To the mind of this Court, the Bank is only to perform a ministerial task subject to directions in the application. To the further mind of this Court, it would be appropriate that the Intending Purchaser who also stands to be affected qua its liquidify position arising out of the present crisis be given the opportunity to ventilate views before the Hon'ble Court as early as possible.

On the other hand, the present crisis also affects the functioning of the Free School which is claimed to be surviving on the interest earned out of the said Fixed Deposits paid by the Intending Purchaser, as well as the ability of the Trustees to quickly find a new purchaser. Therefore, having regard to the interests of all under the present conditions of a pandemic as well as the balance of convenience, it is directed for the present that the Intending Purchaser shall not insist on the Refund of the Fixed Deposits/Consideration Money till normalcy returns. The Intending Purchaser shall, on the return of normalcy, write to the Learned Receiver invoking the Refund. On receipt of such 4 communication the Learned Receiver shall take apropo steps, including seeking a time limit from the appropriate Court.

That another co-owner namely Soma Ghosh resides in the 1st floor South East corner of the said premises. It is come off from the said suit premises that there have three tenants residing since long. One namely Prabir Paul (55) S/o- Late Ajay Paul resides in Ground floor North-West side of the premises. Tenant Krishna Dhar (73) W/o- Late Debabrata Dhar residing south portion of the said premises and Shambhu Das & his brother Alok Das are residing at the front portion 2nd floor of the said building as tenants since long.

In course of present enquiry at the scheduled property i.e. 13, Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street, Kol-03 nothing unusual was found in respect of possessions, occupied by the co-owners and the tenants.

(Through Video Conference) Appearance:

Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person).

Mr. Meghnad Dutta , Adv.

Mr. Arindam Paul , Adv.

... for the added defendant no.3 Mr. D. K. Chandra, Adv.

... for defendant nos.3(i) & 3(ii). The Court: It appears that by the order dated April 16, 2020, the parties were directed to file their respective affidavit in the application filed by the plaintiffs. The said order also records that in view of the subsisting interim order, the petitioners' interest in respect of the suit property is already protected. There was no direction that the application would be appearing before this Court today. This is also not disputed by the parties.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal the Original Claimant challenges the final judgment and order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CAN No.10094 of 2018.

3. The basic facts culled out from the award dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Arbitrator in the present case are:-

“That the respondent company who is engaged in the business of infrastructure development activities approached the claimant company who is also dealing in the business of providing equipments for 2 Civil Appeal No.2378 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) NO.11011 of 2019) QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD. Vs. JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LTD.

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.

Let this matter be listed in the first week of June, 2020 on a date to be fixed by the Registry. On the next date so fixed, this matter will be taken up for its disposal.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

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.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information on seven points regarding reduction of pension of the Pensioner Shri Ganesh Chandra Mishra with PPO No. 02101265992 including,

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

b) Whether any inquiry was held against the Pensioner due to which pension was reduced,

c) Copy of Notice issued to the pensioner informing him that he is subject to an inquiry,

d) Receipt of confirmation showing Notice received by the Pensioner,

e) Transcript of the inquiry and report of inquiry, if any, held against the pensioner,

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no notice for arrest as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat in the order dated 12.04.2020, (Annexure P-1) has been received, he be permitted to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to approach the Court again, in case, needs so arises.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid with the clarification that the petitioner will be bound to file notarized affidavit, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:48:29 ::: CRM-M-12079 of 2020 Vakalatnama and deposit the requisite Court fee within a period of 10 days after the lockdown is over.

----

Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma (Bhardwaj), Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Lalit Batra, J.(Oral) Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation dated 20.04.2020 (Annexure P-5) moved by petitioner is still pending before respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, District Bhiwani and the said authority may be asked to decide the said representation at the earliest.

Learned State counsel has given concurrence to the above said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has already made a representation vide Annexure P-3. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order and also by taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the writ petition.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:40:15 :::

The petitioner has already made a representation. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:42:29 :::

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.219 dated 05.10.2019 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegation against the petitioner is that 605 grams Charas was recovered from him which he was allegedly carrying in a red colour bag. He submits that the alleged recovery is non-commercial. He further submits that he is in custody since 05.10.2019 and the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:52:28 ::: CRM-M-52914 of 2019 {2}

It has been pointed out that allegations against the petitioner are to the effect that he had painted the vehicle and fictitious number plates. It has been arguedby learned counsel for the petitioner that co- accused namely Raja who was arrested from the spot has been granted regular bail and Ajay Kumar co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is over and he has been remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is complete. The offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:20:13 ::: Challan has already been presented in the Court. Petitioner has been sought to be implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased had been married for almost 15 years and no complaint whatsoever was ever lodged against the petitioner by the complainant prior to the occurrence in hand. It has further been contended that all the material witnesses including the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile before the trial Court.

The learned State counsel on the other hand has vehemently opposed the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner by contending that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the deceased. He, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:14:39 ::: CRM-M-44316-2019 [ 2 ] however, has not been able to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and other material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution during trial and were declared hostile by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the story put-forth in the FIR is a fabricated one and he has been falsely implicated in the FIR despite the fact that the electricity connection, which was found tampered was not even in his name, but in the name of one Rajesh. Hence, there was no evidence which could connect the petitioner with the alleged offence under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of the Electricity Act.

It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been behind the bars since 06th February, 2020. He has an ailing mother of 80 years of age and a minor child in his house and there is no body to look after his family in the prevailing conditions on account of the pandemic outbreak.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Royal Star Securities (Regd.), which is an outsourcing agency and was given a contract by the Sonepat Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sonepat for providing security to its bank. It is further argued that initially, the contract was terminated by the bank for which he has filed CWP No.27543 of 2017 in which notice has been issued for 08.07.2020. It is also submitted that, thereafter, the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:55:09 ::: CRM-M No.12031 of 2020 (O&M) 2 agency was blacklisted by the Bank and he had filed another writ petition i.e. CWP No.12409 of 2018, which is also ordered to be heard with the first writ petition. It is also submitted that subsequently the FIR has been registered with the allegation that the petitioner has not deposited the Provident Fund, ESI, service tax, etc. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the charges were framed on 24.02.2020. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the subsequent zimini orders vide which the case was fixed for prosecution evidence but the same is not completed despite a lapse of 60 days prescribed under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is requested that the petitioner be granted the default bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in any other case and the FIR is just a counter blast to the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:53:02 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

1. Present review application has been filed by original appellants for review of judgment and order dated 1st August, 2019 passed by this Court in aforesaid First Appeal.

2. Present review applicants are the original claimants, who filed MACP No.256/2013 before learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (herein after referred to as the ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:35 ::: (2) Review Appln.No.199/2019 Tribunal) for getting compensation for the accidental death of one Hanmantrao Manikrao Deshmukh, on whom present review applicants were depending.

2. Admit. With consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, taken up for final disposal.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for challenging the order of rejection of bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No.46/2020 on 21.1.2020 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna.

CRM No. 3354 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jalpaiguri Women Police Station Case No. 144/2019 dated 07.11.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And In the matter of : Kalpana Roy ... Petitioner Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased victim. The prayer for bail of the husband of the victim has been rejected earlier today.

It is to be noted that earlier petitioner has also filed a writ petition being WP 5064 (W) of 2020 challenging the transfer.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not join the new college due to several reasons including his ill-health. He further submits that his salary has been stopped and he has not received the salary from the month of March 2020 onwards.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, has defended the action of the university and submitted that the university had no intention to stop payment of the petitioner's salary. The same, according to him, has taken place due to the petitioner not having joined his new post even though the transfer order was issued on March 3, 2020.

ab with 02 CRAN1420 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Egra P.S. Case No. 194 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 under Sections 341/354A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

And In Re :- Laltu Jana ... Petitioner. Sk. Sahjahan Ali ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

Montana Brown looked incredible as she and Amber Davies led the Love Island stars on the 2020 BRIT awards red carpet on Tuesday night.

Jessica Ennis-Hill has not given up hope of becoming a three-time world champion as she waits for the gold medal she was denied in 2011 by a drugs cheat.

Jessica Ennis-Hill is set to be awarded her second World Championship heptathlon gold medal after the Court of Arbitration for Sport announced Russian athlete Tatyana Chernova will be stripped of her title.

The last time Ariana Grande announced dates at the O2 Arena, they never happened.

Holding umbrellas aloft to guard against an unseasonal shower, Princes William and Harry seemed lost in thought as they toured the new 'white garden' at Kensington Palace.

CHRIS FOY IN MIYAZAKI: The 21-year-old joined several of his team-mates for paddle-boarding, to continue this phase of tough training and valuable down-time.

Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp has been rewarded for his side's perfect start to the season with the Premier League Manager of the Month award for August. Liverpool take on Newcastle United next.

Mr. Hemant Sahai Mr. Aditya K. Singh Ms. Anukriti Jain Ms. Molshree Bhatnagar Ms. Puja Priyadarshini Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Ms. Poorva Saigal Ms. Anushree Bardhan Mr. Shubham Arya Ms. Tanya Sareen Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey for R-2 2 Original Petition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2019 Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Nishant for R-3 & 4 Mr. Brahmanandam (Rep.) for R-5 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2019 SB Energy Solar Private Limited 1st Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset Area-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, Delhi - 110037. .... PETITIONER Versus

1. These Appeals are filed by the solar power plants challenging impugned order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "APERC" or "State Commission"). The petitions pending before APERC was for 9 Appeal Nos. 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 & 373 of 2019 approval for procurement of power by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which are hereinafter referred to as "AP Discoms", at the tariff competitively determined.

1. The dismissal of the claim brought before the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of Rs. 76,61,606/- on account of "deemed generation" against the Respondent Discom, registered as case No. HERC/PRO-69 of 2017 "for want of prosecution" by order dated 16.01.2019, followed by dismissal of the prayer for Appeal No. 75 of 2020 Page 2 of 6 restoration of the said case by order dated 25.04.2019, has led to the present appeal being instituted before us.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on all sides and have gone through the record. We are of the view that the appeal must be allowed. We set out our reasons hereinafter.

There's been plenty of head-scratching over at Omega Diagnostics, one of the biotech minnows whose share price has shot up on the back of its efforts to tackle the pandemic.

Ana de Armas was a vision of spring on Saturday when she stepped out in a marigold colored singlet for a walk around her Venice neighborhood with her dog.

After a decadent oceanside lunch paired with a bottle of Perrier-Jouët champagne and lobster, the mom bared her taut midriff in a barely-there bikini.

Fabio Cannavaro is currently in his second spell at Chinese Super League club Guangzhou Evergrande. However the retired defender has ambitions to one day manage in England.

The government on Monday asked those over the age of 70 to minimise social contact. Hodgson, 72, is the Premier League's oldest boss and is affected by the new guidelines.

England's top flight was suspended on March 13 due to the coronavirus pandemic and has been put on hold indefinitely until the virus has been suitably contained and it is safe for players to return.

Hodgson has reportedly told friends that he does not believe he will be allowed to guide his team from the touchline or even take training sessions, according to The Sun.

Crystal Palace are confident that Roy Hodgson will not be barred from managing on safety grounds amid the coronavirus crisis when the Premier League resumes.

EXCLUSIVE BY SAMI MOKBEL: There had been doubt over whether the 72-year-old would be forced to miss the remainder of the season, should it restart, due to Government guidelines.

2. One Mr.Ganapati had filed a complaint, which was registered by Gokarna P.S. Crime No.27/2010, upon investigation the Investigating Officer of Kumata P.S. had presented a charge sheet on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the :4: investigation was continued and an additional charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2012 for the aforesaid offences.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 12, who stood trial before JMFC Court had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge in the said proceedings. The application was opposed by the prosecution. The JMFC after hearing both parties by order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the application filed by the accused.

2. The petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activity of manufacture of pharmaceutical medicines. The respondents/workmen 12 were working in the establishment of the petitioner- management and they individually filed claim petitions under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Amendment Act, 1988 (Karnataka) contending that they were terminated from service without any valid reasons and sought for reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits. Labour Court after analyzing the material evidence allowed the claim petitions as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the Management is before this Court.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Lalu Kumar Rana @ Lalu Rana has been moved by Mr. Rahul Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

In view of the allegations, let the case diary and antecedent report of the petitioner be called for from the court concerned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2/4

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

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