----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain (through jitsi meet) Mr. Parth Sharma (through jitsi meet) Mr. Rinesh Gupta (through jitsi meet) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP(CBN) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners through Jitsi Meet.

1. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the Court.

2. Heard Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, through whatsapp video calling as well as learned Public Prosecutor, who is present in the Court.

3. Despite video whatsapp calling, Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to respond.

4. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.61/2018 Registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 376-D & 506 of IPC.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioners are the real brothers of the husband of the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that one month prior to lodging of the present FIR, the (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2033/2020] prosecutrix also lodged the FIR No.0031/2018 on 15.01.2018 at Police Station Tapukara, District Alwar, in which, the petitioners were also made accused under Sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, in which, charge-sheet has been filed only against the husband of the prosecutrix and not against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that when the Investigating Agency submitted the negative final report against the accused-petitioners in the earlier FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that according to the FSL report dated 03.12.2019, semen could not be detected on the clothes and vaginal swab of the victim. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since February, 2018.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. For Complainant : Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

4. F.I.R. No.355/2019 was registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302, 436, 34, 120-B of I.P.C.

2. Petitioners has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.139/2019 was registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 3, 4 & 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner is in custody since September, 2019. There was neither any marks on the body of the petitioner, nor any material things are (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:01 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1474/2020] recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners. Conclusion of trial will take time.

1. Bundu Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gani R/o Meer Colony Kekri Road Near Idhgah Malpura Thana Dist. Tonk At Present Tenant House No 24 Chmnawadi Sanjay Nagar Jhotwara Jaipur (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

2. Mohammad Kalim S/o Shri Mohammad Aladdin Khan R/o Bada Mohalla Lalsot Dist.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.1055/2019 was registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 343, 366, 376 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay of lodging in FIR. As per the medical report, prosecutrix is aged 20 years. There are no marks of injury on her person and private parts.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, he is behind the bars since 30.09.2018, charge-sheet has already been filed on 05.12.2018, co-accused Kana @ Vijay has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court on 21.11.2019, case of present accused petitioner is not different from that of co- accused Kana. Till date evidence of only nine witnesses have been (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:56 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-18079/2019] recorded while prosecution has listed thirty witnesses, hence completion of trial will take time. It has also been submitted that only one eye witness, PW.5, Ajay has been named in the case by the prosecution, whose statement has been recorded and his evidence is not reliable against the present accused petitioner.

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 489/2020 Ramdayal@r.d. S/o Ramkaran

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 663/2019 registered with Police Station Nadbai (Bharatpur), for the offence/s punishable under Section/s 377, 429 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been submitted that material prosecution witnesses in this case have turned hostile during trial, copies of statements of those witnesses have been filed and it has been contended that the main witnesses PW.1 Jadveer, PW.4 Satish and other material witnesses have turned hostile, they have not supported the prosecution version, hence the accused petitioner may be granted bail.

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv. for the complainant. (on Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant.

This Court finds that D.B. Criminal Appeal is pending against the judgment dated 19.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant is required to be heard by the appropriate Bench.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is an order dated 09.04.2018 issued by the Registrar General whereby it has been directed that if an appeal is pending before the Division Bench and the accused who has awarded lesser sentence, then the appeal before the Single Bench is required to be tagged with the D.B. Criminal Appeal and the same is required to be listed before the Division Bench. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:27 PM)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.300/2019 was registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur Metropolitan for offence under Sections 323, 341, 504, 427, 302, 34 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of seven days in lodging of FIR. Co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 88/2019 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present accused-petitioner. The alleged recovery has been made from other co-accused persons. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner except the information of co-accused. Charge-sheet has been filed on 17.01.2020. Trial of the case will (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:48 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15939/2019] consume time. The petitioner is behind Bars since 31.10.2019.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 This Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application has been filed by the applicant-appellant alongwith the criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant appellant was on bail during trial. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been convicted under Section 363 IPC with simple imprisonment of 4 years. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted on other charges levelled against him under Sections 366, 376 (2) (i) 2(n) IPC & Section 5 (L), 6 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the appellant (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:32 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLASOSA-335/2020] submitted that the appellant was arrested on 27.03.2019 and as such appellant has remained behind the bars for more than 13 months.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.98/2019 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in custody since 02.05.2019.

Learned counsel submitted that police after investigation has filed challan. Counsel further submitted that the allegation against the appellants is in respect of using fire arm but (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:25 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2822/2019] the medical report which has been prepared shows that the injury suffered by the injured was simple in nature and caused by the blunt weapon.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.26/2019-20 was registered at Police Station Excise Police Jhunjhunu (North) for offence under Sections 14/54, 19/54, 54-A, 14/57 of Rajasthan Excise Act.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is driver of the vehicle. He was not aware that there is no valid permit of transportation of the liquor. Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents of like nature.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the contentions.

(Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:54 PM)

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-17684/2019]

This Court further finds that on 17th April, 2020, this Court had also made efforts to contact to the lawyer but he did not respond.

Accordingly, this Court is left with no other option except to adjourn this case.

This Court also finds that if learned counsel has moved an application for listing of the bail application, he is expected to be available on either mode of communication with him.

A five-storied building could not have been constructed in an unauthorised manner within a couple of days. It must have taken months for the same to be constructed. The Municipal authorities, as also the local police station, cannot feign ignorance of the building having coming up in their presence upto the fifth floor in an unauthorised manner.

In such circumstances, the said Mr. Joysurja Mukherjee, as we are now told is posted as Officer-in-Charge, Tiljala Police Station, should also be present in Court on 20th March, 2020 to assist this Court and explain how could such an unauthorised structure came up upto the fifth floor.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]

2

She files affidavit of service to show copy of the application was served on Chief Law Officer, Legal Cell, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It be kept with records.

The writ petition has been listed along with the application. Sum and substance of applicant's submission is that she fears being dispossessed. In that context Court has perused letter dated 14th June, 2018, written on behalf of petitioners and communication dated 18th July, 2018, impugned in the writ petition, appearing respectively at pages 67 and 71. It appears, by impugned communication, made in reference to said letter dated 14th June, 2018, assessee number of premises occupied by, inter alia, applicant, has been automatically cancelled on amalgamation of premises.

2

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although only one of the companies was alleged to have committed default, the DIN of the petitioners was deactivated in respect of the other companies, in which they were directors, as well, which was de hors the law.

4. Moreover, even in respect of the defaulting company, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the allegations made against them in respect of each company.

5. The disqualification of the company‐in‐question took place in the year 2014, that is, prior to the 2018 Amendment of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") and as such, the provisions of the 2018 Amendment would not be applicable thereto.

Appearance:

Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

The Court : At the instance of the petitioner the matter is appearing today under the heading "To Be Mentioned" for correction of a typographical error crept in the order dated March 11, 2020. By the said order this Court disposed of the application, AP No.49 of 2020.

Let the amount of money mentioned in the third line at the fourth page of the said order dated March 11, 2020 be corrected as Rs.9.8 crore in place and stead of Rs.9.2 crore.

Appearance :

Smt. Jayabati Barick, in person The Court :- Perused the report filed by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court dated 18th March, 2020. It appears from the said report to which a report of the Department of Ophthalmology, IPGME&R-SSKM Hospital, filed in terms of the order dated 12th February, 2020 passed by this Court is enclosed that Nader Chand Barik is having hundred per cent blindness as per Government of India Norms.

It further appears from the Registrar's report that save and except the deposition, all cause papers in the TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 are available. The report further reveals that the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department has prayed for passing necessary direction upon various Record 2 Section of the Original Side i.e. Current Record Department, Old Record Department, New building Record (NBR) Department and Central Record Room at Khidderpore to make extensive searches to trace out the original deposition in the aforesaid suit. In my opinion, though specific direction is not required on each of the record sections for searching the record in the said departments as prayed for by the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department as indicated in the said report but by way of abundant precaution I pass direction upon the Registrar, Original Side as also Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department to look for the deposition in the two suits being TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 in all possible places where records are either temporarily or permanently stored and/or kept in this Court premises or outside.

Appearance:

Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person The Court: Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person. None appears for the State. The matter is fixed for hearing on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am. The petitioner, who appears in person, is requested to serve a copy of this order to the Government Pleader.

Ld. Government Pleader is requested to appear in this matter on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) R.Bhar

Appearance:

Mr. Laxmi Pat Surana, ...petitioner in person The Court: The petitioner is present in Court. He requests for a date on which the matter may be taken up.

List this matter on 1st April, 2020.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) Sbghosh

In such view of the matter, a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners as to the fixation of dates and time for the general election being mala fide on the part of the respondent no. 4 authorities. The balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of granting such injunction, since if the election is held and a newly elected body assumes power, the writ petition would be infructuous; on the other hand, in the event the writ petition fails, another date can be fixed for such election, if necessary upon imposition of compensatory costs being awarded against the petitioners.

Although there is a notification of this Court requesting Judges not to take up matters for hearing in the absence of all the parties, since sufficient notice 3 has been given to the respondents and in view of the extreme urgency involved in the matter, the matter is taken up for hearing.

... for the respondent.

The applicant is the respondent in an appeal against a money decree. The applicant apprehends that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant may dispose of its assets or alienate the same.

Since the operation of the decree has not been stayed, it is open to the respondent to levy execution and seek the necessary protection. The injunction sought would not fall within the scope of this appeal.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) SG

(Through Video Conference) Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person) ...plaintiff no.1 Mr. Megnath Datta, Adv.

...for added defendant no.3 The Court : The plaintiff no.1 appears in person on video conferencing. The added defendant no.3 is represented by Mr. Megnath Datta, Advocate via video conferencing.

It is the allegation of the appearing plaintiff that the principal property involved in this partition and administration suit is under serious threat and trespassers are seeking to enter upon the same. Such position is denied on behalf of the appearing defendant. 2

To the mind of this Court, the Bank is only to perform a ministerial task subject to directions in the application. To the further mind of this Court, it would be appropriate that the Intending Purchaser who also stands to be affected qua its liquidify position arising out of the present crisis be given the opportunity to ventilate views before the Hon'ble Court as early as possible.

On the other hand, the present crisis also affects the functioning of the Free School which is claimed to be surviving on the interest earned out of the said Fixed Deposits paid by the Intending Purchaser, as well as the ability of the Trustees to quickly find a new purchaser. Therefore, having regard to the interests of all under the present conditions of a pandemic as well as the balance of convenience, it is directed for the present that the Intending Purchaser shall not insist on the Refund of the Fixed Deposits/Consideration Money till normalcy returns. The Intending Purchaser shall, on the return of normalcy, write to the Learned Receiver invoking the Refund. On receipt of such 4 communication the Learned Receiver shall take apropo steps, including seeking a time limit from the appropriate Court.

That another co-owner namely Soma Ghosh resides in the 1st floor South East corner of the said premises. It is come off from the said suit premises that there have three tenants residing since long. One namely Prabir Paul (55) S/o- Late Ajay Paul resides in Ground floor North-West side of the premises. Tenant Krishna Dhar (73) W/o- Late Debabrata Dhar residing south portion of the said premises and Shambhu Das & his brother Alok Das are residing at the front portion 2nd floor of the said building as tenants since long.

In course of present enquiry at the scheduled property i.e. 13, Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street, Kol-03 nothing unusual was found in respect of possessions, occupied by the co-owners and the tenants.

(Through Video Conference) Appearance:

Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person).

Mr. Meghnad Dutta , Adv.

Mr. Arindam Paul , Adv.

... for the added defendant no.3 Mr. D. K. Chandra, Adv.

... for defendant nos.3(i) & 3(ii). The Court: It appears that by the order dated April 16, 2020, the parties were directed to file their respective affidavit in the application filed by the plaintiffs. The said order also records that in view of the subsisting interim order, the petitioners' interest in respect of the suit property is already protected. There was no direction that the application would be appearing before this Court today. This is also not disputed by the parties.

Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, Sr. AS Mr. S.N. Bajaria, Acivor .. Faint The Court : This affidavit of arrest has been Med in an admiralty auit fled by the plaintiff praying for, inter alia, arrest af the defendant veasel, M¥ Han Xin, flying the flag of Hong Keng. I am told that the said veese! is presently ying at the Kolkata Port, within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, After hearing learned Counsel for the phantiff, in view af the urgency mvolved, 1 dispense with the requirement of camplying with Section 124 of the Commercial Courts Act and amit the plaint subject te scrutiny.

Mr. S.K. Bajoma, loarned Advocair-on-Recard for the plaintif is appointed Receiver for the purpose of paying deficit Quurt fees within a week _.

2

The application has been filed on the ground of urgency that the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court cannot be taken up immediately.

In view of the present situation, the time to comply with the order passed by the Trial Court is extended till June 30, 2020. However, this order will not be a charter for the applicant to continue manufacturing its products. Indeed, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that no manufacturing activity is being undertaken in the present situation.

G. A. 804 of 2020 is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties thereto.

(Through video conference) The Court : CA No.45 of 2020 is an application filed by one Pritam Ghosh, under Section 535(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 to bring on record certain developments subsequent to an order of winding up passed by this Court in CP No.194 of 2016.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the company had sold concerned premises being a residential apartment measuring about 800 sq.ft. at 228, Dum Dum Park, Flat no.1B, on the first Floor, to one Rabindra Nath Dey by a deed of conveyance dated September 21, 2012. Thereafter the 2 petitioner purchased the said property by a conveyance dated March 27, 2014 from said Mr. Dey. Thereafter the petitioner let out the premises to one Rishi Kumar Sharma on December 1, 2014. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the learned Official Liquidator who has sealed the said premises on or about March 2, 2020. This application has been filed seeking release of the said property.

(Through video conference) The Court : The Marshall, Calcutta High Court, has filed a report of service and arrest, which is taken on record.

GA No.810 of 2020 is an application for vacating, recalling and/or modification of the order dated April 24, 2020 passed in AS No.2 of 2020.

It is the contention of the defendant in this application that the order dated April 24, 2020 was obtained 2 by suppression, misstatement and fraud. It is their further contention that the plaintiff was neither an endorsee in the bill of lading nor a named consignee and, as such, the plaintiff did not have locus standi to file the said suit. It is further contended that there is a grave urgency in vacating and/or modifying the interim order passed by this Court as the ship is due to receive cargo in some other port but the ex parte order of arrest has been causing severe loss to the defendant.

VERSUS ASCON AGRO PRODUCTS EXPORTERS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE The Hon'ble Justice SHAMPA SARKAR Date: 28th April, 2020 Apperance Mr. Saunak Ghosh, Adv. with Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.

..for the decree holder Mr. Dipanjan Roy, Adv (in person) ..for the judgment debtor The Court: GA No.803 of 2020 is an application filed by the decree holder for non-prosecution of the Execution Case no.302 of 2019 arising out of a judgment and decree dated July 26, 2017 passed in CS No.115 of 2013, in view of settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND BIRLA CABLES LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

.................

APO NO.17 OF 2019 APOT NO.138 OF 2019 GA NO.1735 OF 2019 TS NO.6 OF 2004 IN THE GOODS OF:

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

..............

2

PRESENT :

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABORTY AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Heard on : 04.02.2020, 11.02.2020, 13.02.2020, 18.02.2020 & 20.02.2020.

The dispute in this appeal relates to valuation under the Customs Act, 1962 of import of certain items made by the respondent Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under two contracts, bearing nos. PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt.II dated 31.10.1989 and PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt-I dated 29th March 1990. These imports were made in connection with modernisation, expansion and modification 1 for their plant at Durgapur in West Bengal. For this purpose, SAIL had floated seven Global Tender Contract Packages. The two contracts were part of these Tender Contract Packages. They were registered with the customs authorities for the purpose of project import benefits in terms of the 1962 Act. The first contract involved in this appeal was with a consortium consisting of a German Company, Hoestemberghe & Kluisch, GMBH and H & K Rolling Mills Engineering Private Limited, an Indian Corporate entity. The second contract was also with a German Company, Siempelkamp Pressen Systeme and the Indian entity was Escon Consultants Private Ltd, with whom the consortium was formed. Both these contracts were in connection with modernisation of SAIL’s rolling mills at the aforesaid plant.

A Bench of this Court while dealing with Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2019 took note of a letter dated 23.03.2019 received by the office of the Judges of the Bench on 25.03.2019. This was a copy of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India, Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In the said letter, reference was made to two complaints – one made by the Indian Bar Association, dated 20.03.2019 through alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Vijay Kurle, State President of 1 Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, and the second complaint dated 19.03.2019 made by alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National Secretary of the Human Rights Security Council. It was mentioned that these complaints have not only been sent to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India but also have been circulated in the social media and the complaints were attached as Annexures­1 and 2 to the said letter. The Bench took note of the letter and the complaints attached to the said letter and specifically noted the prayers made in both the complaints and found that both the complaints are substantially similar. The Bench on noting the allegations made in the complaints was of the view that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of the said Bench and, therefore, notice was issued to Shri Vijay Kurle, alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3 and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged contemnor no. 4. The Bench also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and decide the contempt case.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.3391 of 2017 and in Criminal M.A. No.13845 of 2017, by which the High Court affirmed (i) the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by Mahila Court in proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 12 of the DV Act1 and (ii) 1 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.417-418 OF 2020 @ SLP (CRL) NOS.4044-4045 OF 2019 NEELAM GUPTA VS. MAHIPAL SHARAN GUPTA AND ANOTHER 2 the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2016.

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?