Heard Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on suspicion, from out side his house, and thereafter house of the petitioner was searched and two litres of country made liquor was recovered.

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State along with Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel of the Board.

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for modification in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67419 of 2019 whereby a Bench of this Court had granted provisional bail to the petitioner in connection with Sastri Nagar P.S.Case No.733 of 2019 on fulfilling certain conditions and the provisional bail was to be confirmed only after fulfillment of the remaining part of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19089 of 2020(2) dt.27-04-2020 2/4 terms.

List this case on 11.05.2020, in order to enable learned counsel for the State to file counter affidavit.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the BIADA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for filing of Interlocutory Application to amend the relief/s as sought for in the writ application, whereby he wants to challenge the order dated 24.04.2020 issued vide Memo No. 1237/D by which the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have rejected the representation of the petitioner made vide Annexure-5 to the writ application.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2019 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10317 of 2020(3) dt.29-04-2020 2/3 is no allegation of tampering of witnesses against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of disclosure made by the co-villagers. The names of the co-villagers have not been disclosed by the prosecution. It is alleged that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln. The brick kiln in question belongs to the joint family of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence. There is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the mother of the petitioner has expired on 13.04.2020. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. Other similarly situated co- accused, namely, Babban Ray has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.78312 of 2019 dated 29.01.2020.

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/content provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs.1,44,84,050/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Four lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Fifty Only) said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 09.02.2016 along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channel "Mi Marathi".

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/content provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs.1,51,88,898.26p(Rupees One Crore Fifty One lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Ninety Eight and Paise Twenty Six Only) said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 09.02.2016 along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by 3 the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channel "Live India".

2. It may be useful to note that the facts relevant for the main issue of law indicated above are not in dispute and hence do not require detailed narration. For the sake of convenience, facts will be referred to from the records of T.P. No.77/2019 which has been heard as the lead matter, unless indicated otherwise.

3|Page

3. The two respondents, Tata Communications Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are owners / operators of certain facilities which have been described as Cable Landing Operations. For these facilities they are entitled to levy three distinct charges i.e. (i) Access Facilitation Charges (AFC), (ii) Co-Location Charges(CLC) and (iii) Operation and Maintenance Charges (OMC). Prior to 07.06.2007, the charges were based purely on contract between the parties. In 2007, TRAI issued the "International Telecommunication Access to Essential Facilities at Cable Landing Stations Regulations 2007" (2007 Regulations). This introduced the requirement of framing of Cable Landing Stations - Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) to be calculated on cost based method. Such RIOs for all the three charges were required to be submitted to TRAI, the Regulator for approval. This light- touch regulation was operational till the 2007 Regulations were amended by Amendment Regulation, 2012 dated 19.10.2012. This amendment enabled TRAI to fix and specify the highest charges which could be realizable as per agreement between the parties. On 21.12.2012, TRAI fixed all the three charges vide notification which brought into effect the "International Telecommunication Landing Station Access Facilities Charges and Co-Location Charges Regulations 2012. The said Regulations (No.27 of 2012) contained 3 schedules of charges made effective from 01.01.2013.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Vishwanathan and learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant, Bharti Airtel, Mr.Gopal Jain through video-conferencing.

3. The applicant seeks a direction upon Bharti Airtel not to encash the Bank Guarantee (BG) to which it has become entitled vide judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.04.2020 whereby applicant's petition bearing T.P. No.77/2019 has been dismissed on merits. In the last paragraph of that judgment notice has been taken of an order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 14.11.2019 and in view of the said consent order this Tribunal has directed that the BG submitted to the Tribunal stands invoked for immediate payment to the non-applicant. The prayer in the MA is solely on the ground that moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal is likely to take some time because of the prevailing pandemic COVID-19.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

WP(C).8416/19 4

3. The singular contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had committed a fundamental error in adopting the revised assessed tax of the year 2007-08 as the basis for revising the assessment and refixing the compounded tax liability for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. In support of this contention, attention is drawn to Section 7(b) of the KGST Act and reliance is placed on the decisions in Sicilia Hotel Pvt. Ltd (Supra), and Kalyan Tourist Home v. State of Kerala (2017 (2) KLT 761).

4. Opposing the contentions, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, the power for revising the assessment after payment of compounded tax under Section 7(b) cannot be limited to be based only on the tax payable as conceded in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for any of the previous consecutive three years. It is contended that there is no inhibition in Section 7 that revision of assessment cannot be on the basis of assessed tax. It is submitted that this position has been succinctly laid down by the Division Bench in Kalika Hotel and Bar, Amballur(M/s) v. State of Kerala (2012 (3) KHC 85) and The Commercial Tax Officer v. M/s Hotel Breezeland Ltd. (2019 (2) KLT 432).

While PW1 was doing patrol duty on 3.6.1999, he got reliable information that one Rajappan (the petitioner) was CRL.R.P.NO.5/07 3 indulging in sale of arrack from his house. Thereupon, the patrol party proceeded to the petitioner's house and on searching the house found 13 bottles hidden inside the kitchen, of which 11 bottles were of 1.5 ltrs and 2 bottles of 750 ml capacity. The contents of the bottle were examined by smelling and tasting and was identified to be arrack. The petitioner, who was present in the house was arrested and the contraband seized. From among the 13 bottles, sample was drawn from one bottle of 750 ML capacity. Thereafter the sample bottle as well as the 13 bottles containing the contraband were sealed in the presence of the petitioner and two independent witnesses. The requisite formalities like, filing of occurrence report, production of accused and seized articles along with sample before the jurisdictional Magistrate were complied without delay. Further investigation of the case was conducted by PW 5, who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 22.09.2004, the Excise Party attached to the Thirurangadi Excise Division had found the accused at a place called Nagaram near the Chiramangalam Thirichilangady Road by about 8.30 p.m, carrying a white jerry can having capacity of 25 litres. The accused was accosted and the contents of the jerry can examined, upon which it was found to contain 'wash' used for manufacturing arrack. Thereupon Crl.A.No.1750 of 2007 3 the accused was arrested, 500 ml of wash drawn as sample and the sample bottle sealed. Thereafter, the balance wash in the jerry can was destroyed by pouring it out. On chemical analysis, the sample was found to contain 2.27% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

2. The prosecution allegations, which led to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows:-

On 29.08.2005, PW3; the Sub Inspector of Kanjar Police Station, while on patrol duty, got information that the accused was selling liquor from her house. Thereupon, PW3 proceeded to the spot along with police party, including women police constables. On reaching near the house of Crl.A.No.474 of 2008 3 the accused, the police party found the accused pouring some liquid from a bottle into a glass, adding water to it and handing over the glass to a person who was standing outside the veranda of the house. That person drank the contents of the glass and give it back to the accused along with some money, which she kept inside her purse. By the time, the police party reached the house of the accused, the person who drank from the glass ran away. On examination of the bottle in the possession of the accused, it was found to be a bottle of 1.5 litres capacity containing 1.350 litres of Indian Made Foreign liquor. An amount of Rs.50/- was found inside the purse. From out of the bottle, sample was drawn and sealed. The bottle containing the liquor, the glass, the bottle containing water and the purse containing five ten rupee notes were seized and the accused Crl.A.No.474 of 2008 4 arrested. The sample, when subjected to chemical analysis, was found to contain 42.17% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

On 28-02-2019, Sri. K.P. Mathaikunju and 3 others filed a contempt of court case before this court against the respondents herein, alleging that the respondents have committed civil contempt by publishing a face book post in a face book page to which the respondents are the admins and also published a similar news in the website www.ovsonline.in on 27-02-2019, to the effect that the cases, O.P (C) No.65/2019 & Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, which pertains to the dispute regarding the 'Vadavukod Church' were dismissed by the High Court on 27-02- 2019, which in fact were only reserved for judgment on that day. It is alleged that the act of the respondents in this regard would amount to interference with the administration of justice and therefore they have committed contempt of court punishable under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registry of this court expressed doubt with respect to maintainability of CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -4- the above said contempt of court petition. Therefore the case was posted before the learned Single Judge who as dealing with OP (C) No.65/2019 and Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, as unnumbered contempt petition. Initially, the learned Judge appointed an 'amicus curiae' in the matter, through order dated 01-03-2019. But subsequently, on 31-05-2019, the Single Judge directed the Registry of this court to place the petition before Hon'ble Chief justice for appropriate further action on the administrative side, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Rehim P. V. M.V. Jayarajan and others (2010 (4) KLT 286). When the matter was placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 25-06-2019, it was ordered to place the matter as a suo motu criminal contempt case, for preliminary hearing, before the appropriate Bench. When the matter came on the judicial side, this court ordered notice to the respondents. Personal appearance of the respondents were dispensed with for the time being. The respondents appeared and each of them had filed separate affidavits. Now the case is coming up for consideration as to whether there exists prima facie contempt and to decide whether further proceedings need to be pursued in the case by framing charge against the respondents. CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -5-

The above appeal was originally filed as a 'Motor Accident Claim Appeal', ('MACA'). The appeal memorandum reflected that the appeal was filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.), read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the Registry of this court noted defect, the appeal was sought to be be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry has not yet accepted the same for the reason that the order impugned is not an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Unnumbered Crl. Appeal 16 of 2020 -:4:- Registry noted that, probably an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone may lie against the order impugned. However, the matter was posted before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. On 05.09.2016, learned counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that the Registry is correct in holding that an appeal will not lie under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought time for curing the defect, which was allowed. Thereafter the case was re-presented with correction made in the 'Docket Sheet' in the cause title portion, styling it as an 'appeal', instead of "MACA". But the memorandum of appeal in all other respects remained as such. On the request of the counsel for the appellants, the matter was posted before this Bench, for hearing on the question of maintainability. Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijayabhanu has consented to assist the court as Amicus Curiae. Hence the question of maintainability was heard in detail.

The petitioners in the writ petition, W.P (C) No.12189/2007, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The 1 st appellant is the State of Sikkim and the 2nd appellant is the Distributor of the paper lotteries organized by the 1st appellant in the State of Kerala. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) is under challenge in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its officials.

2. Brief history of the impugned legislation may be worthfull to mention. By virtue of the Finance Act, 2001, introduced with effect from 23-07-2001, the State of Kerala has introduced Section 5BA to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short) imposing licence fee on the draw of W A No.648/2008 -4- lotteries, in lieu of tax payable under Section 5 (1) of the KGST Act. Validity of Section 5BA was under challenge before this court. In the decision in Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. V. Additional Sales Tax Officer and others (2007 (2) KLT 397) = (2007 (2) KHC 427) this court held that Section 5BA of the KGST Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Eventhough the State of Kerala filed appeal before the Division Bench, it was dismissed by relying on the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunrise Associates V. Govt. of NCT of New Delhi and others (AIR 2006 SC 1908), in which earlier ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Anraj V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1986 SC 63) was reversed and it was held that no tax can be levied, collected or demanded in connection with sale of lottery tickets. A Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala against the Division Bench decision was also dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in State of Kerala V. Prabhavathy Thankamma and others ((2009) 3 SCC 511).

By around 7:30 PM on 3-8- 2002, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station (PW1) received secret information that a person by name Anil Kumar (appellant) would be reaching the bus waiting shed situated at Matlayi by around 8:30 PM for the purpose of selling the opium in his possession. Immediately, PW1 recorded the information in the General Diary, intimated his Superior Officer, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nileshwaram and proceeded to the spot. The police party lay in wait near the bus waiting shed and by around 8:45 PM, the appellant reached the spot in an autorikshaw and entered the bus waiting shed. Immediately, the Police party rushed to the waiting shed and on the Crl.A.244/06 3 appellant attempting to flee, apprehended him. PW1 thereupon, asked the appellant whether he required the presence of a Gazetted Officer while his body was searched and on the appellant answering in the negative, his body was searched and a plastic packet recovered from the pocket of his pants. On examination, the packet was found to contain opium, for the possession of which the appellant had no licence. The opium was weighed and found to be 350 gms in weight. Two samples of 25 gms each, were collected from the contraband and were packed and sealed separately. The remaining opium was also packed and sealed in the same manner. Ext.P3 seizure mahazar was prepared and the accused was arrested. Exhibit P4 FIR was registered thereafter. Later, Exhibit P8 chemical analysis report was received finding the sample to be opium.

Income Tax Appeal Nos. 135/2019 & 146/2019 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA Nos.536/Coch/2018 and 537/Coch/2018, dated 12-03-2019. Income Tax Appeal No.313/2019 is filed against the revised order passed by the same Tribunal ITA No.537/Coch/2018, dated 11-10-2019. The assessee was the appellant before the Tribunal, who is the appellant herein. The revenue is the respondent.

2. Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in wholesale and retail trade of beaverages within the State of Kerala, and is a 'State Government Undertaking' falling within the 'Explanation' provided under Section 40 (a) (iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). With respect to I.T. Appeal Nos. 135, 146 & 313/2019 -5- the assessment year 2014-2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Thiruvananthapuram finalized the assessment of income tax against the appellant, under Section 143 (3) of the Act, through the order of assessment dated 14- 12-2016. But, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and set aside the order of assessment, on holding that the same is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, to the extent it failed to disallow the debits made in the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee with respect to the amount of surcharge on sales tax and turn over tax paid to the State Government, which ought to have been disallowed under Section 40 (a) (iib) of the Act. Against order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, issued under Section 263 of the Act, dated 25-09-2018, the appellant approached the Tribunal in ITA No.536/Coch/2018.

2. The facts in short, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioners, seventeen in number and belonging to District Kathua, came to be engaged as Daily Rated Labourers in Civil as well as Mechanical Divisions of PHE, Kathua between the period October 1994 to January 2000 and since then they have been discharging their duties, which has also been certified and authenticated by the respondents themselves in the year 2005 2 SWP 677/2014 and also in the year 2010. It is averred that the petitioners during all these years made a number of representations to the respondents for regularization of their services and when nothing fruitful came out, they filed SWP No.143/2009. The said writ petition was filed by as many as 26 persons including the petitioners herein, which came to be disposed of on 01.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners case for regularization in the light of averments made in the petition, annexure appended thereto and of course in accordance with rules/scheme in J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 governing the field. However, instead of regularizing the services of petitioners, respondent No.2 vide Order No.PHEJ/GE/04/E of 2014 dated 04.01.2014, impugned herein, rejected the claim of petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. Notice issued shall indicate that reply shall be filed within two days of the receipt of notice.

List on 27th April 2020.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 23.04.2020 Raj Kumar RAJ KUMAR 2020.04.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Issue notice of this application to the respondents. Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG accepts notice.

2 WP(C) PIL NO. 41/2019 Let a copy of this application be sent to Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG by Mrs. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate, who shall seek instructions that immediate steps are taken to ensure food and all facilities to these survival of natural calamity.

Let a copy of this application be also furnished to Mr. M. K. Sharma, Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jammu and Ms. Sandeep Kour, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Udhampur to ensure that these people are given immediate assistance.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Main petition is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 30.04.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.04.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(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 : CA No.45 of 2020 is an application filed by one Pritam Ghosh, under Section 535(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 to bring on record certain developments subsequent to an order of winding up passed by this Court in CP No.194 of 2016.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the company had sold concerned premises being a residential apartment measuring about 800 sq.ft. at 228, Dum Dum Park, Flat no.1B, on the first Floor, to one Rabindra Nath Dey by a deed of conveyance dated September 21, 2012. Thereafter the 2 petitioner purchased the said property by a conveyance dated March 27, 2014 from said Mr. Dey. Thereafter the petitioner let out the premises to one Rishi Kumar Sharma on December 1, 2014. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the learned Official Liquidator who has sealed the said premises on or about March 2, 2020. This application has been filed seeking release of the said property.

(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.

The dispute in this appeal relates to valuation under the Customs Act, 1962 of import of certain items made by the respondent Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under two contracts, bearing nos. PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt.II dated 31.10.1989 and PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt-I dated 29th March 1990. These imports were made in connection with modernisation, expansion and modification 1 for their plant at Durgapur in West Bengal. For this purpose, SAIL had floated seven Global Tender Contract Packages. The two contracts were part of these Tender Contract Packages. They were registered with the customs authorities for the purpose of project import benefits in terms of the 1962 Act. The first contract involved in this appeal was with a consortium consisting of a German Company, Hoestemberghe & Kluisch, GMBH and H & K Rolling Mills Engineering Private Limited, an Indian Corporate entity. The second contract was also with a German Company, Siempelkamp Pressen Systeme and the Indian entity was Escon Consultants Private Ltd, with whom the consortium was formed. Both these contracts were in connection with modernisation of SAIL’s rolling mills at the aforesaid plant.

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

1. 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. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 12.2.2019 passed by the High Court1 dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No.97 of 2019 1 The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 2 Civil Appeal No.2379 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) NO.5269 of 2019) BCH Electric Limited Vs. Pradeep Mehra and thereby affirming the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.10318 of 2017.

3. By Trust Deed executed on 19.03.1979 between the appellant, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on one hand and three trustees on the other, an “Approved Gratuity Fund” was constituted “for the purpose of providing Gratuities to the employees of the Company under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Gratuity Scheme of the Company”.

Civil Appeal No.5749 OF 2012

1. This appeal by special leave challenges the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the High Court1 dismissing Income Tax Appeal No.196 of 2000 and thereby affirming the view taken by the Tribunal 2 in I.T.A.Nos. 110/Cal/1999 and 402/Cal/1999 on 04.01.2000.

1 The High Court of Judicature at Calcuttta 2 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Civil Appeal No. 5749 of 2012 etc. PILCOM vs. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII 2

2. The facts leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Tribunal were set out in the Order dated 04.01.2000 as under:-

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

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

1. 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.

... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Amicus Curiae : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG -IV Mr.Sri Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA) Date : 20 -04 -2020 Judicial system in India has to face two adage one is justice delayed is justice denied and another is justice hurried is justice buried. However, in spite of above two adage, one thing remains i.e. to provide timely justice, which is an essence of rule of law and appreciating the same, clause 40 of Magna Carta provided "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice." Speedy justice was also mandate and there are Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1827 of 2017 dt.20-04-2020 2/56 catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, which holds it to be a fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

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 the submission of the petitioners that the respondent nos.9 to 12 were the erstwhile tenants who are allegedly occupying the impugned premises and are presently running a quarantine center as per the Memo No. H&FW/132/2020/128 (Annexure-P/6).

Mr. Gaggar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner led by Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, submits that in spite of several representations having been made before the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station being the respondent no.8 herein and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2 herein, no action has been taken by the State authorities.

Vs.

State of West Bengal Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Suman Banerjee ... For the petitioners Mr. Kishore Dutta , Ld. A.G. ... for the State The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to two notifications dated February 26, 2020 and March 4, 2020 by which the existing reservation in favour of the doctors has been replaced by 10 per cent weightage given to doctors serving in rural areas in all places which are locally remote.

In the earlier matter bearing writ petition no. W.P.5365(W) of 2020 which also dealt with the same notifications an order has been passed directing that the provisional list and the final list may be published as per weightage proposed in the impugned notifications in the writ petition. Needless to mention the admissions given shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition. In my view that order shall also govern the present writ petition.

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.

And In the matter of: Amit Kumar Kamat @ Amit Kumar @ Lala...petitioner Mr. Koustav Bagchi.........for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed.........................for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hour of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

The petitioner claims that since the petitioner has been in custody for a long time and the charges are of dacoity, the petitioner should be given a reprieve temporarily.

And In the matter of : Dipraj @ Dipu Chhetri & Ors.

... Petitioners Mr. Navanil De .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake 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 case of the first petitioner appears to be on a different footing than the two other petitioners. Though the names of the two other petitioners were mentioned in the initial complaint and in the eye witness' account, the first petitioner is neither named nor did the eye witness allude to him.

And In the matter of : Kheru Mondal & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Subir Debnath .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake 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.

And In the matter of : Sonu Singh & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Arka Chakraborty .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake 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.