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.

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 489/2020 Ramdayal@r.d. S/o Ramkaran

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 663/2019 registered with Police Station Nadbai (Bharatpur), for the offence/s punishable under Section/s 377, 429 of IPC.

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

3. It has been submitted that material prosecution witnesses in this case have turned hostile during trial, copies of statements of those witnesses have been filed and it has been contended that the main witnesses PW.1 Jadveer, PW.4 Satish and other material witnesses have turned hostile, they have not supported the prosecution version, hence the accused petitioner may be granted bail.

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv. for the complainant. (on Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant.

This Court finds that D.B. Criminal Appeal is pending against the judgment dated 19.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant is required to be heard by the appropriate Bench.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is an order dated 09.04.2018 issued by the Registrar General whereby it has been directed that if an appeal is pending before the Division Bench and the accused who has awarded lesser sentence, then the appeal before the Single Bench is required to be tagged with the D.B. Criminal Appeal and the same is required to be listed before the Division Bench. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:27 PM)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

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

3. F.I.R. No.300/2019 was registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur Metropolitan for offence under Sections 323, 341, 504, 427, 302, 34 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of seven days in lodging of FIR. Co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 88/2019 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

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

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present accused-petitioner. The alleged recovery has been made from other co-accused persons. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner except the information of co-accused. Charge-sheet has been filed on 17.01.2020. Trial of the case will (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:48 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15939/2019] consume time. The petitioner is behind Bars since 31.10.2019.

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.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.98/2019 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in custody since 02.05.2019.

Learned counsel submitted that police after investigation has filed challan. Counsel further submitted that the allegation against the appellants is in respect of using fire arm but (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:25 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2822/2019] the medical report which has been prepared shows that the injury suffered by the injured was simple in nature and caused by the blunt weapon.

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.

2

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although only one of the companies was alleged to have committed default, the DIN of the petitioners was deactivated in respect of the other companies, in which they were directors, as well, which was de hors the law.

4. Moreover, even in respect of the defaulting company, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the allegations made against them in respect of each company.

5. The disqualification of the company‐in‐question took place in the year 2014, that is, prior to the 2018 Amendment of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") and as such, the provisions of the 2018 Amendment would not be applicable thereto.

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

Appearance:

Mr. Laxmi Pat Surana, ...petitioner in person The Court: The petitioner is present in Court. He requests for a date on which the matter may be taken up.

List this matter on 1st April, 2020.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) Sbghosh

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.

(Through Video Conference) Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person) ...plaintiff no.1 Mr. Megnath Datta, Adv.

...for added defendant no.3 The Court : The plaintiff no.1 appears in person on video conferencing. The added defendant no.3 is represented by Mr. Megnath Datta, Advocate via video conferencing.

It is the allegation of the appearing plaintiff that the principal property involved in this partition and administration suit is under serious threat and trespassers are seeking to enter upon the same. Such position is denied on behalf of the appearing defendant. 2

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.

Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, Sr. AS Mr. S.N. Bajaria, Acivor .. Faint The Court : This affidavit of arrest has been Med in an admiralty auit fled by the plaintiff praying for, inter alia, arrest af the defendant veasel, M¥ Han Xin, flying the flag of Hong Keng. I am told that the said veese! is presently ying at the Kolkata Port, within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, After hearing learned Counsel for the phantiff, in view af the urgency mvolved, 1 dispense with the requirement of camplying with Section 124 of the Commercial Courts Act and amit the plaint subject te scrutiny.

Mr. S.K. Bajoma, loarned Advocair-on-Recard for the plaintif is appointed Receiver for the purpose of paying deficit Quurt fees within a week _.

2

The application has been filed on the ground of urgency that the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court cannot be taken up immediately.

In view of the present situation, the time to comply with the order passed by the Trial Court is extended till June 30, 2020. However, this order will not be a charter for the applicant to continue manufacturing its products. Indeed, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that no manufacturing activity is being undertaken in the present situation.

G. A. 804 of 2020 is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties thereto.

(Through video conference) The Court : The Marshall, Calcutta High Court, has filed a report of service and arrest, which is taken on record.

GA No.810 of 2020 is an application for vacating, recalling and/or modification of the order dated April 24, 2020 passed in AS No.2 of 2020.

It is the contention of the defendant in this application that the order dated April 24, 2020 was obtained 2 by suppression, misstatement and fraud. It is their further contention that the plaintiff was neither an endorsee in the bill of lading nor a named consignee and, as such, the plaintiff did not have locus standi to file the said suit. It is further contended that there is a grave urgency in vacating and/or modifying the interim order passed by this Court as the ship is due to receive cargo in some other port but the ex parte order of arrest has been causing severe loss to the defendant.

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.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.3391 of 2017 and in Criminal M.A. No.13845 of 2017, by which the High Court affirmed (i) the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by Mahila Court in proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 12 of the DV Act1 and (ii) 1 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.417-418 OF 2020 @ SLP (CRL) NOS.4044-4045 OF 2019 NEELAM GUPTA VS. MAHIPAL SHARAN GUPTA AND ANOTHER 2 the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2016.

1. Most of the cases have a chequered history. Initially, petitioners have questioned four notifications ­ two notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by Medical Council of India (for short, ‘the MCI’) and other two notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (for short, ‘the DCI’). The MCI by virtue of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) notified by the Government of India, amended the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Similarly, the other notification issued by MCI called “Post­Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part­II)” to amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The regulations came into force on their publication in the Official Gazette. The other two notifications dated 31.5.2012 issued by DCI were relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur1 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 271/1982, whereby the conviction of the respondent No. 1/original accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Mr. Chhagna Ram) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code2 has been converted into one under Section 326, IPC and the substantive sentence awarded therefor is reduced only to the period already undergone (about five months) by the accused No. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:39:58 IST Reason:

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jangsher Ali, (2) Omar Ali, (3) Kayum Ali, (4) Sobur Uddin and (5) Badsha Miya, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 207/2020 registered under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 369(K)/2020.

As per the FIR of the case, the present accused petitioners along with 11 (eleven) named accused persons and 10 (ten) to 15(fifteen) others illegally entered the land that belongs to the father of the informant around 08:00 in the morning on 01.03.2020 while they were planting rice paddy saplings armed with dao, stick etc. and attacked his family members namely, Ainul Hoque, Saniara Khatun, Jahiruddin, Rupchand Ali, Sukur Ali, Hanif Ali and killed his uncle Ainal Hoque.

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

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

List for Admission 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

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

Page No.# 2/2 Interim order is extended till the next date.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

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.

7) Munnaf Ali, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon PS Case No. 207/2020, corresponding to GR Case No. 369 (K)/2020, under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC.

Heard Mr B Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr N Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

Also perused the record and the Case Diary produced.

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Kalita that so far as the accused Page No.# 3/3 petitioners, namely, 1) Imdadul Hoque and 2) Bilat Ali are concerned, their sufficient implication have been given by the eyewitnesses, regarding the commission of the offence.

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;

1. All the four writ petitions seek identical relief in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to avail input tax credit of the accumulated CENVAT credit as of 30th June, 2017 by filing declaration Form TRAN-1 beyond the period provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, the "CGST Rules"). Additionally, petitioners also assail Rule 117 of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to the extent it imposes a time limit for carrying forward the CENVAT credit to the GST regime. However, all the petitioners have unanimously stated that if the Court were to give directions to the respondents to permit them to file the statutory Form TRAN-1 to avail the input tax credit, they would be satisfied and not press for the relief of challenging the vires of the provisions of the Act.

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.