1. Leave granted.

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

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

Civil Appeal No.5749 OF 2012

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

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

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

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

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

1. Most of the cases have a chequered history. Initially, petitioners have questioned four notifications ­ two notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by Medical Council of India (for short, ‘the MCI’) and other two notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (for short, ‘the DCI’). The MCI by virtue of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) notified by the Government of India, amended the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Similarly, the other notification issued by MCI called “Post­Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part­II)” to amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The regulations came into force on their publication in the Official Gazette. The other two notifications dated 31.5.2012 issued by DCI were relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the High Court1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2730 of 2018 preferred by the appellant herein.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:-

1

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2) & ANR.) 2 A] The appellant-Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd or VMSL for short) is engaged in providing telecommunication services in different circles.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal the Original Claimant challenges the final judgment and order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CAN No.10094 of 2018.

3. The basic facts culled out from the award dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Arbitrator in the present case are:-

“That the respondent company who is engaged in the business of infrastructure development activities approached the claimant company who is also dealing in the business of providing equipments for 2 Civil Appeal No.2378 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) NO.11011 of 2019) QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD. Vs. JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LTD.

These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether 1 “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof”. The appeals are against a common decision and we shall also deal with both these appeals together in this judgment. The respondent-assessee want their goods to be placed under Chapter heading 5703.90. We shall refer to the specific entries against this item later in the judgment. The respondent, at the material point of time were engaged in the business of manufacture of textile floor coverings and car matting. The subject-goods have been referred to interchangeably by the revenue also as car mattings and car carpets. The respondent, at the material time, were clearing the goods declaring them to be goods against Heading No.570390.90. Effective rate of excise duty on goods under that entry was 8% and education cess at the applicable rate for the subject period. We find this rate of duty, 2 inter-alia, from the order of the Commissioner dealing with the first and the second show-cause notices. The rate of basic excise duty would have been 16% apart from education cess if these goods were classified against goods specified in heading no.8708.99.00. Altogether three show-cause-notices were issued against the respondent over clearance of goods under the said heading. These notices required them to answer as to why they should not be charged the differential rate of duty and interest. We would like to point out here that in the show-cause notices, the respective chapter sub-headings have been referred to as 8708.99.00 and 570390.90 and in the order of the Tribunal also, the sub-headings have been referred to as such. But the authorities themselves in certain places described the sub-headings in shorter numerical forms, as 5703.90 and 8708.00. We find these minor variations in the paper-book. But this variation of the sub- headings represented in numerical form is not of any significance so far as adjudication of these appeals are concerned. The respondent were also to answer as to why penalty should not be 3 imposed upon them in terms of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Rules made thereunder. The first show-cause notice is dated 9th August, 2005 in regard to clearance of goods made during the period between 9 th July, 2004 and 31st March, 2005. They had cleared altogether 8,65,777 pieces of those items in different sizes in that period. The second show-cause notice was issued on 2 nd May, 2006 and related to clearance of 12,02,482 pieces of the same goods for the period between 1st April, 2005 and 31st January, 2006. The third show- cause notice is of 7th March, 2007 and the clearance involved 20,15,412 pieces from 1st February, 2006 to 31st January, 2007. For the period involved in the third show-cause notice, clearance was made by the respondent under Chapter sub-heading no.570500.19, which carried effective rate of duty @8%.

1. The matters have been referred in view of conflicting decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors. 1, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2, T. Velayudhan Achari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 3, and Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors. 4. The question relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45 of List I viz. ‘Banking’ and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament to legislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to the co­operative banks.

1. The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit.

2. The seminal facts which are relevant for the present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises for our consideration are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH that the appellant­plaintiff filed suit before 4 th sub­judge, Chapra Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:14 IST Reason:

seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 15 th 1 September, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the respondents­defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property.

1. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel.

2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA No. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC No. 3740/2013), LPA No. Signature Not Verified 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and LPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court, dated 24.06.2015. Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06

3. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has 16:03:11 IST Reason:

been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “BSSC”) and 2 the other set (referred to as “the aggrieved party appellants”) by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge. The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants were not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected in terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown as not qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of the Court by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench were by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned the judgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect of all questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected in the final results declared.

1. Leave granted.

2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:16 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?

1. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. One appeal (CA 2969/2010) has been preferred by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereafter,"Gujarat Urja"or "GUVN”) ；the second (CA 2793/2010) has been preferred by CLP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Gujarat Torrent Energy Corporation Ltd; later, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd, a generating company, hereafter collectively "CLP”). Both appeals challenge a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity（“APTEL” hereafter).

2. The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) (now “Gujarat Urja”) entered into a power purchase agreement (“PPA”）with CLP on 03.02.1994. In terms of the Signature Not Verified PPA, Gujarat Urja was under an obligation to purchase - and CLP was under Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:10 IST Reason:

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the original plaintiff (in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013 filed in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1), under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 2 and read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 3 in reference to the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 5147/2019 Signature Not Verified and 5350/2019, which reads thus: ­ Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:17 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the 1971 Act” 3 For short, “the 1975 Rules” 2 “We are not inclined to interfere with the Special Leave Petition.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 1 in Second Appeal No. 771/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2011 came to be affirmed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (original plaintiffs) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:13 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the first appellate Court” 2 Ratnagiri3 being RCS No. 25/2005 for permanent injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 20 (State of Maharashtra), restraining them from starting the Solid Waste Disposal Project4 at the suit property, has been decreed. In other words, the trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed (decreed) the same, which decision has been upheld by the High Court in the Second Appeal.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition. By the said writ petition, the appellants had sought following reliefs: ­ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 “8. The petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be 16:03:09 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 310/2009, whereby, the LPA filed by the appellants came to be dismissed while affirming the decision of the learned single Judge, dated 10.2.2009 in allowing the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 867/1999.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:08 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2

3. The Division Bench took note of the relevant background facts necessitating filing of writ petition by the respondent No. 1 for a direction to the appellant­Bank to pay his lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement dated 27.5.1990 (Annexure 5(b) appended to the writ petition) and also to deposit the income­tax papers with immediate effect. The Division Bench has noted as follows: ­ “4. The facts of the case is that the writ petitioner had taken a term loan of Rs.10,000/­ from the Bank by way of financial assistance to run a business in the name of “Sanjeev Readymade Store” from Haveli Kharagpur Branch of Punjab National Bank in the district of Munger. The writ petitioner was paid the said sum of Rs.10,000/­ in two instalments of Rs.4,000/­ on 21.07.1984 and Rs.6,000/­ on 01.10.1984. The writ petitioner had yet another savings account in the same branch of the respondents­bank. However, on 14.02.1990, the term loan with interest had mounted upto a figure of Rs.13,386/­. In 1989, the writ petitioner, who is Respondent no. 2 in the appeal, was granted two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ each by the Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur under the Earthquake Relief Fund. The said two cheques were deposited with the Bank for encashment in the other savings account, but instead, were transferred to the loan account. This was done without any authorization of the writ petitioner and without direction of any competent authority. Some time thereafter, the writ petitioner’s son was afflicted by cancer, which required immediate treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. In order to meet the expenses of the treatment, writ petitioner sold 406 bhars of gold jewellery of his wife’s “stridhan” and received Rs.14,93,268/­. He approached the branch of the respondents­bank with a sum of Rs.14,93,000/­ on 04.08.1989 for issuance of two bank drafts, one in his name and the another in the name of his wife. The then Accountant, Mr. T.K. Palit showed his inability to prepare the drafts on the ground of shortage of staff on that day and requested the writ petitioner to deposit the amount in the savings account No. 1020 in the said 3 branch. The Accountant, after receipt of the money, transferred total amount of Rs.15,03,000/­ to the loan account, whereas in the loan account upto 14.02.1990 outstanding dues of principal and interest was only Rs.13,386/­. The writ petition made grievance before the Branch Manager of the said branch and also filed representations before the Bank authorities. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Sri Nanhe Prasad, who ordered the then Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger, Sri Binod Kumar Singh to make a detailed enquiry into the matter and report. Accordingly, a Misc. Case No. 4 (DW 1) PNB/1989­90 was initiated and in those proceedings, various officials of the Punjab National Bank, including the then Branch Manager, District Coordination Officer of the Punjab National Bank and the Accountant of the Bank were examined from time to time and reports were submitted to the District Magistrate, Munger. Several witnesses were examined even by the District Magistrate, Munger. There were officers from the Regional Office of the Punjab National Bank, one of them being Sri Tej Narain Singh, the Regional Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Patna­B also deposed making reference of what had transpired to the Zonal Office of the Bank. On the basis of these statements, which were recorded by the Circle Officer and / or by the then District Magistrate­cum­Collector, Munger, Sri Gorelal Prasad Yadav, the matter proceeded. The basic assertion of the writ petitioner having been found correct and the liability having been accepted by the respondents­bank, it was reduced to an agreement dated 27.05.1990, which is Annexure­5B to the writ application between the parties. The agreement was signed by one and all in presence of the Circle Officer and the overall supervision of the District Magistrate. It was duly recorded in writing that the bank had received the deposit amounting to Rs.15,03,000/­ as per deposits made on 02.08.1989, 04.08.1989 and 04.10.1989. It was also recorded that the total term loan and the liability of the writ petitioner up to 14.02.1990 came to Rs.13,386/­ only and the amount of Rs. 14,89,614/­ of the writ petitioner would be kept in the Fixed Deposit of the bank and shall be paid with interest by September, 1997. The writ application was filed, when the bank refused to honour this agreement. In support of the writ application, certified copies of the entire proceedings, depositions as had been obtained by the writ petitioner in the year 1990 were annexed.” 4 The appellant­Bank contested the said writ petition and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and disputed the money claim set up by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of alleged contractual agreement dated 27.5.1990. The appellant­Bank denied the allegation of transfer of proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each, allegedly received by the respondent No. 1 from the district authorities, to the loan account. The Bank also denied the allegation of deposit of Rs.14,93,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs ninety­three thousand only) by the respondent No. 1 in his Savings Fund Account No. 1020 or transfer of the said amount in his loan account. Further, on receipt of complaint from the respondent No. 1, the Regional Manager of the appellant­Bank instituted an internal enquiry conducted by Mr. N.K. Singh, Manager, Inspection and Complaints, E.M.O., Patna, who in his report dated 23.11.1998 noted that the respondent No. 1 had been paid the proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each in cash and there is no record about the deposit of Rs.14,93,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs ninety three thousand only) in his account with the concerned Branch. The appellant­Bank explicitly denied the genuineness and existence 5 of the documents annexed to the writ petition and asserted that the same are forged, fabricated and manufactured documents. The Bank also placed on record that the respondent No. 1 had filed similar writ petition against another bank, namely, the Munger Jamui Central Cooperative Bank Limited being CWJC No. 4353/1993, which was eventually dismissed on 7/3.7.1995, as the claim set up by the respondent No. 1 herein in the said writ petition was stoutly disputed by the concerned Bank.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur1 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 271/1982, whereby the conviction of the respondent No. 1/original accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Mr. Chhagna Ram) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code2 has been converted into one under Section 326, IPC and the substantive sentence awarded therefor is reduced only to the period already undergone (about five months) by the accused No. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:39:58 IST Reason:

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Aftab Uddin Laskar seeks bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Algapur P.S. Case No.100/2020, under Sections 420/409 IPC.

3. The gist of the accusation made in the FIR, gist of the issue raised by this application and the defence of the applicant-accused are contained in order dated 23.04.2020. For Page No.# 2/4 brevity's sake, the said order is extracted hereinbelow:

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jangsher Ali, (2) Omar Ali, (3) Kayum Ali, (4) Sobur Uddin and (5) Badsha Miya, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 207/2020 registered under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 369(K)/2020.

As per the FIR of the case, the present accused petitioners along with 11 (eleven) named accused persons and 10 (ten) to 15(fifteen) others illegally entered the land that belongs to the father of the informant around 08:00 in the morning on 01.03.2020 while they were planting rice paddy saplings armed with dao, stick etc. and attacked his family members namely, Ainul Hoque, Saniara Khatun, Jahiruddin, Rupchand Ali, Sukur Ali, Hanif Ali and killed his uncle Ainal Hoque.

1. The applicant, namely, Mukut Rabha, APS serving in Assam Police, as accused in Tinsukia P.S. Case No.1608/2019, under Sections 454/379/ 331/468/471/ 166/167/193/209/211/218/220/221/34 of IPC has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, Page No.# 2/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

Let this matter be listed in the first week of June, 2020 on a date to be fixed by the Registry. On the next date so fixed, this matter will be taken up for its disposal.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

1. None entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Further service report on the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is yet to be received by the Registry.

Accordingly, list after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

List after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

List for Admission after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Considering the same, matter stands adjourned today. List after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

List after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Page No.# 2/2 Interim order is extended till the next date.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

On instructions, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no such criminal case has been filed against the petitioner in Jalukbari Police Station and as such, prays for withdrawal of this pre-arrest bail application with liberty to file afresh as and when any cause of action arises.

Prayer is allowed.

Liberty as prayed for so granted.

Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Registry shall obtain scanned/Photostat copies of the records of G.R. Case No. 2581/2019 pertaining to Dergaon P.S. Case No. 843/2019 from the Court the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

Page No.# 2/2

4. List on 11.05.2020.

5. It is made clear that in case counsel for the applicant does not appear on the next date of listing, the case is likely to be decided on the basis of available record and on hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant be informed accordingly telephonically.

7. Let copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Page No.# 2/3 Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

4. I have gone through contents of the FIR. The applicant has been named as accused No.1 in the FIR and is stated to be aged 27 years.

5. The FIR has been registered at the instance of father of the victim to the effect that on 19.8.2019, at about 7-00 PM, the applicant took his minor daughter to his house by tempting her that he would get married to her and had sexual intercourse with her. The other accused thereupon got angry on seeing her and they abused her using abusive language, surrounded her, threatened her, pulled her with hair and drove her away.

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Mridul Das seeks bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Ambari P.S. Case No. 393 of 2019, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/406/403/506 of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

4. The application has been pending since 27.11.2019, when an interim order granting anticipatory bail was passed in favour of the applicant. Under the circumstances, I find no Page No.# 2/3 justifiable reason to await appearance by the counsel for the applicant.

1. The applicant, namely, Jeherul Islam has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No.812/2019, under Section 366(A) IPC.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

Page No.# 2/2

4. I have taken into account the accusations made by the informant who is the father of the victim. It has been alleged that on 23.10.2019 at about 6.15 PM, the applicant along with his associates came in a Maruti car, entered the house, asked the victim to serve water and in the meantime forcefully caught hold of her from the back, gagged her mouth and dragged her to the vehicle. Being helpless, she raised an alarm. Neighbours came there. On seeing that the neighbours had come, the accused fled.

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner namely, Pranab Kr. Sharma is seeking pre arrest bail apprehending his arrest in All Women Police Station Case No. 57/2020 registered under Sections 376/313/498(A) of the IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 4553/2020.

The informant on 29.03.2020 lodged a written ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station alleging that the petitioner raped her prior to her marriage with him.

Page No.# 2/3 On 14.05.2018 the petitioner married the informant secretly at Kolkata Kalighat Temple and Court marriage between them took place at Guwahati on 18.12.2018 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup Metro, Guwahati. It is also alleged by the informant that because of their wedlock though she was pregnant, the petitioner forcefully aborted her. It is stated by the informant that she is serving in the office of the Assam Real Estate and Infrastructure Developer's Association (AREIDA) at Guwahati since 2015 and that the petitioner is the lone Director of the said Office and that at present she is residing in the house of the petitioner at New Guwahati. The informant also stated that only after her marriage with the petitioner she could come to know that she is his fourth wife. The informant alleged that the petitioner is physically and mentally torturing her, has his eyes on the money of her mother and her family members and that he is harassing her in all counts of her life and may even through her from the house at New Guwahati wherein she is residing now and from her job at AREIDA.

7) Munnaf Ali, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon PS Case No. 207/2020, corresponding to GR Case No. 369 (K)/2020, under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC.

Heard Mr B Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr N Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

Also perused the record and the Case Diary produced.

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Kalita that so far as the accused Page No.# 3/3 petitioners, namely, 1) Imdadul Hoque and 2) Bilat Ali are concerned, their sufficient implication have been given by the eyewitnesses, regarding the commission of the offence.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Page No.# 2/3 Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant did not appear on 14.03.2020, 16.03.2020 and today again. This application has been pending since 02.03.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been appearing consistently. I find no justifiable reason to adjourn the matter for any longer period. In any case the application is being disposed of considering the statutory provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act.

1. The present petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. It is pertinent to mention that present public interest litigation has been filed with the following prayers:-

W.P. (C) 3050/2020 Page 1 of 5

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to make provisions for the payment of salaries to the Health Workers in time. and

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to make provisions for the payment „risk and hardship‟ allowance, incentives in form of bonus, additional salary to the Health Workers who are presently serving on the frontline in view of the present lock down situation due to the COVID 19 situation in the country;

1. All the four writ petitions seek identical relief in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to avail input tax credit of the accumulated CENVAT credit as of 30th June, 2017 by filing declaration Form TRAN-1 beyond the period provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, the "CGST Rules"). Additionally, petitioners also assail Rule 117 of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to the extent it imposes a time limit for carrying forward the CENVAT credit to the GST regime. However, all the petitioners have unanimously stated that if the Court were to give directions to the respondents to permit them to file the statutory Form TRAN-1 to avail the input tax credit, they would be satisfied and not press for the relief of challenging the vires of the provisions of the Act.

1. By way of thisjudgement, weshall dispose of the above-noted appeals preferred against the common order dated 19.03.2018, whereby Appellant's (VIPL) objection petitionsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter 'the Act')have been rejected, and common arbitral award dated 20.05.2017 stands confirmed.This impugned arbitralaward deals with two separate claim petitions preferred by the Appellant relating to respective Space Buyer Agreements(hereinafter 'arbitration agreements')concerning separate portions of same property. Since the objection petitions have been disposed of vide a common judgment, wealso consider it convenient to dispose of theappeals vide a common judgement.

1. The matter has been heard through Video Conferencing.

2. Ms. Acharya, learned ASG, who appears for the Union of India, states that her briefing counsel, Mr. Gogna, CGSC is ready with advance instructions.

3. After addressing arguments on the maintainability of the present petition particularly, on the aspect of the alleged retrospectivity of the impugned Notification, Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought some time to obtain instructions from his client. The hearing was deferred to enable him to obtain instructions. He has returned with instructions to the effect that his client does not wish to press the present petition.

W.P. (C) 3057/2020 Page 1 of 2

CM.APPL.10636/2020 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3055/2020 & CM APPL.10635/2020 (for interim relief)

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the disciplinary proceedings, pending against him for over 7 years as on date, on, inter alia, the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the same charge. It is W.P. (C) No.3055/2020 Page 1 of 4 pointed out that, on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's request for being permitted to voluntarily retire from service, was also been rejected vide communication dated 12th December, 2019.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the show cause notice dated 15.09.2014, the demolition order dated 29.04.2015, the order of the ATMCD dated 10.08.2016 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.08.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No. 8770/14B, Shidi Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi (measuring 85 sq. yards) was purchased by Late Sh.Prem Nath Shrama, husband of the petitioner on 20.09.1982. Prior to the said property, he had also purchased the adjacent property bearing No. 8771/14 B (measuring 160 sq. yards) on 28.10.1972. Sh. Prem Nath Sharma died on 11.05.1996. Pursuant to a Will, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the two properties.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J. (JUDGMENT)

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate order for setting aside the sealing order dated 5.1.2019 and a direction to deseal the premises being Khasra No.257, Village Siraspur, Delhi.

2. The case of the petitioner is that since 1988 the petitioners have been enjoying the property and spending huge amounts on the same. In 2011 a threat was extended to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. The petitioner thereafter filed three separate Writ Petitions which were disposed of by this court on 22.2.2011 directing the petitioners to file appropriate petition for declaration of their rights with respect to the land in their possession. The respondent/Gaon Sabha were permitted to file W.P.(C) 1355/2019 Page 1 of 7 ejectment proceedings against the petitioner and till disposal of the ejectment proceedings protection was given to the petitioner.

2. This writ petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P. (Crl.) 787/2020 Page 1 of 8 India, seeks quashing of FIR 319/2020, dated 20th April, 2020, registered against the petitioners at PS Moti Nagar. The FIR alleges that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 188/269/186/353/332/506 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The recital of the facts in the FIR may be summarized thus. At 5 PM on 20th April, 2020, one Rahul (Petitioner No.2 herein), who was known to the complainant Head Constable (HC) Rishi Kumar, and was a "bad character" of the area, was seen loitering in the area without wearing a mask, in violation of the Compliance Advisory issued by the Central Government in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the complainant intercepting Rahul and querying him in that regard, Rahul retorted that the complainant had no right to stop him from walking in the area without a mask. On the complainant attempting to control Rahul, with the assistance of Const. Pravin, Rahul caught hold of the collar of the shirt being worn by the complainant and tore the shirt. Rahul is also alleged to have assaulted Constable Pravin, by kicking him. During the melee, Rahul's brother Sundar (Petitioner No.1 herein) arrived at the spot, and joined Rahul in assaulting the complainant, by administering kicks and blows. It is further alleged that they also bit the complainant on his wrist, resulting in his bleeding profusely. Thereafter, it is stated that Rahul and Sunder were taken into custody and FIR was lodged as noted above.

2. Summons in the present suit were issued on 24th October 2014 and vide order dated 3rd April 2018, following issues weresettled: -

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree against the defendant, if so for what amount? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP iii. Relief.

3. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that he is a duly registered Class- I contractor, under the name Bharat Construction Company, a CS(COMM) 719/2017 Page 1 of 18 proprietorship firm with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The plaintiff was awarded construction work of outfall drain from A-74, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area to DTC Nallah at Loha Mandi Naraina in Karol Bagh Zone vide work order No. EE-Project Karol Bagh/SYS/2011- 2012/14 dated 10th February 2012. The contractual amount of the work was Rs. 4,05,26,960 and the time for completion was of 6 months.

CS(COMM) 336/2019 Page 1 of 21

2. Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is dealing in the medicinal and pharmaceutical product under the mark AMADAY which is used for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease and the defendant is selling its drug under the name ANADAY which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's rights in its trademark; even though the drug produced and sold by the defendant under the trademark ANADAY is used for treatment of breast cancer.

3. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff first obtained the title in the trademark AMADAY by its first application bearing No. 747783 on 10th July, 1997 and thereafter started using the said trademark AMADAY from 2001. On 4th February, 2008 defendant filed its application bearing No. 1649587 for the impugned mark ANADAY which was duly opposed by the plaintiff and the defendant did not pursue the said application and vide order dated 15 th March, 2016 of the Trade Mark Registry, the same was declared abandoned. On 8th October, 2016 defendant filed another trademark application for registration of the trademark ANADAY vide application No. 3384539 in Class 5 which is currently pending. In the third week of June, 2019 the representative of the plaintiff came across defendant's medicinal preparation AMADAY at Delhi, and hence the suit.

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test CRL. M.C. 1468/2020 Page 1 of 26 Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5 th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to a mandate that the travellers of Delhi Metro Rail should provide proof of their identities and addresses while purchasing Metro cards from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020 Page 1 of 2

4. Petitioners, who appear in person, state that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation issues digital Metro cards or tokens (digital monies) to its customers, who in turn use it as travel coupons. They state that linking of Metro card and token with the address proof of the travellers would protect the right to property, in the event, the Metro card or token is lost. They further state that in the wake of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is of utmost importance that the respondents should be aware about the details of the passengers travelling by Delhi Metro as it would help in preventing a patient from travelling and would also help in tracing the affected travellers in case a patient had unwillingly travelled in Delhi Metro.