2. The other appeal (No.7of 2013) has been preferred by Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) which has challenged the legality etc. of a subsequent Order No.30/2012-13 dated 28.12.2012 issued by AERA in exercise of powers under Section 13(1)(b) of the AERA Act read with Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act 1994(AAI Act) to re-determine the amount of DF at IGI Airport, New 4 Delhi. By this order AERA reviewed the earlier DF Order dated 14.11.2011 in a small measure, reduced the rate of DF w.e.f. 01.01.2013 and extended the levy period upto April, 2016 subject to further review. The FIA, it appears, had challenged the earlier DF order dated 14.11.2011 also. Its stand is that levy of DF to bridge the funding gap for IGI Airport is contrary to law and the relevant agreements which cast a duty upon DIAL to arrange for funds for development of the Airport. It is also pleaded that the project cost has been blown-up beyond realistic proportions and AERA has failed to exercise the required level of scrutiny which would have kept the final project cost at a reasonable and permissible level.

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.

Case No. 36 of 2019 1

Brief facts and allegations

2. JSW Paints is stated to be a part of the JSW group of companies, which is involved in several sectors, including steel, energy, cement, etc. JSW Paints was incorporated in the year 2016 and launched its decorative paints in May 2019 in Bengaluru and Hubli in Karnataka. JSW Paints has introduced many innovative approaches in the paints industry for the first time in India.

3. Asian Paints is a listed company and is primarily engaged in manufacture and sale of decorative and industrial paints. According to its Annual Report for the FY 2018-19, it is the 3rd largest paint company in Asia and largest in India. In India, it has 8 manufacturing plants for decorative paints and 2 for industrial paints.

2. The Informant is an individual user/consumer of the services provided by PayU and other e-payment gateways.

3. PayU is a fintech company that provides payment technology solutions to online merchants. It was founded in the year 2002 and has its head-quarter at Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It allows online businesses to accept and process payments through payment methods that can be integrated with web and mobile applications. Further, PayU is the e-payment division of Naspers, a global internet and entertainment group and one of the leading technology investors in the world. Naspers is a leading financial services provider in the global growth markets and is engaged in the business of providing payment gateway services and other digital payment enablement services to both consumers and businesses. It also holds a Non- Banking Financial Company ('NBFC') license in India to offer credit services.

5 Mr. Rishi Gulati, "IGBT-based power quality compensation solutions are high Business end solution in terms of technology as compare to non IGBT Development which our company manufacturing. As per my market Manager, experience, I can say that approximately IGBT based power Cummins India quality compensation solution cost double to the customer as Ltd. compare to non IGBT base solutions. Switching speed is in nano seconds in IGBT based solutions whereas switching speed is in milliseconds in TSC or non-IGBT solutions."

2. Brief facts and allegations in the present case are summarised as under:

a. The Informants i.e., Mr. Meet Shah and Mr. Anand Ranpara are individuals residing in Ahmedabad and Rajkot, respectively.

b. OP-1 is the Ministry of Railways, which controls Indian Railways, a departmental undertaking of the Government of India which is administered by the Railway Board. The Ministry of Railways through Railway Board also owns and administratively controls a large number of Public Sector Undertakings including IRCTC.

c. OP-2, IRCTC is a public sector enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be an extended arm of Indian Railways. OP-2 is, inter-alia, engaged in online ticketing operations of Indian Railways.

2. The Informant is stated to be a company engaged in manufacture of high performance and highly sophisticated machines for track maintenance, track laying and track renewal. OP-1 is a private limited company incorporated in India and OP-2 is a partnership firm established in India. OP-3, OP-4 and OP- 6 are Chinese companies engaged in developing railway track maintenance machinery. OP-5 is the Indian Railways, a Department of the Government of India.

Case No. 45 of 2019 2

3. The Informant states that OP-5 periodically invites tenders for the supply of track maintenance machinery. In this connection, it is averred that OP-5 invited electronic bids for supply of Dynamic Track Stabilizing Machine vide Tender No. 'TM 1709' which inter alia required that 'Manufacturer or their agents may note that an agent can represent or quote on behalf of only one firm in a tender' [Clause 1.4.1 of 'Instructions to Tenderers]. Further, Check List-II of tender document also reiterates the same by stating that 'Manufacturer or their sole selling agents may note that an agent can represent only one firm in a tender and any manufacturer cannot submit more than one offer against a tender through different sole selling agents, or one directly and others through sole selling agents. In such a situation all the offers will be rejected.'

Case No. 34 of 2019 1

2. The Informant is an association of the plywood manufacturers in State of Assam. The OP is a public sector undertaking of Government of Assam established for production of methanol and formalin.

3. As per the Information, formalin is used by plywood units for manufacture of resin, which, in turn, is used as a binding agent in the manufacture of plywoods. The Informant states that formalin is purchased by them from OP, which is the sole unit in North-Eastern India manufacturing the same. The Informant has alleged that the OP is abusing its dominant position by charging a discriminatory price of formalin in State of Assam and State of West Bengal, while it charges Rs. 15,300/- per Metric Tonne ('PMT') in State of Assam, it charges only Rs. 11,000/- PMT in State of West Bengal.

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is a pharmaceutical wholesaler who had placed an order for purchase of drugs from USV on 31.07.2019. Kundan vide its letter dated 06.08.2019, confirmed receipt of the said order of the Informant along with documents and demand draft.

3. The Informant alleged that USV imposed the following unfair conditions on the Informant:

 Collection of goods from Pune C&F agent (Kundan), which is 360 km away from the Informant's location.  The Informant is not entitled to return any product purchased from USV for any reason whatsoever including those on account of expiry or damage.  Advance payment to be paid every time.  The Informant cannot purchase the products of USV from any other C&F agent.

2. Anti TB Department Mr. K. S. Sachdeva, DDG, Room No. 243-A/523 'C' Wing, Nirman Bhawan Opposite Party No. 2 New Delhi

3. RITES India Ltd.

MSM Division, RITES Bhawan-II, 4th Floor, Plot No. 144, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003 Opposite Party No. 3 Haryana CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member Case No. 02 of 2020 1 Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The Information in the present case has been filed by Mr. Ambalal V. Patel (hereinafter, the 'Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the "Act") against Central Medical Service Society (hereinafter, the 'CMSS/ Opposite Party No. 1 / OP-1'), Anti TB Department (hereinafter, the 'Opposite Party No. 2 / OP-2') and RITES India Ltd (hereinafter, the 'Opposite Party No. 3 / OP-3'), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Hereinafter, OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 are collectively referred to as 'Opposite Parties / OPs'.

2. The Informant has filed the information for Teleclub (Alberta Limited), Canada in the capacity of its CEO. It is submitted by the Informant that Teleclub is one of the international telecom carriers in Canada.

3. As per publically available information, OP-1 is an Indian subsidiary of Britain based Vodafone Group PLC, which started Indian operations in 2007 with the acquisition of controlling interest in Hutch Essar. In 2018, Vodafone acquired Idea Cellular and became the largest telecom service provider in India. Likewise, OP-2 and OP-3 are also major telecom service providers operating in India. Further, as per publicly available information, OP-4 is the largest Information and Communications Technology ("ICT") service provider, systems integrator and all-in-one network solutions company operating in India, which has partnered with major network operators to deliver global network solutions.

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Tender No. A/59919/Shirt Khakhi/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec, dated 19.06.2017 for procurement of 1,38,251 Shirt Man's Cellular Cotton 1973 Pattern (Modified) Khaki ("Item"). The Informant has stated that out of 14 firms which participated, only 09 qualified for the opening of their commercial bids.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said four firms (Opposite Parties). As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

Table 1: Details of Bidders S. No Firm Name Rate (in Rs) Status

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. A/59876/Durries/ Clo-1/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec dated 15.12.2015 for procurement of 8,18,009 Durries IT OG ("Item").

3. The Informant averred that 09 firms participated in the said tender including Standard Gram/OP-2 and out of the said 09 firms, only 06 qualified for opening of commercial bids. As stated by the Informant, Standard Gram/OP-2 could not qualify in technical evaluation as the firm was not registered with Association of Corporations and Apex Societies of Handlooms/Khadi Village Industries Commission ("ACASH/KVIC") which was a pre-requisite. It is further stated that while the contract was under progress, Standard Gram/OP-2 merged with Integrated Defence/OP-3. Subsequently, the L1 firm (HP Handicraft/OP-1) sublet the manufacture of the Item to Integrated Defence/OP-3 vide Letter No. HPSHHC:173/10(EM)/Durries/838081 dated 23.03.2018.

2. The Informant, a company incorporated in May, 2015, has been operating under the brand name of Treebo Hotels' and is in the business of providing franchising services to budget hotels in India. In addition to this, Treebo also provides service to numerous independent budget hotels who partner with it under its newly launched 'Hotel Superhero' scheme. Under the said scheme, Treebo only provides services such as hotel management technology services, listing on its platform and other online travel aggregators, credit facilities, support and quality control of the staff and hotel management resources etc. but does not provide its brand name.

3. MMT is an Online Travel Agency (OTA) engaged in the business of providing travel and tourism related services in India. It is a part of MakeMyTrip group of companies (MMT Group). OYO, on the other hand, provides budget accommodation to customers and is in the market for providing franchising services to budget hotels under the brand name 'OYO'.

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

Case No. 37 of 2019 1

2. The Informant, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of export of stone aggregates/ boulders and has stated that it exports stone aggregates/ boulders through rakes allotted by OP. For allotment of rakes, the Informant places indent itself or through its consignor at respective railway sidings. The Informant also stated that OP follows quota system for dispatch of rakes. Under such a system, the Informant got rakes allotted to it at various sidings in Howrah and Malda Division of the Eastern Railways, which is OP in the present case.

3. The Informant alleges that from July 2019 onwards, OP stopped allotment of rakes to it and instead, the rakes were allotted to Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of the Indian Railway Board contained in letter No. 2017/TT- III(M)/71/D/10/Quota dated 18.07.2019. The Informant claims that this decision was taken by Indian Railway Board as per the request of the Bangladesh Railway Board. The Informant has stated that non-allotment of rakes has impacted its goodwill amongst its customers as it is not being able to meet its prior commitments.

Case Nos. 36 of 2015, 31 of 2016 and 58 of 2016 33

Koushik Das: Yes, one BCDA N.O.C. is required with the application.

Shri Arajit Das: Yes, that is essential, you prepare your papers I need the orders, otherwise it is problem to me. I have submitted my drug licence number, trade licence number everything.

Koushik Das: Yes, but only those papers are not enough, there are something more, you have deal with Alembic before and done with other parties also.

Shri Arajit Das: that is not required.

2. It was stated that OP-1 is an association of man-made fibre manufacturers in India; OP-2 is the largest producer and seller of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) in India; OP-3 is a company registered in Thailand and promoted by OP-2; and OP-4 is a company belonging to the Aditya Birla Group operating in Indonesia and engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting VSF to customers located in the US, Europe, Turkey, Japan, Korea, China and other countries in both textile and non-woven segments.

3. The Informant alleged that OP-2 is the sole producer of VSF having a market share of almost 100% in India and it is misusing its sole position in the domestic market to squeeze the textile industry consumers. With regard to OP-3 and OP-4, it was alleged that OP-2 imports and markets its products and Case No. 62 of 2016 2 Public Version OP-3, operating from Thailand and OP-4, operating from Indonesia, have joined hands to exploit the Indian market.

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is running a sole proprietorship by the name of M/s Venkateswara Agencies (earlier known as Rohini Agencies) dealing with agricultural machineries, based in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. The Informant has been the authorised dealer of KAMCO from the year 2006, for which dealership agreement dated 28.09.2006 was entered into between Informant and KAMCO. The scope of the agreement included supplying the products of KAMCO to Case No.38 of 2019 1 the customers in West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Srikakulam and Guntur Districts of the state of Andhra Pradesh.

4. Saransh Biotech Pvt. Ltd Opposite Party No. 4 5. Aarav Pharmaceuticals Opposite Party No. 5 6. Laxmi Pharma Opposite Party No. 6 7. M C Pharma Opposite Party No. 7 8. Maa Ambey Enterprises Opposite Party No. 8 9. Goyal Pharma Opposite Party No. 9 10. MD Medical Store Opposite Party No. 10 CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020

Learned counsel for the applicant did not login. The Public Prosecutor was heard through video conferencing. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 06/2020, Police Station Sangaria, District - Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4048/2020. Sunil Jat S/o Shri Suwa Jat, aged about 29 years, resident of Bholi, Tehsil and District Bhilwara, Police Station Mangrop, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4047/2020. Mahrilal S/o Mohan B/c Joshi Age 55 Years R/o Uttarvada Police Station Badisadri, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present.

For Respondent(s) : None present.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Defect pointed out by the office is overruled. Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19). The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 185/2019, Police Station Siwana, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 508/2019 Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 307, 353,332 and 333 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lal Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. D.K. Godara for the complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the parties were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 101/2019, Police Station Jayal, District - Nagaur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 427 & 302 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 283/2019, Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through Jitsi Meet Application.

---Petitioner Versus State, Through P.P

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, through video call For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi-PP, through video call HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the parties were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 167/2019, Police Station Khinvsar, District - Nagaur for the offences under Sections 498-A & 304 IPC.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3665/2020

1. Ganesh Lal Joshi S/o Late Shri Mithu Lal Joshi, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Sadar Bazar, Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.

2. Imak Lal Sain S/o Shri Devi Lal Sain, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bus Stand Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3666/2020

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Merta).

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 10/2020, Police Station Mulasar, District Nagour for the offences under Sections 376, 384 & 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (1)(I), 3(1)(W)(II) & 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:02 PM)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.R. Choudhary Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020 Learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor were heard through video conferencing.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 336/2019, Police Station Gharsana (Sri Ganganagar) for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

1. Gurav Chauhan @ Goru S/o Rakesh Chauhan, aged about 20 years, Resident of Ward No. 25, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

2. Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu S/o Umaid Singh, aged about 22 years, Resident of Ward No. 9, Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Suratgarh, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

----Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 08/05/2020 Lawyers are abstaining from work in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

1. Subash Chandra S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Dhani Ratanpura Bypass, Village Chotala, P.s. Sadar Dabawali, District Sirsa. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

2. Manpreet Singh @ Mana S/o Jasveer Singh, Aged About 19 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA For Respondent(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 fo'o LokLF; laxBu ¼MCY;w- ,p-vks-½] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ,oa dsUnzh; ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk uksoy dksjksuk ok;jl ¼dksfoM&19½ds xaHkhj egkekjh ,oa laØe.k dks QSyus ls jksdus ,oa fu;a=.k ds fy;s tkjh ,Mokbtjh ds dkj.k izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku~ vf/koDrk Jh jkds"k eVksfj;k ,oa fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd Jh vfuy tks"kh dks tfj;s fofM;ks dkWy lquk x;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr eqds"k dh tekur gks pqdh gS ftlds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks eqyfte cuk;k x;k gSA blds foijhr fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tkfgj fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ls 118-5 fdyks MksMk iksLr dh cjkenxh gqbZ gS tks fd okf.kfT;d ek=k gSA vfHk;qDr eqds"k dk izFke tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 06-03-2019 dks pkyku izLrqr gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu^% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk nwljk tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-05-2019 dks lhtj vkWfQlj lquhy dqekj ds c;ku gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3497/2020] lhtj lquhy dqekj ds c;kuksa esa vfHk;qDr eqds"k ds lEcU/k esa vk;s rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij r`rh; tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 22-07-2019 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA xkSjryc gS fd ml le; eqds"k ds fo:) pkyku izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq izkFkhZ&eqyfte ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr pkyku yafcr j[kk x;k Fkk D;ksafd izdj.k esa vuqla/kku iq'isUnzflag o lqHkk'kpUnz }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% izkFkhZ dks tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 16-04-2020 dh vuqikyuk djok;k tkuk vko";d izrhr gksrk gSA fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is"kh ls iwoZ mDr vkns"k dh vuqikyuk lqfuf"pr dh tkosA i=koyh fnukad 15-05-2020 dks lwphc) dh tk;sA (DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 2-/AK (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The District Collector, Jodhpur.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.239 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.62,866/- for the expenses incurred towards medicines and treatment of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident, alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

3. The claimant aged 45 years filed MAC No.239 of 2008 against the driver & owner of the vehicle and the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 12% interest in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident alleged to have occurred on 17.2.2008 around 12.30 p.m.

This Suo-Moto Writ Petition has been taken up pursuant to a note dated 07.05.2020 of Registrar General, which was put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 08.05.2020 and as directed, the same has been listed before this Division Bench today.

We have perused the file and have heard Mr. Rahul Mehra, Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Government of NCT of Delhi and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Director General (Prisons).

It has been noticed that for effective implementation of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Petition (Civil) W.P. (C) 3080/2020 Page 1 of 3 No.1/2020-In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons vide its orders dated 23.03.2020 and 13.04.2020, a High Power Committee (HPC) was constituted by High Court of Delhi to decongest the Jails to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Novel Corona Virus) and as per the recommendations of this Committee dated 28.03.2020, 07.04.2020 and 18.04.2020 and on the basis of orders in WP (C) No.2945/2020 titled as "Shobha Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.", 2177 Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) were released on interim bail for a period of 45 days from the date of their respective release.

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.