U.K.

UK consultancy reduces design cycles by weeks, cuts prototyping costs, and designs better products for global clients like Virgin Mobile and Hasbro

Shah Rukh Khan is set to appear in a film titled King

[COSATU] The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) is deeply concerned by the Minister for Communications and Digital Technologies, Mr. S. Malatsi's sudden withdrawal of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) SOC Ltd Bill from Parliament where it was being engaged upon by the National Assembly's Portfolio Committee: Communications and Digital Technologies.

The first ever full-scale demonstration of a nuclear reactor designed to passively cool itself in an emergency was a success, showing that it should be possible to build nuclear plants without the risk of dangerous meltdown

The victory of former US President Donald Trump, and his return to the US President office following the US Presidential Elections of 2024, has ruffled many feathers in Hollywood.

1. The present Petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C Act') have been filed by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties from work order dated 03.09.2014.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that:-

a. It is stated that the work order bearing No.JMD/SUBURIO- 67/FW/JKR/LOI/01, dated 03.09.2014 was issued by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner herein for design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing, commissioning and handing over of Fire-Fighting system at JMD SUBURIO, Sector- 67, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, for total consideration of Rs.1,69,51,000/-.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

CM(M) 84/2024

1. The Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, to challenge the Order dated 06.12.2023 of the learned Tribunal, dismissing the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ hereinafter), of the M/s Shiv Probuild Pvt. Ltd./Registered Owner of the offending vehicle, to implead M/S. Kundu Nirman as a party.

2. The offending vehicle i.e. APOLLO make HIDROSTATIC PAVER FINISHER MODE of which the petitioner is the registered owner bearing No. 6H 3301/1200001, was handed over to the Respondent, M/s Kundu Nirman, pursuant to a Work Order dated 01.06.2022, on the specified terms and conditions. The Respondent being the contractor of Pubic Works Department („PWD‟ hereinafter), was carrying out the assigned work of strengthening and construction of the road, when the accident occurred involving this vehicle on 25.06.2022 at about 12:30 a.m., resulting in death of Mr. Rajesh. FIR No. 172/2022 under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter) read with Sections 3/181, 146/196, 39/192, 134/187, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 („M.V. Act‟ hereinafter) was registered at Police Station, Roop Nagar, Delhi.

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

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

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

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

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

18.2 The above facts revealed that the TAL had neither submitted the correct ST-3 returns showing the above taxable amount nor deposited the Service Tax on the taxable amount representing the amount received from the SKOL as License endorsement fees. It appears that TAL had deliberately suppressed their receipts against License endorsement fees and have also sought to mislead the investigation by claiming that the said receipts are not related to renting of the immoveable property while both TAL the service provider and SKOL the recipient of service have accounted for the amount paid as license endorsement fees as Rent in their Balance sheets. It therefore appears from the foregoing that the noticee has resorted to fraud, willful mis-statement, and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. M/s TAL have thus suppressed the taxable value to ST/52898/2018 the tune of Rs. 18,93,66,667/- from the Service Tax department and evaded the Service Tax amounting to Rs 2,02,15,467/-(Service Tax Rs 1,96,26,667 + Ed Cess 3,92,533/- + Ed Cess Rs 1,96,267/-) in respect of taxable services rendered by them for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.01.2013 by contravening the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Thus, the service tax not paid by TAL on the value of taxable services suppressed by them is recoverable from them by invoking the extended period under proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 along with interest at the appropriate rate as per Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994."

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

1.      This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dated 16.12.2020 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressals Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 188 of 2020 holding that the appellants herein are not "consumers" under the purview of the Act and dismissing the complaint filed by them.

2.      The delay of 80 days in the filing of this complaint has been considered in the light of the fact that the impugned order was dated 16. 12.2020 and while the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of order, this period coincided with the COVID-19 Pandemic and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 the period for limitation stood extended.

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

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

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

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

learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar

The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14.

We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law.

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

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

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

The Court:- Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate prays for hearing of this application under section11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the arbitrability of a dispute should not be decided by this Bench. This issue should also be decided by the learned arbitrator. Mr. Mitra further contends that once there is an arbitration clause and arbitration has been invoked under section 21 of the said Act, all that this court is supposed to do is to appoint an independent person to act as an arbitrator.

2

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent opposes such prayer and submits that the order passed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of Mr. Mitra's client, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Mr. Sinha has produced an order dated 15th April, 2024 passed in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute has been raised. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that it would be up to the learned single judge whether to decide the question or to adjourn the proceedings, in order to enable the Division Bench to proceed. Mr. Sinha submits that the erstwhile Single Bench had adjourned this matter, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble appeal Court.

The Court:- This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1964/Kol/2019 and C.O. No.39/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the invocation of sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of appellant, the appellant's claim that expenditure of Rs.9,77,888/ was incurred in relation to the exempt income was not correct?

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/491/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

a. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in granting relief to the assessee without considering the fact that neither the assessee nor the amalgamating company informed the AO about the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore defect in not issuing notice in the name of amalgamated company remained a curable defect under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

:

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

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

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

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

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

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the ‘Award dated October 31, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.7252 of 2016’ ['impugned Award' for short] by the 'Special Sub Judge – II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short]. The petitioner in the aforesaid Original Petition has filed C.M.A. No.1406 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The second respondent / Insurance Company has filed C.M.A. No.855 of 2022 praying to set aside the impugned Award. This Common Judgment will now dispose of both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

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

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

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

These two Arbitration Original Petitions have been filed under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the Impugned Arbitral Awards both dated 22.04.2022 have been challenged.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)Nos.646 & 647 of 2022

2. The Respondent herein was the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal and had filed two claims in respect of Chimney No.I and Chimney No.II under Work Order No.AXON/WO/017/2010-2011 (Chimney No.I) dated 09.08.2010 and Work Order No.AXON/WO/019/2010-2011 (Chimney No.II) dated 21.08.2010 respectively.

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

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

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

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

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

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

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

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

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

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

1. The present petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act'), by the original claimant seeking to quash and set aside the arbitral award dated 4th February 2022, passed by the sole arbitrator. FACTS

2. On 5th May 2016, a tender was published by the Divisional Railway Manager (Mechanical), Central Railway, Mumbai (for short 'Railways') towards the work of Pest and Rodent Control, in railway Diksha Rane 24. ARBP 43-23-FINAL.doc passenger coaches maintained at CSTM, WB, MZN, DRT and LDT, Coaching Depots and Rodent Control in Coaching Depots yard and premises. The petitioner participated in the tender process and on 7 th June 2016, was declared as the successful bidder. Accordingly, the contract work of the said tender was awarded to the petitioner, for an amount of Rs.1,96,32,255/-. The contract period was for three years i.e. from 30th November 2016 to 29th November 2019.

11.11.2024 Ms. Rasheeda Shaheen, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2-Showkat Ali Para has expired and is now representing the respondent No. 1 & 3.

Let requisite application along with death certificate for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Showkat Ali Para be submitted by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of contesting the case of the petitioners.

In the meantime, an application CM 733/2024 has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 3 with respondent No. 2 being no more, as such, cannot be referred for the purpose of being an applicant seeking release of the awarded amount as awarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 to 9.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court dated 05.10.2024 in O.S.No.7166/2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court also sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing or acting upon the invocation notice dated 28.09.2024 and from taking any further action regarding transfer or encumbrance of the pledged shares of Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (100%), Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (51%) or Agara Techzone Pvt. Ltd. (12%) or from enforcing any security under the Bond Trust Deed and Pledge Agreements, until final adjudication of the rights of the parties by the Trial Court and inter alia sought for the relief on I.A.No.2 to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from enforcing or acting upon invocation notice dated 28.09.2024. The respondents also filed applications and order is passed only on I.A.Nos.2 to 4. It is also borne out from the records that caveat was also filed and learned counsel for both the parties were heard and suit was filed before the Vacation Court and I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 11(3) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act to take up the matter before the Vacation Court and the same was allowed.

FAT 191 of 2020.

Mr. Sudvasattva Banerjee Mr. Shounak Mukherjee, Mr. Shubradip Roy, Advs.

..........for the appellant/ plaintiff/decree holder in FAT 191 of 2020 and for the respondent in FAT 194 of 2020.

2

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter arises out of a judgment on admission passed by the Trial Court and the consequential decree.

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.