1. Jharkhand elections 2024 LIVE updates: Over 13% turnout till 9:30 a.m. as voting underway for 43 seats  The Hindu
2. Video | Phase 1 In Jharkhand Polling: 13% Voter Turnout Till 9 am  NDTV
3. Jharkhand Election 2024 Live Updates: 13.04% voter turnout till 9am  The Times of India
4. INDIA or NDA? 43 Jharkhand seats up for grabs in high-stakes Phase 1 polling today  India Today
5. Vote to protect rights, strengthen Constitution: Rahul Gandhi to Jharkhand voters  Telegraph India

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner claiming to be owner of land measuring 3 Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos. 210 (02-00) & 216 (01-

00) situated at Phalyana, Tehsil & District Rajouri, which on requisition has been under the occupation of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ever since the year 1961/62 and that the petitioner as owner of the land, had been receiving the settled rent for use of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, from the Collectorate.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the coming into effect of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 on 31.08.2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was organized into two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and in terms of Section 95(2) of the aforesaid Act, all the laws mentioned in the 5th Schedule applicable to the existing State of Jammu & Kashmir, immediately before the appointed day were made applicable in the manner provided in the 5th Schedule; that the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (State Act), was mentioned at serial no. 133 in TABLE-3 of 5th Schedule which contained the enactments which stood repealed correspondingly Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act) was made applicable. He further submits that the Central Act provides for a limitation of 17 years for holding the property on requisition and on expiry of 17 years from the date of occupying the property under occupation is either to be acquired in view of the law applicable or its possession is to be handed over to the owner.

08.11.2024

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail with effect from 07.11.2024 to 14.11.2024 so as to enable him to attend the wedding ceremonies of his niece, namely, Simerjeet Kour. The petitioner has placed on record the wedding invitation card.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case, titled "U. T of J&K vs Sarita Devi and others" pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba arising out of FIR No. 224/2021 of Police Station, Samba. The said FIR was initially registered for commission of offences under section 363 IPC, however, subsequently after the investigation, charge sheet for commission of offences under sections 363-A, 370, 120 and 34 IPC was filed against the petitioner.

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.

1 The petitioners have challenged order dated 23.11. 2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu ('the Appellate Court' for short) whereby the appeal of the petitioners against order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity Magistrate), Jammu ('the trial Magistrate' for short) in a petition filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short) has been dismissed.

2 It appears that a petition under Section 12 of DV Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioners and others including her husband Gurinder Singh before the learned trial Magistrate. It also appears that the marriage between the respondent and her husband, who happens to be the son of the petitioners herein, had taken place on 29.01.2015, whereafter, the relation between the respondent and her husband and in-laws including the petitioners herein did not remain cordial. In the petition under section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent leveled several allegations of domestic violence against the petitioners and her husband. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioners and other family members of her husband including her husband abused and taunted her for bringing less dowry and she was even beaten up by them. She has given instances with regard to the incidents of alleged acts of domestic violence perpetrated upon her by the petitioners sand her husband. It has been alleged by her in the aforesaid petition that the petitioners and other family members of her husband were forcing her to bring dowry in the shape of different articles 3 It seems that on an earlier occasion, the respondent had filed a similar petition against the petitioners herein and her husband and the same was withdrawn by her in terms of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. After withdrawal of the earlier petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent filed another petition under the same provision against the petitioners as well as her husband and her sister-in-law. During pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners herein as also the sister-in-law of the respondent, namely Smt. Rani Kour filed an application for dropping of the proceedings against them. The trial Magistrate, after inviting objections from the respondent and after hearing the parties, partly allowed the said application in terms of order dated 10.07.2023 thereby accepting the application for dropping of proceedings to the extent of Smt. Rani Kour, sister-in-law of the respondent, but declining the said application to the extent of petitioners herein.

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

Name of Party Before District Forum Before State Commission Before National Commission ( Original Memo of Parties) Before National Commission ( Amended memo of parties) Public College Samana Complainant Respondent No.1 Petitioner Petitioner State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall OP No.1 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana OP No.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 State Bank of India, Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.3 Appellant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commission OP No.4 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.2   For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis  

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short "NFAC"), for the Assessment Years ITA Nos. 521 to 524 /Ahd/2023 Inox India Limited Asst.Years 2000-01 & 2002-03 to 2004-05)

- 2- 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2004-2005. Since common issues are involved in all the year under consideration of appeals before us, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.

1.     This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dated 16.02.2018 in complaint no. CC/26 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.50 lakh to the complainant as compensation for medical negligence for the death of his son with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (23.04.2012) till the date of payment within 2 months of the order.

2.     I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

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.

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').

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

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.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

1. In this original application, registered suo motu, the Tribunal is considering the issue of delay in filing the reports by the State Expert Committees and its effect on the unclassed forests.

2. By order dated 31.07.2024, 38 respondents were impleaded and notices have been served upon them.

3. Replies on behalf of only UT of Ladakh and State of Andhra Pradesh have been received.

4. The previous order also indicates that there are 7 States, i.e., Goa, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, who do not appear to have constituted the Expert Committees till now.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC submits that the Ministry is in touch with the authorities of all the States and the last meeting was held on 03.10.2024 and that after collecting the relevant information, the MoEF&CC will file the reply within four weeks.

1. In this original application, one of the Alumni of Respondent No. 2, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has made an allegation of large-scale felling of trees within the campus without any permission by the competent authority. The allegation is that the trees of Shagaun, Sandalwood, Mango, etc. have been cut.

2. The Tribunal on 31.07.2024 had issued notice to the respondents and had also formed a two-member Joint Committee with a direction to the Committee to visit the site and ascertain the correct position and submit the report.

3. The Joint Committee has submitted the report dated 29.10.2024 disclosing that the Divisional Forest Officer, Varanasi in the year 2022- 23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (till now) had granted permission to cut 135 trees in the campus. But as against this, Respondent No. 2 had cut 149 trees, and university could not clarify the position in respect of 14 trees. The Joint Committee had found that 6 Mango, 3 Gold Mohar, 1 Kathal and 2 Mahua trees were illegally cut on the spot for which the Forest Department of Varanasi has registered the Forest Offence No. 43/2024- 25 dated 23.10.2024. The report of the Joint Committee further discloses that Committee constituted by the Forest Department, Varanasi had found that total 161 trees were cut in the campus and permission only for 135 trees was granted, therefore, 26 trees were cut by the university administration without the permission of the Forest Department for which the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi had sent the letter no. 1053/2-43 dated 15.10.2024 to the Deputy Director, Forest (Central), Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The report further reflects that 7 sandalwood trees have been cut illegally without any permission.

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

[2024:RJ-JD:45604] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11138/2024 Gurvindra Singh @ Gindi S/o Dilawar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kamalewala, Teh. And Dist. Firozpur, Punjab (Lodged In Sub Jail Anupgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, PP JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI/NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5.

In view of the Judgment of the three-Judges Bench decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others, reported in [2018] 15 SCC 356, and the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 558/2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would complete his instructions on the issue of the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the Judgment and Order under challenge is passed by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a reference under Section 3H[4] of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

This appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is filed by the Original Petitioner, challenging the judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 37000 of 2024, dated 30 October 2024. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the Petitioner's request, the mother of the minor survivor girl, to medically terminate her pregnancy.

2. The petitioner is the mother of a 16-year-old school-going girl. She has been subjected to repeated sexual assault. A crime has been registered at the police station under Sections 354, 354A(2), 354B, 376, 376(2)

(n), 376(3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 4(1), (2) read with Sections 3(a), 6 read with 5(j)(ii), (1), 8 read with 7, and 12 read with 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Neither the minor nor her mother was aware of the pregnancy until a Gynaecologist confirmed it. By that time, the foetus had reached a gestational age of 25 weeks and 6 days, and it was not possible to medically terminate the pregnancy without intervention of the Court.

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in WPO/1664/2023 challenging the interim order dated 14.12.2023.

By the said interim order the positive direction has been issued to the appellant to disburse the dues to the writ petitioner in terms of the bills for the period other than pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and also the appellant has been restrained till the disposal of the writ petition from refusing to accept the bills which has been filed by the writ petitioner for the subsequent period including the current years.

We find that relief granted to the writ petitioner is in fact the relief which has been prayed for by the writ petitioner in prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The learned Single Bench was also conscious of the fact that to decide the matter finally affidavits have to be called for and, accordingly, issued appropriate direction.

The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.666/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error by not considering the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital / share premium of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there is accommodation entry in the instant case?

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07, dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian, District Kapurthala.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of ASI Nirmal Singh 51/Kpt: Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Stated that I was on duty at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Today I alongwith ASI Parvinder Singh 1517/Kpt, ASI Kanwaljit Singh 1539/Kpt were checking vehicles at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Then from side of Mundi Maur one motorcycle was seen coming and three persons with cut hair were riding the same. They were signaled to stop on seeing the naka of police they threw the 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146061 motorcycle and tried to run back. The driver of the motorcycle from the pocket of his pant, the person sitting in the middle from the pocket of his pyjama and the person sitting at the end from the pocket of his pant took out one transparent polythene bag and threw the same on the side of the road and therein orange colored tablets were clearly visible. They were apprehended and their names and address was inquired. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh @ Deepa son of Swaran Singh R/o village Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting in the middle disclosed his name as Manjit Singh @ Katta son of Vaid Singh Resident of Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting at the last disclosed his name as Gurnam Singh @ Gama son of Sewa Singh R/o Phulra P.S. Bhaini Mian Khan District Gurdaspur. I being local rank ASI cannot carry out proceedings under the NDPS Act. Therefore, I had given information at P.S. Talwandi Chaudhrian through phone to send investigating officer. You alongwith police party have reached at the spot. The polythene bags thrown by Balwinder Singh @ Deepa, Manjit Singh @ Katta and Gurnam Singh ® Gama are lying as it is. I have given my statement to you and same is correct."

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 121, dated 08.08.2023, under Sections 307, 379-B(2), 411, 473 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of Rahul Rathore son of Satpal Rathore son of Kabrika Singh resident of Back side of Rythem Place, Mandi Mullanpur PS Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, aged about 23 years, Mobile no:

82831-59149, it is stated that I am resident of above mentioned 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 address and I started learning the work of denting-painting after passing my 10th class in year 2015-16. Now I have one workshop situated near Mini Holland, Mandi Mullanpur under the name and style of B.R Motors. Yesterday 07.08.2023 at about 4:40 PM I took my car make Swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 whose denting-painting work was pending to Car Bazar, Ayali Chowk, Ludhiana from my workshop and at about 5:20 PM I took my car from said Car Bazaar and was going to Mullanpur and on my way I took some smoking material (Cigarettes-Bidi etc.) from one Khokha Shop) situated on the left side of PTCE Badowal from Railway Crossing Badowal and I along with my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu resident of Mandi Mullanpur in said car make Swift were smoking, meanwhile two young persons dressed as Nihang Sikhs came near our car and they were standing there and they got stopped us and asked that where are you going, on which I told them that we are going to Mullanpur. They told me that our motorcycle is out of fuel and kindly took us along with you. On which I took both the said Nihang Sikhs along in my car and we left from there. Meanwhile when we reached at main GT Road and turned towards Mullanpur City then one of the Nihang Sikh called to some person and told that our motorcycle is out of fuel, kindly refill the fuel and stand near PTCE Badowal and get me communicate with that Khokha (shop) owner and took motorcycle from there. Thereafter when my car reached in front of the Baba Zahir Bali Badhowal then the Nihang Sikh who was sitting on the back seat took out his pistol and pointed it towards the temple of my friends namely Sagar @ Bhalu. I stopped my vehicle, on which my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu ran away towards backside after opening the door of the car and both the Nihang Sikhs present in the car told that get out from the car otherwise we will shoot you. I protested for the same then the Nihang Sikh sitting on the back seat of the car opened a fire shot of his pistol towards me and it hit on the bicep of my left arm and pierced through it and the other Nihang Sikh pulled me out from the car by opening the door and took me out from the car and both the said Nihang Sikh snatched my car make swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 and ran 2 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 away towards Mullanpur Mandi Side. There was flow of blood from my arm, due to which several passers-by got together at the spot and I took lift from some motorcycle rider and reached at my workshop at Mullanpur Dhaka, Where one Birbal took me to Civil Hospital Sudhar in his car make Creta. They referred me further to Civil Hospital Ludhiana and from there I was got admitted to Bhiwan Hospital, Kaccha Malk road, Jagraon by my father namely Satpal Rathore after arranging a vehicle. Here my treatment is going on. Kindly take required legal action against both the said unknown Nihang Sikhs. I have got recorded my statement to you, heard it as correct. SD/- Rahul verified by SD/- Satpal Rathore attested SD/ - Dharminder Singh ASI PS Dhaka dated 08.08.2023"

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.09.2022, upon Sessions Case No.74 of 15.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in 1 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145851-DB CRA-D-1106-2022 AND CRA-D-62-2023 (O&M) -2- respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Amrinder Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

Complainant's Case

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused and his parents approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if the accused fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

1. This is an criminal appeal under section 341 Cr.PC preferred by the appellant/ applicant against the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SED/Saket Court, New Delhi whereby the application of appellant/applicant moved u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

2. The grounds cited by the appellant against the impugned order are as under :

A. Because the Ld. Trial Court duly appreciated the fact that the Respondent Bank concealed the fact regarding the Appellant being in possession of the said property, and yet, in utter disregard of the prejudice caused to the Appellant due to such concealment, regarded the same as being non violative of the principles of natural justice.

1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017

2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017

3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035.

4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.

And Also at:

M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised PPA No.07/2020 M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 of 2015 passed under Section 5(1) of the Act holding the appellant to be in unauthorised occupation of the subject premises w.e.f. 01.03.2015, as well as another order dated 17.01.2010 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 (A) of 2015 passed under Section 7(2) and 7(2A) of the Act holding the appellant liable to pay dues of Rs.6,81,08,996/- as on 31.12.2019.

CIC/SBIND/A/2023/633692

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 5

(i) Entire file, inter alia, containing Copies of circulars, policies, notes, correspondence, Board resolutions, etc. generated on the issue of engagement of Housing Keeping Contracts, instead of getting such work done from the regular staff of the bank, and polices, circular etc. engagement of Contract labour by the bank. Entire record since last 12 years.

(ii) Copies of tender floated by the Bank for its Corporate Centre office at Wadam Cama Road, for Housekeeping Contract or engagement of contract labour for any activities, during last three calendar years,

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking the following information:

"1. The name of revenue villages with survey nos of tower line erected for PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

2. The copy of item wise list of cut and removed trees, category, age, analysis and evaluation certificate from Agriculture Department for erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

3. The copy of details of the following a. Land compensation paid.

b. Compensation paid for crops (item wise) c. Compensation paid for trees (item wise) For erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd-800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dt?

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Party wise detailed break up of the amount pertaining to each of the debtors whose debt has been assigned vide aforesaid agreement.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Details of Actual amount paid by the ARC to the bank pertaining to each individual debt.

(iii) Copies of Correspondence with regards to the above between the Assignor (Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd) and Assignee Invent Assets Securitisation Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd prior to and subsequent to the alleged Assignment

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. प्रार्थी की पत्नि श्रीमति पायल शमाा के ईलाज में बेस हात्पपटल में दी गयी दवाइयो का समपि वववरण उपलब्ध कराये और यह भी अवगि करायें कक दी गयी दवाईयाां ककस बबमारी से सम्बत्धधि है ? जिवरी 2019 से ददसम्बर 2019 का समपि ररकार्ा उपलब्ध करायें।

2. अपीलीय अधधकारी का िाम व पिा अवगि कराये ?"

Page 1 of 5

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.05.2023 stating as under:

"आपके द्वारा उपरोक्ि पत्र के पैरा 1 के अिुसार माांगी गई जािकारी को आरटीआई अधधतियम 2005, धारा ३, ६ (ⅰ), ८ (i) (ई) और धारा ११ के प्रावधािों के िहि िहीां ददया जा सकिा।"

Heard both sides.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The Petitioner is the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager at their Zonal Office, Trichirappalli. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the First Respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Chennai made in I.D.No.22 to 25 of 2007 dt. 27.7.2010 these writ petitions were filed by them.

3. The 1st Respondent CGIT by its Common Award granted the following relief to the 2nd Respondent workmen in all the WPs:-

“In the result all the petitioners in ID 22/2007, 23/2007, 24/2007 and ID 25/2007 are entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but they are not entitled to back-wages for the whole period during which they remained out of employment of Respondent. After reinstatement into service the Management may start a process for the regularization of the workmen if and in accordance with the rules in vogue they are entitled to the same.”

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

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

RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 12th NOVEMBER 2024 _______________________ Judgment (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.)

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 18-WP(L)-17982-2024(J).DOCX

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly, the petition challenges an order dated 30 th March 2024 passed by respondent No.1 ("impugned order" for short). By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner dated 9 th November 2022 seeking waiver of interest charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Income Tax Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 ("A. Y. Year 2021-22" for short) stood rejected. The reliefs/prayers in the petition are set out at pages 52 to 54 in para 12 thereof. The substantive relief/prayer is to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and to grant waiver of interest for an amount of Rs.3,88,59,353/- charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act. Such is the limited issue for consideration before us.

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?

(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: