had also placed on record along with the complaint a memorandum issued by the bank, noticing return of the mandate on account of insufficiency of funds. Sh.Bhola has, further, argued that the offence as envisaged u/sec.-25 of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSS Act') was completed, when the respondent, who had taken a loan and had issued authorization to debit the amount each month from his account failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account, thereby, resulting in failure of debit of amount. It is, therefore, argued that the Ld. MM committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as both the documents constituting the offence were on record.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,72,858/­. The brief facts of the present case are as under :­ 1.1 That the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises and doing the business of government electrical contractor since 1995.

1.2 That defendant No. 2 is known to the plaintiff for more than 20 years and defendant No. 2 was running his business of sale of electrical goods as proprietor/partner of defendant No. 1 for the last 7/8 years from the aforesaid address and presently doing the business from the top floor of the aforesaid address.

1.3 That in the first week of March, 2015 defendant No. 2 had requested for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for some urgent business need for one week and considering the old friendship with defendant no. 2, the plaintiff had agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ to the defendants but defendant No. 2 was insisting to increase the amount from Rs. 2,00,000/­ and accordingly, the plaintiff had agreed to give Rs. 2,01,000/­ to the defendants as a friendly loan for one week to the defendant and transferred an amount of Rs. 2,01,000/­ on 09.03.2015 by RTGS No. 17673 from the account of his firm M/s S.K. Enterprises Page 2 of 10 bearing No. 034902000001291 with Indian Overseas Bank, Roop Nagar, Delhi to the account of defendant No. 1 bearing No. 914020024386296 with Axis Bank, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi having IFSC code No. UTIB0001838.

2. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed from the plaint is that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing internet services under licence from Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology. The defendants approached the plaintiff for taking internet services and after negotiations the plaintiff agreed to provide services to a defendant and thereafter the plaintiff and the defendant signed customer application form (CAF) on 04.04.2015. The plaintiff provided the internet services to a defendant No. 1 company on monthly basis and after providing the services, the plaintiff raised bill of Rs.27,54193/­ and out of the said amount the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 22,08,000/­ and the balance sum of Rs. 5,46,193/­ is outstanding and due against the defendants which defendants failed to pay despite demands from the plaintiff.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Rural, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Third Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur Range, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Allanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Additional Sessions Judge for PCR Cases, Thirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam Circle, Thoothukudi District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5122 of 2020

3.The Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagiri Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML 2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5102 of 2020 To

1.The District Sessions Judge (Special Judge for P.C.R. Cases), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge -cum- PCR Court, Pudukkottai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5135 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellanoor Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Third Additional District Judge / PCR Court, Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Melur, Madurai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

2.Since the petitioner, who is the retired employee of the Transport Corporation, claims to have not been paid with the surrender leave salary of 24.5 days for the period from 2011 to 2019, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for direction in that regard.

3.The petitioner would submit that he has already made a representation dated 03.03.2020 in this regard, which is said to be pending. If the said representation is directed to be disposed of within stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured.

2. The petitioners herein are the agent of M/s.Cochin Air Cargo Customs Clearing Agent (Shipping clearing and Freight Forwarding Agent) is licensed Customs Brokerage Company Lic No.1/2012, having office near at International Airport, Shanmugam, Trivandram, Kerala.

3. During the course of the business, the petitioners' concern got an order for shipment of “Air inlet automobile spare parts” from a new customer named 'Swiss Global' having office at New Delhi and after receiving KYC form, GST No., certificate of import export code, proprietor PAN and Aadhar card, accepted the shipment through Tiruchirappalli Airport. After getting shipment bills number from the exporter, the petitioners received the goods at Trichy Airport and the same has been sent for customs clearance on 09.06.2019. but, the second respondent did not give customs clearance due to non availability of E-way bill. After getting E-way bill from the exporter, the petitioners sent the same to the second respondent. But the second respondent detained the goods on 10.06.2019.

2.The petitioner has been transferred from Tirunelveli to Chennai, Egmore Railway Police Station. The petitioner, who is working as a Head Constable in Tirunelveli Railway Police Station, has now been asked to join at Egmore Railway Police Station in the same post.

3.Since it is an issue of transfer and an administrative order, it may not be proper on the part of this Court to examine either reasons for transfer or also the grievances of the petitioner. It is for the http://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 W.P(MD)Nos.6127 of 2020 authorities to examine the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been relieved from Tirunelveli with a direction to join at Chennai. But, he has still not joined at Chennai.

2. I had the benefit of hearing Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, namely, the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation and the Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2), Madurai City Municipal Corporation. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

3. The petitioner in his affidavit had stated that the property bearing plot No.131, East Fifth Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai Town, originally belonged to his mother, and later devolved to the petitioner. The assessment was also transferred in his name in the revenue records. He claims to have paid the property tax, water tax, drainage maintenance charges up to second half year of 2017-2018. The petitioner was employed in Alagappa University and owing to that, had let out the property on rent and the tenant had put the property to commercial use. This was during the period 2015–2017. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that originally the property was assessed to pay at around Rs.3,000/- per half year. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed and in the same time, the rental value per square feet at Rs.9/- had been fixed and a demand has been raised for a sum of Rs.47,580/- which has been claimed to be the property tax assessed per half year. The learned counsel claims that this is highly un-reasonable and also complains that necessary opportunity had not been granted to him prior to re-assessment of the property tax. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

2. The facts necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims that she was working in the Highways Department and was maintaining her family consisting of her husband, one son and two daughters. The son and first daughter have been married and they are residing separately. The second daughter, who is shown as the third respondent is not married. The petitioner has stated that her husband had died and after that, the third respondent had been continuously harassing her and has been preventing her from enjoying her dwelling house peacefully and 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6099 of 2020 has been trying to dispossess her. Seeking protection under the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009, the petitioner had given a representation on 07.03.2020 to the first and second respondents.

2.We commend the efforts taken by the Police in tracing the girl in the present strained circumstances.

3.In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus petition stands closed.

[ P.N.P.J.,] [ B.P.J.,] 05.05.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dsk 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P(MD)No.252 of 2020 To

2. The Petitioner, who has completed her graduation in M.B.B.S. in Medicine and Surgery in the year 2018 had participated in the Post Graduate NEET Examination, 2020 conducted by the Third Respondent and has a score of 690. During the first round of counselling in All India Quota, she secured Master of Surgery in Obstetrics and Gynecology in the College of the Fourth Respondent and had paid admission fees. However, she intends to further participate in counselling in the State Government Quota seats including those in Non-Governmental Institutions. One of the conditions stipulated for already selected candidates in the All India Quota to participate in the State Government Quota is that they should would have to resign from the seat secured within the specified date. In furtherance thereto, the First Respondent by notice dated 30.04.2020 had informed that it had been decided by the Competent Authority to allow the candidates who have joined their allotted college of Round -1 (both in Online/Offline mode) to resign from their joined seat by 5.00 p.m. of 08.05.2020 (Wednesday). It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Second Respondent had not included the Management Seats in the Private/Non-Governmental Medical Institutions in the notification issued for Counselling under the State Quota. In that backdrop, this Writ Petition 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. (MD) No. 6132 of 2020 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 5322 of 2020 has been filed for directing the Second Respondent to conduct and conclude the Counselling of Post Graduation Medical Seats in Private/Non-Governmental Medical Institutions along with the State Government Quota Seats for the academic Session 2020-2021 on or before 08.05.2020 by considering her representation dated 30.05.2020 in that regard.

2. The Petitioner, who has completed her graduation in M.B.B.S. in Medicine and Surgery in the year 2018 had participated in the Post Graduate NEET Examination, 2020 conducted by the Third Respondent and has a score of 690. During the first round of counselling in All India Quota, she secured Master of Surgery in Obstetrics and Gynecology in the College of the Fourth Respondent and had paid admission fees. However, she intends to further participate in counselling in the State Government Quota seats including those in Non-Governmental Institutions. One of the conditions stipulated for already selected candidates in the All India Quota to participate in the State Government Quota is that they should would have to resign from the seat secured within the specified date. In furtherance thereto, the First Respondent by notice dated 30.04.2020 had informed that it had been decided by the Competent Authority to allow the candidates who have joined their allotted college of Round -1 (both in Online/Offline mode) to resign from their joined seat by 5.00 p.m. of 08.05.2020 (Wednesday). It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Second Respondent had not included the Management Seats in the Private/Non-Governmental Medical Institutions in the notification issued for Counselling under the State Quota. In that backdrop, this Writ Petition 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. (MD) No. 6132 of 2020 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 5322 of 2020 has been filed for directing the Second Respondent to conduct and conclude the Counselling of Post Graduation Medical Seats in Private/Non-Governmental Medical Institutions along with the State Government Quota Seats for the academic Session 2020-2021 on or before 08.05.2020 by considering her representation dated 30.05.2020 in that regard.

2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

07.05.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sj Note: Issue order copy by 13.05.2020 To

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

2.According to the respondent police, one Arokiyamary was on her morning walk on 19.01.2020 in Alakudi Road when she was robbed of her gold chain. A person coming from behind in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 47 AQ 5726 intercepted her and threatened her with a knife and took away her one sovereign gold chain. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 06.30 A.M and the complaint was lodged at around 8.00 A.M. It was registered as Crime No.10 of 2020 by the respondent for the offences under Sections 392 and 397 of I.P.C.

Sales rise 7.66% to Rs 172.38 crore