This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 28.06.2024 for A.Y.2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

"1. The Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.15,60,115/- claimed by the appellant u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Alternatively, the interest income earned by the appellant from the investments in a co-operative bank is also eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw all or any one of the above grounds of appeal."

1. By way of the present the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 28/12/2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 25/12/2019, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.

2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.3577/Mum/2024

A.Y.2017-2018 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Officer was not justified in disallowing the bonafide claim of deduction u/s 80P12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NPAC) in dismissing the appeal as infructuous and not deciding the appeal on merit as per the Grounds of Appeal

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('State Commission') in FA No. 875/2014 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navsari, ('the District Forum') order dated 28.11.2013 wherein the District Forum had allowed the complaint by the Petitioner.

2.      As per report of the Registry there is a delay of 91 days in filing of the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking Condonation of delay, the same is condoned.

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.179/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)

(a), 313, 317(5), 303(2) & 318(4) of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. The First Bail Application No.11314/2024 filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the challan.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsels further submit that the Police after completion of investigation has [2024:RJ-JP:46166] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13786/2024] submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Counsels also submit that the petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

1. This third bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.197/2024 registered at Police Station Nagar, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 303(2), 61(2)(a) & 313 of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. The First Bail Application No.11090/2024 filed by the accused- petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2024 and the Second Bail Application No.13130/2024 filed by the accused- petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated [2024:RJ-JP:46162] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13773/2024] 25.10.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 The matter pertains to the Year 2021. From a perusal of the Court file it is noted that no sincere efforts are taken by the counsel representing the parties, to contest the instant matter.

Even today, when the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Kumawat for Mr. Shailender Balwada For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide an advertisement in the Year 2012, applications were invited for the [2024:RJ-JP:46382] (3 of 3) [CW-2354/2019] post of Constable moreover, total seats intake for the said post were approximately 49898.

It is further submitted that final result was declared and subsequent selection is made. Moreover, a legal notice was filed by the petitioner long ago.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred to as 'MVC-III') under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') which are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'EDMC'). EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation').

1. The Miscellaneous application has been moved for clarification in respect of directions issued by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 194/2024 dated 30.09.2024.

2. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks. Respondents are directed to submit their reply within six weeks through E-filing portal, preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.

3. Applicant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondents by both ways and also on available email.

M A No. 19/2024(CZ) Dr. Brijmohan Sapoot Kala Sanskriti Sewa Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan

4. Applicant is directed to supply the copy of the application and relevant documents to the Respondent(s) within a week and after compliance of service, the applicant has to submit an affidavit that the notice and copy of the application have been served upon the respondent(s).

1. In this original application, one of the Alumni of Respondent No. 2, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has made an allegation of large-scale felling of trees within the campus without any permission by the competent authority. The allegation is that the trees of Shagaun, Sandalwood, Mango, etc. have been cut.

2. The Tribunal on 31.07.2024 had issued notice to the respondents and had also formed a two-member Joint Committee with a direction to the Committee to visit the site and ascertain the correct position and submit the report.

3. The Joint Committee has submitted the report dated 29.10.2024 disclosing that the Divisional Forest Officer, Varanasi in the year 2022- 23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (till now) had granted permission to cut 135 trees in the campus. But as against this, Respondent No. 2 had cut 149 trees, and university could not clarify the position in respect of 14 trees. The Joint Committee had found that 6 Mango, 3 Gold Mohar, 1 Kathal and 2 Mahua trees were illegally cut on the spot for which the Forest Department of Varanasi has registered the Forest Offence No. 43/2024- 25 dated 23.10.2024. The report of the Joint Committee further discloses that Committee constituted by the Forest Department, Varanasi had found that total 161 trees were cut in the campus and permission only for 135 trees was granted, therefore, 26 trees were cut by the university administration without the permission of the Forest Department for which the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi had sent the letter no. 1053/2-43 dated 15.10.2024 to the Deputy Director, Forest (Central), Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The report further reflects that 7 sandalwood trees have been cut illegally without any permission.

11/11/2024 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 0006/2024, registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-D IPC and sections 5(l)6 and 11/12 of POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner on the date of alleged incident forcibly took the victim Mst.'R' away from the company of her mother and took her to Rawatsar, Nyolkhi, Sonadi etc. Thereafter, the victim Mst.'R' was subjected to forcible sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal the statements of the victim Mst.'R' would indicate that at the time when she was being forcibly taken away [2024:RJ-JD:45324] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8220/2024] from the company of her mother, neither she nor her mother shouted for any help. Further, while she was forced to travel with the petitioner in public transportation to various places, she despite having ample opportunities did not shout for any help or inform anyone about the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the behaviour of the victim Mst.'R' is highly unnatural and indicates that she has levelled false allegations against the petitioner only with a view to falsely rope him in a criminal case.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mohammad Tahzeeb, impugning the order dated 27.09.2024 as well as 04.10.2024 whereby 308.14 tons of coal, which is claimed to be the property of the petitioner, has been given in custody of the respondent No. 2 and the prayer for giving zimma of the same to the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the proprietor of Lalpahar Coal Depot, Tinsukia, Assam and operates a lawful business of coal processing and distribution with requisite statutory licenses and authorization including GST registration and NOC from local authorities.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State Respondent. Also heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The other respondents are not represented, though notices are duly served.

The present petition is filed under section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2012, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.25(J)/2000, acquitting the accused respondent from the charges under section 304/149 IPC.

Perused the grounds of preferring the appeal against acquittal.

11.11.2024 Herd Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

As Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has entered Page No.# 3/3 appearance on behalf of the State respondent No.1, a copy of the petition along with the documents annexed thereto be furnished to him during the course of the day.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 11/11/2024 Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (New Section 483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jashim Uddin Laskar, son of Late Jalal Uddin Laskar, resident of Village- Barnagad, P.O. Kalibaribazar, P.S. Algapur, District-Hailakandi, seeking bail in Silchar P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 1935/2023 registered under Sections 379 IPC (Section New 303 BNS) corresponding to G.R. No. 3650/2023, wherein he was arrested on 11.09.2024 and is in custody since then.

11.11.2024 Heard Shri A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant, namely, Jiarul Haque, who has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhuragaon PS Case No.78/2024, under Sections 447/376/503/34 of IPC.

Also heard Shri K. K. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

Page No.# 2/2 Call for the Case Diary, fixing 29.11.2024.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the offences involved are serious in nature a bare reading of the allegations which has been registered in the form of a complaint would show that the same are concocted. He has highlighted the aspect that though the alleged incident is on 04.06.2024, the complaint has been lodged on 27.08.2024.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, for the respondent No.2.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner, namely, Shri Abir Dutta, son of Late Jagat Chandra Dutta, resident of Village/Town- Ward No.7, South Amolapatty, Mohanghat, Near Borah Hyundai, District- Dibrugarh has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in C.I.D. P.S. Case No.11/2024 (C.R. Case No. 4427/204) registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

3. The matter relates to alleged illegal claim of land acquisition compensation of land relating to Dag Nos. 8 and 9 under Jhapora Gaon of Dibrugarh Town Protection (DTP) Dyke/Mathauri that was constructed in the year 1954-56, which is Government land and allegedly purchased by father of the petitioner late Jagat Chandra Dutta during his lifetime in the year 1971.

11.11.2024 Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the Page No.# 3/3 judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and appeal as such the petitioner may be allowed to remain on previous bail or to go on bail.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-2 (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 52(T)/18 convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo with Life Imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default the accused shall have to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR on 18.02.2018 by one Ashok Chik (PW2), who is the brother of the deceased Sankar Chik. In the said FIR, the informant did not name anybody as accused and the allegation was that some unknown miscreant had left his younger brother near the Kali Mandir after killing him. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was done whereafter the charge sheet was submitted. On framing of the charges and denial thereof, the formal trial had begun in which 15 numbers of prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were also exhibited including the sketch map. Apart from the statements made before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the statements of 3 nos. of witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the evidence, the appellant - accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he had denied the evidence against him.

Date : 11.11. 2024 Heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

It is submitted by Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that charge sheet vide C.S. No. 11/24, dated 31.03.2024 has already been submitted Page No.# 2/2 in connection with Kazigaon P.S. Case No. 87/2023 under Sections 120B/ 273/ 379/ 418/ 420/411 IPC read with Section 59(II) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach before the trial court with an appropriate application seeking zimma of 125 bags of local areca nuts.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Faruque Al Bash has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

Case diary is received.

The allegation in the FIR reveals that the daughter of the informant was dragged by the petitioner to an unknown place on his bike and sexually assaulted her.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sheikh Abdur Rezzaque Ahmed,

2. Rukia Khatun and 3. Sheikh Junayed Ahmed have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order, dated 28.06.2024, this Court granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and they have appeared before the I.O. and gave their statements.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamir Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/8 19.12.2022 (for more than 1 year 10 months) in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 170/2022, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.12.2022 about 739 grams of heroin was seized from the possession of 4 (four) accused persons including the present petitioner and on 19.12.2022, one Nilov Jyoti Nath, S.I. of Police had lodged an FIR to that affect before the Officer-In-Charge of Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station. On receipt of the said FIR, Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 165/2022 was registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against four numbers of accused persons, including the present petitioner on 30.04.2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

...

19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents Page No.# 10/14 produced during the trial answered the description of "the date of birth certificate from the school" or "the matriculation or equivalent certificate"

from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating "that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years". In the cross-examination, she admitted that M's age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that "when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor". This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-

11.11.2024 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Page No.# 2/6 Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 25/07/2023 vide Mankachar PS case No. 308/2023 u/s 376 AB/511 IPC read with Section 8/10 of POCSO Act and section 67 of IT Act.

3. The allegation as per FIR is that on the date of incident when the minor daughter of the informant while visited the house of her father-in-law, the present petitioner along with other co-accused No. 3 and 4 handed over the victim to accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had kissed the victim girl on her face and different parts of her body and tried to commit rape on her. They also took the photographs of the said incident and made them viral through mobiles.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. By filing this petition u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Sunu Ali @ Md.

Page No.# 2/8 Nur Hussain has prayed for granting regular bail in connection with NDPS case No. 187/2024 u/s 21©/29 of NDPS Act (arising out of STF PS case no. 20/23) pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The instant case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of heroine from the hidden chamber of Tata Yodha vehicle bearing no. AS-25EC-4464 and the present petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with the alleged contraband. Accordingly, the recovered items were seized and the present accused/ petitioner was arrested.

The appeal was heard on admission and reserved on 25/09/2024.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28/10/2021 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No.43/2016 [Bisan Lal Vs. Rajau and another] arising out of judgment and decree dated 29/06/2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Nainpur in Civil Suit No.24-A/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments on admission it was argued that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that Tahsildar Nainpur under the provision of Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has passed the order in favour of the appellant. In First Appeal, certain documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were produced but they were not taken on record. One registered sale deed was also produced.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2 W.P. No.10021-2024

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/accused in S.C.No.561 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1)(i), 363 of IPC, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is 4 years.

Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024

in &

2. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 882/2024 of the Thrissur West Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 506, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; one day between 10 and 15th of May 2023, the accused wrongfully confined the survivor in a class room at Thrissur Kerala Varma College, and after causing hurt to her, he undressed and committed rape on her. The accused also uttered obscene words and intimidated the survivor, saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would murder her. Thus, the accused has 2024:KER:83438 committed the above offences.

Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1900/2024 & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1905/2024 These applications under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicants/accused persons in S.C.No.1313 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kollam. The accused persons11 in number have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. They have been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore the maximum period of imprisonment they will have to undergo is five years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl. Appeal Nos.1900 & 1905 of 2024

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the first accused in Crime No. 690/2024 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354 A, 354 B and 506(1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(a), 4(1), 6, 5(1), 11(ii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, 'the POCSO Act'), 2012. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2024.

The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.

The Court: Liberty is granted to the advocate-on-record for the claimant to correct the description of the application in the cause title.

By communication dated September 3, 2024, learned sole arbitrator appointed by the court informed the parties that he had resigned from the matter. He thus refused to act as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

2

Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a suit. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) is also pending before the learned Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. As such, this Court must refrain from appointing an arbitrator as the issues involved in the suit are yet to be decided and the application under Section 8 of the said Act has been filed with similar prayers.

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question").

1. By this judgment, I shall decide present claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, filed by the petitioners/ legal representatives of Mr. Yugal Kishor (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who sustained fatal injury in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition and the documents annexed thereto are that on 06.11.2020 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased as pillion rider on a scooter (make-Activa) bearing registration no. HR51AN-8607, being driven by his colleague Dev Narayan Thakur at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was going to his house from his workplace. When they reached near Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. HR63B-5016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.1 Sunil at a high speed, rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit the scooter with a great force. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and came under the wheel of the offending truck and sustained head injury. The deceased was immediately removed to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared and he was declared 'brought dead' and his postmortem was conducted at Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Amrinder Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

Complainant's Case

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused and his parents approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if the accused fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Gursharan Singh Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

Complainant's Case

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused, his wife and his son approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The son of the accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if he fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the son of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Party wise detailed break up of the amount pertaining to each of the debtors whose debt has been assigned vide aforesaid agreement.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Details of Actual amount paid by the ARC to the bank pertaining to each individual debt.

(iii) Copies of Correspondence with regards to the above between the Assignor (Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd) and Assignee Invent Assets Securitisation Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd prior to and subsequent to the alleged Assignment

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I satyapal Singh was working as a lecturer in Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI) at Computer Engineering Department from Aug 2008 to Aug 2018.

Page 1 of 8

Kindly provide me the following information under the RTI Act 2005

1. Provide me Seniority List of DSGMC employees.

2. Provide me my Personal Account Number as a DSGMC Employee.

3. Provide me my Employee Code as DSGMC employee."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

[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;

These two appeals are preferred challenging an order of the Execution Court allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.A. No.52 of 2015. Of them, C.M.A. No.460 of 2023 was filed by the purchaser in an auction sale held in E.P. No.168 of 2013, which the appellant/workman in C.M.A.No. 944 of 2023 had laid for executing an award passed under Sec.33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1.2 Broadly the issue is that, in the said E.P. Respondents 1 to 5 have taken out an application in E.A.52 of 2015, staking a claim to about 5.43 acres in SyNo:298 of Kuniyamuthur village, and it came to be allowed by the Execution Court. This block of 5.43 acres was part of a larger extent of 37.0 acres, spread over multiple survey numbers, and it was brought to court-auction-sale and was purchased by the appellant in CMA 460 of 2023. The sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is yet to be confirmed by the Execution Court in terms of Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. The decision of the Execution Court in allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 over 5.43 acres implies that the Execution Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.460 & 944 of 2023 may not now confirm the auction-sale as pertaining to this block of land.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the ‘learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Villupuram’ ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.69 of 2011 modifying the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the ‘Principal Sub Court, Villupuram’ ['Trial Court' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. Case of the Plaintiffs:

3. The Suit Properties along with some other properties belonged to one Adhimoolam. The said Adhimoolam died intestate 40 years before the date of Plaint. Govindasamy and Krishnan were the sons of said Adhimoolam.