GitHub today announced that it will now allow developers to switch between a number of large language models when they use Copilot Chat, its code-centric ChatGPT-like service. Until now, Copilot Chat was powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4. Going forward, developers can choose between Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro, and OpenAI’s GPT-4o, o1-preview, and […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Qwant, France’s privacy-focused search engine, and Ecosia, a Berlin-based not-for-profit search engine that uses ad revenue to fund tree planting and other climate-focused initiatives, are joining forces on a joint venture to develop their own European search index. The pair hopes this move will help drive innovation in their respective search engines — including and […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

New CEO Damola Adamolekun is making changes, including adding new (and old) items to the menu.

1. Google rolls out new features in Chrome for iPhone users  Moneycontrol
2. 4 new Chrome improvements for iOS  The Keyword
3. Stop Using Chrome On Your iPhone, Warns Apple—Millions Of Users Must Now Decide  Forbes
4. Chrome 131 for iOS adding new Google Drive, Maps integrations  9to5Google
5. Chrome for iOS now lets you add text to Google Lens visual searches  Engadget

1. Security beefed up around Ram Mandir in Ayodhya after Gurpatwant Pannun’s ‘threat’  Hindustan Times
2. Pannun Announces New Dates Of Temple Attacks In Canada, India Terms Threats ‘Terror Acts’: Intel Sources  News18
3. VHP demands action against Khalistani terrorist Pannun  The Times of India
4. Khalistani terrorist Pannun warns of ‘shaking Ayodhya's foundations’  The Economic Times
5. ‘Will shake foundations of Ayodhya…’: Gurpatwant Singh Pannun threatens to attack Ram Mandir, other temples  Mint

08.11.2024

1. The petitioners have sought a direction upon respondent No. 3 to issue passports in their favour.

2. According to the petitioners, they had applied for passports after depositing the requisite fee. The application of the petitioner was allotted file number JM1066761201422 whereas, application of petitioner No. 2 was allotted file number JM1066765476422, whereafter, the said applications were forwarded to respondent No. 2 for verification. The applications were submitted by the petitioners on 11.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 but despite lapse of so many years, the respondents have not taken any action in the matter which has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court.

(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 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

(12.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Ankush Kumar and Isha Devi, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Hindu 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 respondent No.1.

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.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought temporary bail for the purpose of attending marriage ceremony of his younger brother which is stated to be scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2024.

2. Heard and considered.

3. The petitioner has been arrested in a case arising out of the Crime No. 15/2024 for the commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act. As per case of the prosecution, commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 27.08.2024 when he along with co-accused was travelling in a bus. The investigation is stated to be still in progress.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 28.06.2024 for A.Y.2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

"1. The Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.15,60,115/- claimed by the appellant u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Alternatively, the interest income earned by the appellant from the investments in a co-operative bank is also eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw all or any one of the above grounds of appeal."

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 None present on behalf of the petitioner. The present petition is filed in the Year 2021 qua the advertisement No.01/2018 dated 12.04.2018, with the prayers for allotment of home district as per the merit scored by the petitioner, however the same was not allotted and it is alleged that discrimination is caused qua the petitioner.

The matter is on board today after lapse of approximately four years and it appears that with efflux of time the lis in question does not survives.

[2024:RJ-JP:46386] (2 of 2) [CW-1283/2021] Accordingly, present petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd Shakir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.339/2024, registered at the Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) & 305(a) of BNS.

2. The First Bail Application No.11258/2024 filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 The matter pertains to the Year 2021. From a perusal of the Court file it is noted that no sincere efforts are taken by the counsel representing the parties, to contest the instant matter.

Even today, when the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Kumawat for Mr. Shailender Balwada For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide an advertisement in the Year 2012, applications were invited for the [2024:RJ-JP:46382] (3 of 3) [CW-2354/2019] post of Constable moreover, total seats intake for the said post were approximately 49898.

It is further submitted that final result was declared and subsequent selection is made. Moreover, a legal notice was filed by the petitioner long ago.

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

2. Sumit Bhardwaj Tehsildar (L.r), Laxmangarh, District Alwar

3. Shriram Meena S/o Deviram Meena, Principal Government Upper Primary School Kajota Laxmangarh

4. Mukesh Chand Meena, Lr Mauzpur

5. Sanjay Kumar Meena Patwari, Chimrawali Gaur

6. Imtiyaj Mohammed Patwari, Mauzpur A

7. Bhagat Singh Choudhari Patwari, Mauzpur B

----Accused/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/11/2024 Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, an appeal is provided under Section 14-A of the The Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989').

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.263/2024, registered at the Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station, Commissionerate Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 419, 120-B of IPC and 66 (C), 66 (D) of IT Act.

2. Heard.

1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

1. The case has been heard through Video Conferencing from Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Vaibhav Kalia (in bail no.1538/2023), Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava (in bail nos.11541/2022, 14110/2022, 14113/2022 & 14164/2022), Sri Manish Mani Sharma (in bail nos.1575/2023, 1640/2023, 1920/2023, 1998/2023, 2066/2023, 2090/2023 & 2316/2023), learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Ajai Kumar, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the informant as well as Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

First Bail Applications Moved On Behalf Of The Applicants:-

3. Applicant- Nandan Singh Bisht went to jail on 19.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 120-B, 34, 427 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. Mr. Khalid Jahangir Qazi, a national of United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India,1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking entry to India. He challenges the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him - order dated 12th May, 2023 issued by the Consulate General of India, New York,2 cancelling his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955,3 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and a subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Foreigners Act, 1946,4 restraining his entry into India. The underlying basis of these actions, as asserted by the Respondents, is the Petitioner's alleged involvement in activities deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of India.

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. ";

1. This original application is registered suo motu on the basis of the news item titled "दे हरादन ू : उ राखंड के 104 वग कलोमीटर जंगल पर क ज़ा... सैकड़ो पेड़ काटे , वन वभाग क भू मका सवालो म" appearing in 'Amar Ujala' dated 22.08.2024.

2. The news item relates to the encroachment of forests in Uttarakhand. As per the article, a total of 104.54 square kilometres of forest in 39 forest divisions of the State is occupied by encroachers. The news item questions the inaction by the Forest Department as the encroachment took place gradually, yet no action has been taken by the authorities. The article mentions that 11 thousand hectares of forest land in the State were encroached and the Forest Department did not even know about it and upon gaining knowledge, only 11.5 hectares of forest land were freed from encroachment. Furthermore, the Uttarakhand Forest Statistics Book published in 2017-2018 reported that 9,506.2249 hectares of forest land were encroached upon. However, under the CM's instructions, a recent campaign initiated by the Forest Department last year reported an increased figure of 11,814.47 hectares of encroached forest land. This raises questions about whether the increase occurred over the past three years or if it reflects earlier encroachments that were previously unreported.

Order 11/11/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case 2. Concerned Police Station Sojat Road 3. District Pali 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 307/34 of of the NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act of the 5. Offences added, if any --

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2 W.P. No.10021-2024

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

which was notified by the Bihar Government vide letter No. 14/DLA-Margdarshal- LA Act (Bharat Sarkar)-238/2013-1342 dated 14.12.2015 in the light of Section 24 (i) (a) of the Provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioners in the light of Market value of the land on 01.01.2014.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the light of fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

-

1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.39/2018 (State Vs. Kamlesh Dube and Others) thereby questioning the legality of judgment and order of convicting both the appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 2 cr.appeal.128.2022-JF.odt read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing both of them for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer 3 months imprisonment.

2. The facts in short are as under :

On 19.09.2017, one Sumit Kamble died at about 1.46 p.m. It is alleged that appellant Kamlesh Dube and Shekhar Dube committed his murder. It is the prosecution case that both accused and the deceased were working as a driver on garbage vehicle at Kanak Resources Company. On the day of incident i.e. on 19.09.2017 at about 1.46 p.m. Sumit along with his friend Rahul and Yogiraj went to the Bhandewadi Dumping Yard by riding on the motorcycle of Sumit. At said place, the sister of informant Rahul and other women were picking the garbage. Kamlesh and Shekhar both accused also went there to unload the garbage by their garbage vehicle. Kamlesh was on driving seat whilst Shekhar was sitting beside him. Kamlesh has married with the sister of deceased Sumit. Kamlesh and sister of Sumit namely Tanu were having love affair, which was not liked by Sumit. Both of them ran away and performed marriage before 15 days. On their return, sister of Sumit was staying with Kamlesh. Because of said marriage, there was dispute between Kamlesh and Sumit. They used to quarrel with each other. On the date of occurrence, when Sumit saw Kamlesh, he went to him and there was hot exchange of words between them. At that time, Shekhar alighted from truck and assaulted Sumit with

(PER: VINAY JOSHI, J.) Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 01.08.2023 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Special (Atro.) Case No. 36/2019, whereby appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("SC and ST Act"). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act whilst he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC. Both sentence were directed to run concurrently.

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Roy For the State: Mr. S. P. Jha, A.P.P ----- 03/11.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 341/323/307/504/506/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He along with his wife has been roped in this case by the informant due to land dispute. Even if the contents of the written report are taken to be true, the informant sustained lacerated injury on his left eyebrow and there was bleeding from his left nostril. He was advised to undergo X-Ray of skull and CTC of head, however, he did not undergo the said scanning. The injuries sustained by the informant have been found simple in nature. The said fact has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the present anticipatory bail application. The petitioner, however, undertakes to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

In the trial of Elizabeth Holmes, prosecutors have shown texts, emails and audio clips portraying her in her own words. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday asked Sara Randazzo about key pieces of evidence and what to expect. Photo: Nick Otto/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time, surgeons in Maryland transplanted a genetically modified pig heart into a human without immediate rejection by the patient’s body. While the operation brings doctors a step closer to solving the organ shortage, it remains controversial for some. Photo: University Of Maryland School Of Medicine

Three former Minneapolis police officers face federal charges that they violated George Floyd’s civil rights during his May 2020 arrest. Here’s what you need to know about the officers and the upcoming trial. Photo: Erin Ailworth/The Wall Street Journal

Arthritis Recovery Diet: ഉദാസീനമായ ജീവിതശൈലി മൂലം യുവാക്കളെയും ബാധിക്കുന്ന ആരോ​ഗ്യപ്രശ്നമായി സന്ധിവേദന മാറിയിക്കുകയാണ്. ലോകമെമ്പാടും ദശലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് ആളുകളെ ബാധിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ആർത്രൈറ്റിസ് സന്ധികളിൽ വീക്കവും വേദനയും ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്ന അവസ്ഥയാണ്.