----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain (through jitsi meet) Mr. Parth Sharma (through jitsi meet) Mr. Rinesh Gupta (through jitsi meet) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP(CBN) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners through Jitsi Meet.

1. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the Court.

2. Heard Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, through whatsapp video calling as well as learned Public Prosecutor, who is present in the Court.

3. Despite video whatsapp calling, Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to respond.

4. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.61/2018 Registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 376-D & 506 of IPC.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioners are the real brothers of the husband of the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that one month prior to lodging of the present FIR, the (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2033/2020] prosecutrix also lodged the FIR No.0031/2018 on 15.01.2018 at Police Station Tapukara, District Alwar, in which, the petitioners were also made accused under Sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, in which, charge-sheet has been filed only against the husband of the prosecutrix and not against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that when the Investigating Agency submitted the negative final report against the accused-petitioners in the earlier FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that according to the FSL report dated 03.12.2019, semen could not be detected on the clothes and vaginal swab of the victim. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since February, 2018.

2. Petitioners has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.139/2019 was registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 3, 4 & 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner is in custody since September, 2019. There was neither any marks on the body of the petitioner, nor any material things are (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:01 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1474/2020] recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners. Conclusion of trial will take time.

1. Bundu Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gani R/o Meer Colony Kekri Road Near Idhgah Malpura Thana Dist. Tonk At Present Tenant House No 24 Chmnawadi Sanjay Nagar Jhotwara Jaipur (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

2. Mohammad Kalim S/o Shri Mohammad Aladdin Khan R/o Bada Mohalla Lalsot Dist.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, he is behind the bars since 30.09.2018, charge-sheet has already been filed on 05.12.2018, co-accused Kana @ Vijay has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court on 21.11.2019, case of present accused petitioner is not different from that of co- accused Kana. Till date evidence of only nine witnesses have been (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:56 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-18079/2019] recorded while prosecution has listed thirty witnesses, hence completion of trial will take time. It has also been submitted that only one eye witness, PW.5, Ajay has been named in the case by the prosecution, whose statement has been recorded and his evidence is not reliable against the present accused petitioner.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 This Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application has been filed by the applicant-appellant alongwith the criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant appellant was on bail during trial. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been convicted under Section 363 IPC with simple imprisonment of 4 years. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted on other charges levelled against him under Sections 366, 376 (2) (i) 2(n) IPC & Section 5 (L), 6 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the appellant (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:32 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLASOSA-335/2020] submitted that the appellant was arrested on 27.03.2019 and as such appellant has remained behind the bars for more than 13 months.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.26/2019-20 was registered at Police Station Excise Police Jhunjhunu (North) for offence under Sections 14/54, 19/54, 54-A, 14/57 of Rajasthan Excise Act.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is driver of the vehicle. He was not aware that there is no valid permit of transportation of the liquor. Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents of like nature.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the contentions.

(Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:54 PM)

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-17684/2019]

This Court further finds that on 17th April, 2020, this Court had also made efforts to contact to the lawyer but he did not respond.

Accordingly, this Court is left with no other option except to adjourn this case.

This Court also finds that if learned counsel has moved an application for listing of the bail application, he is expected to be available on either mode of communication with him.

A five-storied building could not have been constructed in an unauthorised manner within a couple of days. It must have taken months for the same to be constructed. The Municipal authorities, as also the local police station, cannot feign ignorance of the building having coming up in their presence upto the fifth floor in an unauthorised manner.

In such circumstances, the said Mr. Joysurja Mukherjee, as we are now told is posted as Officer-in-Charge, Tiljala Police Station, should also be present in Court on 20th March, 2020 to assist this Court and explain how could such an unauthorised structure came up upto the fifth floor.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]

2

She files affidavit of service to show copy of the application was served on Chief Law Officer, Legal Cell, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It be kept with records.

The writ petition has been listed along with the application. Sum and substance of applicant's submission is that she fears being dispossessed. In that context Court has perused letter dated 14th June, 2018, written on behalf of petitioners and communication dated 18th July, 2018, impugned in the writ petition, appearing respectively at pages 67 and 71. It appears, by impugned communication, made in reference to said letter dated 14th June, 2018, assessee number of premises occupied by, inter alia, applicant, has been automatically cancelled on amalgamation of premises.

Appearance:

Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

The Court : At the instance of the petitioner the matter is appearing today under the heading "To Be Mentioned" for correction of a typographical error crept in the order dated March 11, 2020. By the said order this Court disposed of the application, AP No.49 of 2020.

Let the amount of money mentioned in the third line at the fourth page of the said order dated March 11, 2020 be corrected as Rs.9.8 crore in place and stead of Rs.9.2 crore.

Appearance :

Smt. Jayabati Barick, in person The Court :- Perused the report filed by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court dated 18th March, 2020. It appears from the said report to which a report of the Department of Ophthalmology, IPGME&R-SSKM Hospital, filed in terms of the order dated 12th February, 2020 passed by this Court is enclosed that Nader Chand Barik is having hundred per cent blindness as per Government of India Norms.

It further appears from the Registrar's report that save and except the deposition, all cause papers in the TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 are available. The report further reveals that the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department has prayed for passing necessary direction upon various Record 2 Section of the Original Side i.e. Current Record Department, Old Record Department, New building Record (NBR) Department and Central Record Room at Khidderpore to make extensive searches to trace out the original deposition in the aforesaid suit. In my opinion, though specific direction is not required on each of the record sections for searching the record in the said departments as prayed for by the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department as indicated in the said report but by way of abundant precaution I pass direction upon the Registrar, Original Side as also Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department to look for the deposition in the two suits being TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 in all possible places where records are either temporarily or permanently stored and/or kept in this Court premises or outside.

Appearance:

Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person The Court: Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person. None appears for the State. The matter is fixed for hearing on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am. The petitioner, who appears in person, is requested to serve a copy of this order to the Government Pleader.

Ld. Government Pleader is requested to appear in this matter on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) R.Bhar

In such view of the matter, a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners as to the fixation of dates and time for the general election being mala fide on the part of the respondent no. 4 authorities. The balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of granting such injunction, since if the election is held and a newly elected body assumes power, the writ petition would be infructuous; on the other hand, in the event the writ petition fails, another date can be fixed for such election, if necessary upon imposition of compensatory costs being awarded against the petitioners.

Although there is a notification of this Court requesting Judges not to take up matters for hearing in the absence of all the parties, since sufficient notice 3 has been given to the respondents and in view of the extreme urgency involved in the matter, the matter is taken up for hearing.

VERSUS ASCON AGRO PRODUCTS EXPORTERS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE The Hon'ble Justice SHAMPA SARKAR Date: 28th April, 2020 Apperance Mr. Saunak Ghosh, Adv. with Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.

..for the decree holder Mr. Dipanjan Roy, Adv (in person) ..for the judgment debtor The Court: GA No.803 of 2020 is an application filed by the decree holder for non-prosecution of the Execution Case no.302 of 2019 arising out of a judgment and decree dated July 26, 2017 passed in CS No.115 of 2013, in view of settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND BIRLA CABLES LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

.................

APO NO.17 OF 2019 APOT NO.138 OF 2019 GA NO.1735 OF 2019 TS NO.6 OF 2004 IN THE GOODS OF:

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

..............

2

PRESENT :

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABORTY AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Heard on : 04.02.2020, 11.02.2020, 13.02.2020, 18.02.2020 & 20.02.2020.

A Bench of this Court while dealing with Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2019 took note of a letter dated 23.03.2019 received by the office of the Judges of the Bench on 25.03.2019. This was a copy of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India, Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In the said letter, reference was made to two complaints – one made by the Indian Bar Association, dated 20.03.2019 through alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Vijay Kurle, State President of 1 Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, and the second complaint dated 19.03.2019 made by alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National Secretary of the Human Rights Security Council. It was mentioned that these complaints have not only been sent to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India but also have been circulated in the social media and the complaints were attached as Annexures­1 and 2 to the said letter. The Bench took note of the letter and the complaints attached to the said letter and specifically noted the prayers made in both the complaints and found that both the complaints are substantially similar. The Bench on noting the allegations made in the complaints was of the view that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of the said Bench and, therefore, notice was issued to Shri Vijay Kurle, alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3 and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged contemnor no. 4. The Bench also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and decide the contempt case.

1. These Writ Petitions broadly fall in following three categories:-

A] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018 filed by four petitioners, prays for appropriate directions that after the promulgation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (“2010 Rules”, for short), all appointments ought to be in conformity with 2010 Rules and allocation of seniority must be in accordance with the Cyclic Order provided in Schedule VII to 2010 Rules. In terms of 2010 Rules, posts in the cadre of District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service in State of Rajasthan were required to be filled up in accordance with quota of 50% for Promotees, 25% for Direct Recruits and 25% by way of Limited Competitive Examination Writ Petition (Civil) No.936 of 2018 etc etc. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Hon. High Court for Judicature of Rajasthan and Anr.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the High Court1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2730 of 2018 preferred by the appellant herein.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:-

1

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2) & ANR.) 2 A] The appellant-Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd or VMSL for short) is engaged in providing telecommunication services in different circles.

1. The matters have been referred in view of conflicting decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors. 1, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2, T. Velayudhan Achari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 3, and Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors. 4. The question relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45 of List I viz. ‘Banking’ and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament to legislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to the co­operative banks.

1. The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit.

2. The seminal facts which are relevant for the present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises for our consideration are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH that the appellant­plaintiff filed suit before 4 th sub­judge, Chapra Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:14 IST Reason:

seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 15 th 1 September, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the respondents­defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property.

1. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel.

2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA No. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC No. 3740/2013), LPA No. Signature Not Verified 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and LPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court, dated 24.06.2015. Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06

3. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has 16:03:11 IST Reason:

been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “BSSC”) and 2 the other set (referred to as “the aggrieved party appellants”) by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge. The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants were not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected in terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown as not qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of the Court by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench were by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned the judgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect of all questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected in the final results declared.

1. Leave granted.

2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:16 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?

1. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. One appeal (CA 2969/2010) has been preferred by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereafter,"Gujarat Urja"or "GUVN”) ；the second (CA 2793/2010) has been preferred by CLP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Gujarat Torrent Energy Corporation Ltd; later, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd, a generating company, hereafter collectively "CLP”). Both appeals challenge a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity（“APTEL” hereafter).

2. The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) (now “Gujarat Urja”) entered into a power purchase agreement (“PPA”）with CLP on 03.02.1994. In terms of the Signature Not Verified PPA, Gujarat Urja was under an obligation to purchase - and CLP was under Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:10 IST Reason:

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the original plaintiff (in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013 filed in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1), under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 2 and read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 3 in reference to the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 5147/2019 Signature Not Verified and 5350/2019, which reads thus: ­ Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:17 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the 1971 Act” 3 For short, “the 1975 Rules” 2 “We are not inclined to interfere with the Special Leave Petition.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 1 in Second Appeal No. 771/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2011 came to be affirmed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (original plaintiffs) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:13 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the first appellate Court” 2 Ratnagiri3 being RCS No. 25/2005 for permanent injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 20 (State of Maharashtra), restraining them from starting the Solid Waste Disposal Project4 at the suit property, has been decreed. In other words, the trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed (decreed) the same, which decision has been upheld by the High Court in the Second Appeal.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition. By the said writ petition, the appellants had sought following reliefs: ­ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 “8. The petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be 16:03:09 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 310/2009, whereby, the LPA filed by the appellants came to be dismissed while affirming the decision of the learned single Judge, dated 10.2.2009 in allowing the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 867/1999.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:08 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2

3. The Division Bench took note of the relevant background facts necessitating filing of writ petition by the respondent No. 1 for a direction to the appellant­Bank to pay his lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement dated 27.5.1990 (Annexure 5(b) appended to the writ petition) and also to deposit the income­tax papers with immediate effect. The Division Bench has noted as follows: ­ “4. The facts of the case is that the writ petitioner had taken a term loan of Rs.10,000/­ from the Bank by way of financial assistance to run a business in the name of “Sanjeev Readymade Store” from Haveli Kharagpur Branch of Punjab National Bank in the district of Munger. The writ petitioner was paid the said sum of Rs.10,000/­ in two instalments of Rs.4,000/­ on 21.07.1984 and Rs.6,000/­ on 01.10.1984. The writ petitioner had yet another savings account in the same branch of the respondents­bank. However, on 14.02.1990, the term loan with interest had mounted upto a figure of Rs.13,386/­. In 1989, the writ petitioner, who is Respondent no. 2 in the appeal, was granted two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ each by the Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur under the Earthquake Relief Fund. The said two cheques were deposited with the Bank for encashment in the other savings account, but instead, were transferred to the loan account. This was done without any authorization of the writ petitioner and without direction of any competent authority. Some time thereafter, the writ petitioner’s son was afflicted by cancer, which required immediate treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. In order to meet the expenses of the treatment, writ petitioner sold 406 bhars of gold jewellery of his wife’s “stridhan” and received Rs.14,93,268/­. He approached the branch of the respondents­bank with a sum of Rs.14,93,000/­ on 04.08.1989 for issuance of two bank drafts, one in his name and the another in the name of his wife. The then Accountant, Mr. T.K. Palit showed his inability to prepare the drafts on the ground of shortage of staff on that day and requested the writ petitioner to deposit the amount in the savings account No. 1020 in the said 3 branch. The Accountant, after receipt of the money, transferred total amount of Rs.15,03,000/­ to the loan account, whereas in the loan account upto 14.02.1990 outstanding dues of principal and interest was only Rs.13,386/­. The writ petition made grievance before the Branch Manager of the said branch and also filed representations before the Bank authorities. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Sri Nanhe Prasad, who ordered the then Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger, Sri Binod Kumar Singh to make a detailed enquiry into the matter and report. Accordingly, a Misc. Case No. 4 (DW 1) PNB/1989­90 was initiated and in those proceedings, various officials of the Punjab National Bank, including the then Branch Manager, District Coordination Officer of the Punjab National Bank and the Accountant of the Bank were examined from time to time and reports were submitted to the District Magistrate, Munger. Several witnesses were examined even by the District Magistrate, Munger. There were officers from the Regional Office of the Punjab National Bank, one of them being Sri Tej Narain Singh, the Regional Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Patna­B also deposed making reference of what had transpired to the Zonal Office of the Bank. On the basis of these statements, which were recorded by the Circle Officer and / or by the then District Magistrate­cum­Collector, Munger, Sri Gorelal Prasad Yadav, the matter proceeded. The basic assertion of the writ petitioner having been found correct and the liability having been accepted by the respondents­bank, it was reduced to an agreement dated 27.05.1990, which is Annexure­5B to the writ application between the parties. The agreement was signed by one and all in presence of the Circle Officer and the overall supervision of the District Magistrate. It was duly recorded in writing that the bank had received the deposit amounting to Rs.15,03,000/­ as per deposits made on 02.08.1989, 04.08.1989 and 04.10.1989. It was also recorded that the total term loan and the liability of the writ petitioner up to 14.02.1990 came to Rs.13,386/­ only and the amount of Rs. 14,89,614/­ of the writ petitioner would be kept in the Fixed Deposit of the bank and shall be paid with interest by September, 1997. The writ application was filed, when the bank refused to honour this agreement. In support of the writ application, certified copies of the entire proceedings, depositions as had been obtained by the writ petitioner in the year 1990 were annexed.” 4 The appellant­Bank contested the said writ petition and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and disputed the money claim set up by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of alleged contractual agreement dated 27.5.1990. The appellant­Bank denied the allegation of transfer of proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each, allegedly received by the respondent No. 1 from the district authorities, to the loan account. The Bank also denied the allegation of deposit of Rs.14,93,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs ninety­three thousand only) by the respondent No. 1 in his Savings Fund Account No. 1020 or transfer of the said amount in his loan account. Further, on receipt of complaint from the respondent No. 1, the Regional Manager of the appellant­Bank instituted an internal enquiry conducted by Mr. N.K. Singh, Manager, Inspection and Complaints, E.M.O., Patna, who in his report dated 23.11.1998 noted that the respondent No. 1 had been paid the proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each in cash and there is no record about the deposit of Rs.14,93,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs ninety three thousand only) in his account with the concerned Branch. The appellant­Bank explicitly denied the genuineness and existence 5 of the documents annexed to the writ petition and asserted that the same are forged, fabricated and manufactured documents. The Bank also placed on record that the respondent No. 1 had filed similar writ petition against another bank, namely, the Munger Jamui Central Cooperative Bank Limited being CWJC No. 4353/1993, which was eventually dismissed on 7/3.7.1995, as the claim set up by the respondent No. 1 herein in the said writ petition was stoutly disputed by the concerned Bank.

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Aftab Uddin Laskar seeks bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Algapur P.S. Case No.100/2020, under Sections 420/409 IPC.

3. The gist of the accusation made in the FIR, gist of the issue raised by this application and the defence of the applicant-accused are contained in order dated 23.04.2020. For Page No.# 2/4 brevity's sake, the said order is extracted hereinbelow:

1. The applicant, namely, Mukut Rabha, APS serving in Assam Police, as accused in Tinsukia P.S. Case No.1608/2019, under Sections 454/379/ 331/468/471/ 166/167/193/209/211/218/220/221/34 of IPC has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, Page No.# 2/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

1. None entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Further service report on the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is yet to be received by the Registry.

Accordingly, list after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

List after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Considering the same, matter stands adjourned today. List after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

On instructions, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no such criminal case has been filed against the petitioner in Jalukbari Police Station and as such, prays for withdrawal of this pre-arrest bail application with liberty to file afresh as and when any cause of action arises.

Prayer is allowed.

Liberty as prayed for so granted.

Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

Page No.# 2/2

4. List on 11.05.2020.

5. It is made clear that in case counsel for the applicant does not appear on the next date of listing, the case is likely to be decided on the basis of available record and on hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant be informed accordingly telephonically.

7. Let copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Page No.# 2/3 Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

4. I have gone through contents of the FIR. The applicant has been named as accused No.1 in the FIR and is stated to be aged 27 years.

5. The FIR has been registered at the instance of father of the victim to the effect that on 19.8.2019, at about 7-00 PM, the applicant took his minor daughter to his house by tempting her that he would get married to her and had sexual intercourse with her. The other accused thereupon got angry on seeing her and they abused her using abusive language, surrounded her, threatened her, pulled her with hair and drove her away.

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner namely, Pranab Kr. Sharma is seeking pre arrest bail apprehending his arrest in All Women Police Station Case No. 57/2020 registered under Sections 376/313/498(A) of the IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 4553/2020.

The informant on 29.03.2020 lodged a written ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station alleging that the petitioner raped her prior to her marriage with him.

Page No.# 2/3 On 14.05.2018 the petitioner married the informant secretly at Kolkata Kalighat Temple and Court marriage between them took place at Guwahati on 18.12.2018 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup Metro, Guwahati. It is also alleged by the informant that because of their wedlock though she was pregnant, the petitioner forcefully aborted her. It is stated by the informant that she is serving in the office of the Assam Real Estate and Infrastructure Developer's Association (AREIDA) at Guwahati since 2015 and that the petitioner is the lone Director of the said Office and that at present she is residing in the house of the petitioner at New Guwahati. The informant also stated that only after her marriage with the petitioner she could come to know that she is his fourth wife. The informant alleged that the petitioner is physically and mentally torturing her, has his eyes on the money of her mother and her family members and that he is harassing her in all counts of her life and may even through her from the house at New Guwahati wherein she is residing now and from her job at AREIDA.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Page No.# 2/3 Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant did not appear on 14.03.2020, 16.03.2020 and today again. This application has been pending since 02.03.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been appearing consistently. I find no justifiable reason to adjourn the matter for any longer period. In any case the application is being disposed of considering the statutory provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act.

1. The present petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. It is pertinent to mention that present public interest litigation has been filed with the following prayers:-

W.P. (C) 3050/2020 Page 1 of 5

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to make provisions for the payment of salaries to the Health Workers in time. and

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to make provisions for the payment „risk and hardship‟ allowance, incentives in form of bonus, additional salary to the Health Workers who are presently serving on the frontline in view of the present lock down situation due to the COVID 19 situation in the country;

CM.APPL.10636/2020 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3055/2020 & CM APPL.10635/2020 (for interim relief)

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the disciplinary proceedings, pending against him for over 7 years as on date, on, inter alia, the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the same charge. It is W.P. (C) No.3055/2020 Page 1 of 4 pointed out that, on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's request for being permitted to voluntarily retire from service, was also been rejected vide communication dated 12th December, 2019.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the show cause notice dated 15.09.2014, the demolition order dated 29.04.2015, the order of the ATMCD dated 10.08.2016 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.08.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No. 8770/14B, Shidi Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi (measuring 85 sq. yards) was purchased by Late Sh.Prem Nath Shrama, husband of the petitioner on 20.09.1982. Prior to the said property, he had also purchased the adjacent property bearing No. 8771/14 B (measuring 160 sq. yards) on 28.10.1972. Sh. Prem Nath Sharma died on 11.05.1996. Pursuant to a Will, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the two properties.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J. (JUDGMENT)

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate order for setting aside the sealing order dated 5.1.2019 and a direction to deseal the premises being Khasra No.257, Village Siraspur, Delhi.

2. The case of the petitioner is that since 1988 the petitioners have been enjoying the property and spending huge amounts on the same. In 2011 a threat was extended to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. The petitioner thereafter filed three separate Writ Petitions which were disposed of by this court on 22.2.2011 directing the petitioners to file appropriate petition for declaration of their rights with respect to the land in their possession. The respondent/Gaon Sabha were permitted to file W.P.(C) 1355/2019 Page 1 of 7 ejectment proceedings against the petitioner and till disposal of the ejectment proceedings protection was given to the petitioner.

2. This writ petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P. (Crl.) 787/2020 Page 1 of 8 India, seeks quashing of FIR 319/2020, dated 20th April, 2020, registered against the petitioners at PS Moti Nagar. The FIR alleges that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 188/269/186/353/332/506 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The recital of the facts in the FIR may be summarized thus. At 5 PM on 20th April, 2020, one Rahul (Petitioner No.2 herein), who was known to the complainant Head Constable (HC) Rishi Kumar, and was a "bad character" of the area, was seen loitering in the area without wearing a mask, in violation of the Compliance Advisory issued by the Central Government in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the complainant intercepting Rahul and querying him in that regard, Rahul retorted that the complainant had no right to stop him from walking in the area without a mask. On the complainant attempting to control Rahul, with the assistance of Const. Pravin, Rahul caught hold of the collar of the shirt being worn by the complainant and tore the shirt. Rahul is also alleged to have assaulted Constable Pravin, by kicking him. During the melee, Rahul's brother Sundar (Petitioner No.1 herein) arrived at the spot, and joined Rahul in assaulting the complainant, by administering kicks and blows. It is further alleged that they also bit the complainant on his wrist, resulting in his bleeding profusely. Thereafter, it is stated that Rahul and Sunder were taken into custody and FIR was lodged as noted above.

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test CRL. M.C. 1468/2020 Page 1 of 26 Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5 th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 3rd February, 2005 in RCA No.98/1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree [dated 27th September, 1997 in Suit No.436/1996 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] allowing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of possession of Shop No.47 U.B., Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The First Appellate Court, while has upheld the decree insofar as of dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, has set aside the decree for recovery of possession of the shop aforesaid.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.162/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 49(A) of Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that 5 liters of country made liquor is said to have been seized from the present applicant. He was not arrested on the spot. Investigation is over in the matter and charge sheet has been filed on 23.3.2020. He is in custody since 12.03.2020 and prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application submitting that the report from the FSL has been received and the liqour seized from the present applicant was found to be 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13147/2020 (Batri Khan vs. State of M.P.) harmful for human consumption. However, factum of completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet could not be disputed. There is no criminal history of the present applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.56/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, 63 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Investigation is over in matter and charge sheet has been filed. He is in custody since 10.03.2020. The applicant undertakes to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. He further submits that looking to the pandemic situation of COVID- 2

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicants have been arrested by Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.83/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicants that 90 litres of liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicants. They are in custody since 2.4.2020. It is further submitted that there is no criminal history against the present applicants.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13180/2020 (Mukesh Rai & Ors. vs. State of M.P.) PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :