(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 17.04.2020.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 Shivalee SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dasti notice is also permitted.

List on 23.03.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List again on 11.05.2020.

Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date before the Bench, respondent No. 5 shall indicate to the petitioner the bid which has been received by respondent No. 5 in respect to the e- auction Notice No. DGM/DMO/Spn/310-18 dated 07.02.2020. It is further provided that in case the petitioner has been found to be eligible in all respects and has given the bid higher then respondent No. 4, in that event, respondents shall not proceed further in the matter.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 18.03.2020 SHIVALEE KHAJURIA 2020.03.18 16:52 Shivalee I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List on 01.06.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

List on 01.06.2020.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 18.03.2020 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2020.03.18 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

By virtue of order dated 29th January, 2020, it was made clear that if the matter was not argued on next date of hearing the interim directions issued would stand vacated.

Today yet again Mr. Haqani is not present and a request is made for adjournment.

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

--2--

Request as made is rejected. The interim direction in all the three cases i.e. SWP No.2002/20132, SWP No.844/2012 and SWP No.2151/2011 are vacated.

List again on 27th May, 2020.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

" It is therefore, humbly prayed that a direction may kindly be given to the In Charge Sub District Jail, Kupwara to release the petitioners on bail after perusal of the report certified copy of which is placed on record and C. D file is called and the objections are called from the concerned prosecution agency and the arguments of both sides are heard in this behalf and till the instant bail application is finally decided the petitioners are making out a prima facie case for their release on interim bail and the accused may kindly be granted interim bail till the petition is finally decided as the same has been rules by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same prayer is made before this Hon'ble Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the petitioner approached initially the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, for registration of case against the respondent No. 6, by filing application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. PC, but even on the directions of the concerned Magistrate, the Crime Branch has not acted upon the directions. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondent Director School Education, and brought into his notice the fraudulent approach adopted by the respondent No. 6 in fabricating the documents for excluding the role of petitioner as Chairman of the Holy Mission School, Narbal, Budgam, but no action is taken. It is submitted that on failure of the official respondents to take action in tune with the statutory provisions, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court for seeking the relief as prayed for.

"6. Having said so, it would be open to the authorities concerned to consider the representation, if any, that is pending before them. However, no mandamus can be issued by this Court for enforcement of the clauses contained in the Transfer Policy for the purpose of enforcement.

02. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the order bearing endorsement No. GMS/B/20-1198 dated 12.03.2020, whereby, petitioner has, again, been transferred with immediate effect.

03. Since transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the service of an employee can be utilized properly in the larger public interest. An employee holding transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.

"a). A writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents more particularly respondent No. 1, to consider and decide the application of petitioner forwarded by respondent No. 2 Director School Education, Kashmir, vide communication No. DSEK/Estt- III/B-Trs/06/2019/Kup/5092 dated 27.08.2019.

b) A writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for inter-District transfer in light of the policy in vogue and also in light of the Medical Board recommendations."

03. Since transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the service of an employee can be utilized properly in the larger public interest. An employee holding transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.

2. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention on the following grounds:

"a) that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenu was already in custody;

b) that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;

SWP No. 2648/2018;

CCP(S) No. 402/2019 regarding correct allotment of the GP Fund Computer Code numbers is pending before the respondents and has not been concluded, therefore, the respondents could not have proceeded to withhold the salary of the petitioners since the month of December, 2017, that too, without issuing any formal order to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners are continuing to discharge their duties uninterruptedly at their respective places of posting, however, their salary is not being released without there being any rhyme or reason. The petitioners claim that despite they having approached the respondents repeatedly, their salary was not released constraining them to approach this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No.2648/2018, wherein they prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in their favour:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment

1. Impugned in this Heabus Corpus petition with a prayer for quashment thereof is the detention order no. 141/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 30.03.2019, purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate Baramulla, whereunder detenu namely Firdous Ahmad Wani s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Wani R/o Mohalla Bazar Seri Warpora, Pattan District Baramulla, is under detention.

2. Grounds pleaded in support of prayer are that after having been quashed the earlier detention order no. 66/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 20th August 2018, the detenu was again detained in terms of the detention order impugned in this petition on the so called "dossier" placed before respondent no.2, on the same and similar grounds. It is submitted that his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State and national law, accordingly while in police custody he was ordered to be detained in preventive custody vide impugned detention order passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla. The earlier detention order was challenged in H.C. Petition No. 239/2018 which was allowed vide judgment dated 11th Dec. 2018, but instead of releasing him from custody, the detaining authority again passed the detention order impugned in the instant petition. During arguments the learned counsel has further elucidated the contents of petition with reference to annexures placed on record, and contended that neither the detention in question was legal nor were grounds HCP no155/2019 1|Page 2 thereof duly communicated to the detenu even though quite vague and unfounded.

In terms of order passed on 13th March, 2020, the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar, has submitted his own affidavit and those of his accompanying staff namely Gulzar Ahmad Shah (Nazir), Irfan Ahmad Ganai, (Driver); Ali Khan (S.I), Ghulam Mohammad (SgCT), Tariq Ahmad (Constable), Mohammad Younis (SgCT). The affidavits so filed are taken on record. Copy of the affidavits along with the report of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar, be furnished to the respondent for her response to be filed by or before the next date of hearing with copy in advance to Mr. N. H. Shah, learned Sr. AAG.

List on 15th April, 2020.

CM NO. 1853/2020 By this application, the applicant/ respondent is praying for providing her the copy of the application and other relevant documents for enabling her to file reply.

Permission is granted and the objections as also the report submitted by Mr T. M. Shamsi, ASGI, is taken on record.

Perusal of the communication supra reveals that the detenue, on reference to Medical Superintendent of AIIMS Hospital on 3rd March, 2020, for medical examination, has been informed about constitution of Medical Board in terms of letter No. M.22- 9/Medical Board/ 2020-ESTT (H) dated 13.03.2020. The Medical Superintendent has, however, reported that at present the general condition and vitals of the inmate are stable and satisfactory. The communication further reveals that the detenue will be sent to the Medical Board as and when called by it.

Let Mr B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, keep the detention records available on the next date of hearing.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment Through the instant petition, petitioner father of detenu seeks quashment of detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/81/2019 dated 16.08.2019, passed by District Magistrate Srinagar, whereby the detenu namely Tufail Ahmad Zaldar S/o Mohammad Shafi Zaldar R/o Ranger Stop Zaldar Mohalla, Saidakadal, Srinagar, is under detention.

2. In the dossier it is alleged that the detenu is involved in anti- national activities, disturbing the public tranquility and peace in the area of Saidakadal and its adjacent areas. It is submitted that the detenu was found indulging in disturvbing the maintenance of public order by way of resorting to stone pelting. It is submitted that the detenu is a constant threat to the security of the State. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested in cases FIR no. 70/2019 u/s 307, 147 RPC and FIR 47/2019 u/s 147, 148, 336 RPC registered at Police Station Nigeen. Therefore, on these allegations he was slapped under Public Safety Act, 1978.

2. Chitranjan Kumar Singh ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

06/06.05.2020 The present revision petition is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (opposite party no.1).

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

-----

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.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Jatin Kumar Manjhi @ Jatin Manjhi has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, 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.

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall file the requisites of notice under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, to be served upon O.P. No.02, at the earliest.

2. On prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, office to list this case on 09.06.2020.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) which relates to page no. 19 of the petition may be ignored as page is otherwise legible and complete except the last line which is not of much significance. Accordingly, defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) is ignored. So far defect no. 9(iii) is concerned which relates to non-filing of duly certified typed copy of handwritten pages at Annexure-2 & 3, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also ignored.

2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.P. Case No. 96/2019 for the offences registered under sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Miss Babita Mittal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

2. Amit Kumar Paswan @ Amit Kumar --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birendra Burman, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through Video Conferencing.

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.-98/2020 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. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-96/2020 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. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-94/2020 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. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-90/2020 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. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-95/2020 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. 3 Sh.Anish Bhola, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the CR No.-88/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 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.

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.-78/2020 Page No.-1 of 3 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. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,72,858/­. The brief facts of the present case are as under :­ 1.1 That the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprises and doing the business of government electrical contractor since 1995.

1.2 That defendant No. 2 is known to the plaintiff for more than 20 years and defendant No. 2 was running his business of sale of electrical goods as proprietor/partner of defendant No. 1 for the last 7/8 years from the aforesaid address and presently doing the business from the top floor of the aforesaid address.

1.3 That in the first week of March, 2015 defendant No. 2 had requested for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for some urgent business need for one week and considering the old friendship with defendant no. 2, the plaintiff had agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ to the defendants but defendant No. 2 was insisting to increase the amount from Rs. 2,00,000/­ and accordingly, the plaintiff had agreed to give Rs. 2,01,000/­ to the defendants as a friendly loan for one week to the defendant and transferred an amount of Rs. 2,01,000/­ on 09.03.2015 by RTGS No. 17673 from the account of his firm M/s S.K. Enterprises Page 2 of 10 bearing No. 034902000001291 with Indian Overseas Bank, Roop Nagar, Delhi to the account of defendant No. 1 bearing No. 914020024386296 with Axis Bank, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi having IFSC code No. UTIB0001838.

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

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

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Rural, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

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

1.The Third Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur Range, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Allanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.

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.

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

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML 2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5102 of 2020 To

1.The District Sessions Judge (Special Judge for P.C.R. Cases), Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

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

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

1.The Principal Sessions Judge -cum- PCR Court, Pudukkottai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5135 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellanoor Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

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

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

1.The Third Additional District Judge / PCR Court, Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Melur, Madurai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

2.Since the petitioner, who is the retired employee of the Transport Corporation, claims to have not been paid with the surrender leave salary of 24.5 days for the period from 2011 to 2019, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for direction in that regard.

3.The petitioner would submit that he has already made a representation dated 03.03.2020 in this regard, which is said to be pending. If the said representation is directed to be disposed of within stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured.

2. The petitioners herein are the agent of M/s.Cochin Air Cargo Customs Clearing Agent (Shipping clearing and Freight Forwarding Agent) is licensed Customs Brokerage Company Lic No.1/2012, having office near at International Airport, Shanmugam, Trivandram, Kerala.

3. During the course of the business, the petitioners' concern got an order for shipment of “Air inlet automobile spare parts” from a new customer named 'Swiss Global' having office at New Delhi and after receiving KYC form, GST No., certificate of import export code, proprietor PAN and Aadhar card, accepted the shipment through Tiruchirappalli Airport. After getting shipment bills number from the exporter, the petitioners received the goods at Trichy Airport and the same has been sent for customs clearance on 09.06.2019. but, the second respondent did not give customs clearance due to non availability of E-way bill. After getting E-way bill from the exporter, the petitioners sent the same to the second respondent. But the second respondent detained the goods on 10.06.2019.

2.The petitioner has been transferred from Tirunelveli to Chennai, Egmore Railway Police Station. The petitioner, who is working as a Head Constable in Tirunelveli Railway Police Station, has now been asked to join at Egmore Railway Police Station in the same post.

3.Since it is an issue of transfer and an administrative order, it may not be proper on the part of this Court to examine either reasons for transfer or also the grievances of the petitioner. It is for the http://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 W.P(MD)Nos.6127 of 2020 authorities to examine the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been relieved from Tirunelveli with a direction to join at Chennai. But, he has still not joined at Chennai.

2. I had the benefit of hearing Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, namely, the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation and the Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2), Madurai City Municipal Corporation. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

3. The petitioner in his affidavit had stated that the property bearing plot No.131, East Fifth Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai Town, originally belonged to his mother, and later devolved to the petitioner. The assessment was also transferred in his name in the revenue records. He claims to have paid the property tax, water tax, drainage maintenance charges up to second half year of 2017-2018. The petitioner was employed in Alagappa University and owing to that, had let out the property on rent and the tenant had put the property to commercial use. This was during the period 2015–2017. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that originally the property was assessed to pay at around Rs.3,000/- per half year. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed and in the same time, the rental value per square feet at Rs.9/- had been fixed and a demand has been raised for a sum of Rs.47,580/- which has been claimed to be the property tax assessed per half year. The learned counsel claims that this is highly un-reasonable and also complains that necessary opportunity had not been granted to him prior to re-assessment of the property tax. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

Sales rise 7.66% to Rs 172.38 crore

Mary Pratt, believed to be one of the last surviving members of the women's baseball league which was celebrated in the Hollywood film "A League of Their Own," has died. She was 101. The baseball icon Pratt pitched in the 1940s for the Rockford Peaches, one of the original teams in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. She was the last surviving member of the Peaches. She died peacefully in her sleep at the John Scott Nursing home in Quincy, Massachusetts. "We are terribly sad to report that former Rockford Peaches and Kenosha Comets pitcher, Mary Pratt passed away on May 6th. She was 101 years old," the AAGPBL wrote on its Twitter account. "Mary was the last known original Peaches player that played on the 1943 team. Her stories, her energy will be missed for a long time." The league was immortalized in the 1992 film which was directed by Penny Marshall and starred Tom Hanks and Geena Davis. Born in 1918 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Pratt joined the inaugural season of

Hollywood star Mark Wahlberg and Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House have joined hands to provide food to the city's healthcare workers and first responders. The Boston-based burger chain Wahlburgers - run by Wahlberg brothers, Mark, Donnie and Paul - has been shipping its patties to the steak house in Midtown to be cooked up, and the city's legendary firefighter themed sports bar Bravest have been helping deliver the meals. "They wanted to honour the hospital workers and first responders," Gerard Fitzgerald, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, told Page Six. The meal deliveries started in Manhattan last week and end in Staten Island on Monday. The 'Jason Bourne' star said it was nice to help champion for someone else and give them the credit they deserve. "Not being able (to have our restaurants) fully operational these past several weeks has been heartbreaking for our entire organization. But that hasn't stopped our commitment to supporting the communities we ...

Dubbing Congress' criticism of the central government's handling of COVID-19 crisis as "absurd", the BJP on Saturday said the opposition party is weakening the country's fight against COVID-19 instead of extending cooperation. BJP's national media incharge Anil Baluni said Congress leaders, on a regular basis, are making "absurd statements on the behest of their party president Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, to remain relevant in news". Baluni said the BJP-led government at the Centre welcomes Opposition's constructive suggestions in the battle against COVID-19, but "the opposition party should not do politics" over the pandemic. "Rather than becoming a part of the battle against COVID-19, the Congress is unfortunately resorting to politics and its leaders are trying to weaken the fight by making absurd statements, Baluni said. Underscoring that India has done relatively well than other countries and has been praised for effectively handling the coronavirus, Baluni said the Congress ..

The Centre for Women's Development Studies (CWDS) has developed long-overdue indicators to assess gender sensitivity in governance.

Indra Chopra looks at the dowry custom cloaked within current-day marriages.

Dilution or outright waiver of punishment if a rapist offers to marry his victim is an extra-legal step, one that is not written into law anywhere. But it continues to be entertained because the internalisation of stigmatisation is wide-spread, and even the victims believe it. Shoma Chatterji reports.

Manjari Singh reports on the opening of the Lucknow branch of Sheroes Hangout, a café run and managed by acid attack survivors under the guidance of the humanitarian organisation “Stop Acid Attacks”