We’re T-minus 24 hours until the TechCrunch Disrupt early bird flies south and takes up to $1,300 in savings with it. If you’re serious about realizing your startup dreams, you need to be kind to your bottom line. Disrupt is packed with many long-tail opportunities, but this one ends in just 24 hours. Buy your […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

A dozen years ago, Groupon shot to fame popularizing the online group buying format, confidently rejecting a $6 billion acquisition offer from Google and instead going public with a $17.8 billion market cap. The company today says it has 14 million active users, but almost consistently for the last decade, its financial position has been […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Adyen lost $13 billion in market cap last month when investors scrambled to sell shares after the payments company missed quarterly revenue targets. But it’s not the only one facing the music in fintech. Shares in SumUp, a privately-held European payment technology business that focuses on point-of-sale transactions, are currently being sold in inside sales […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

PwC has appointed the former CEO of Transdev Australasia, Jonathan Metcalfe, to lead the public transport practice.

PwC Chief Executive Luke Sayers today announced the members of an external advisory board charged with moving the firm towards greater diversity and inclusion among its people.

The global mining industry's fight for value and free cash flow has descended into a brawl, after 2014 saw the world's 40 largest miners ramp up production, slash capital spending, and rein in costs.

PwC today announced their new partners from 1 July 2015. A total of 64 individuals will be admitted to the partnership across all of the firm's businesses and most of its geographies.

PwC’s asset management leader, Ken Woo, said Japan’s commitment to creating a regional market for managed funds represents a ‘tipping point’ in terms of momentum for the initiative.

The PwC network reported total global gross revenues of US$35.4 billion for the fiscal year ended on 30 June 2015.

The economic impact of obesity will reach $87.7 billion and affect one-third of Australians by 2025 based on current trends and without further intervention.

If the company tax rate was reduced from 30 to 25 per cent over the next five years gross domestic product (GDP) would grow $291 billion and income tax revenues would generate $4 billion up to the year 2025, PwC modelling released today shows.

PwC has joined forces with leading not-for-profit food safety agency SSAFE to develop a new industry tool to help fight food fraud and protect consumers.

Providing every primary school in the country with access to at least one specialist science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teacher could be possible if teachers are incentivised to acquire STEM specialisations and collaboration between schools is prioritised.

A standalone plebiscite with a compulsory vote on marriage equality could cost the Australian economy $525 million according to modelling released by PwC Australia today.

PwC Australia has recruited former CEO and Managing Director of David Jones Limited, Paul Zahra as Global Retail Advisor to add fuel to its growing retail and consumer practice.

The world's top 40 mining companies were in a race to the bottom in 2015, with falling market capitalisations and net losses leaving them slower, lower and weaker, according to PwC's Mine 2016 report released today.

A €1.06 billion EU antitrust penalty on chipmaker Intel for abuse of dominance dating back to 2009 (when it was equivalent to $1.45 billion) has been consigned to the history books after the bloc’s top court rejected the Commission’s appeal against a 2022 lower court ruling that annulled the sanction. “The Court of Justice dismisses […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

About two out of five employees are affected.

1. World News Live Today November 13, 2024: Stranded Sunita Williams rubbishes deteriorating health ‘rumours’ amid severe weight loss claims  Hindustan Times
2. Stranded Sunita Williams rubbishes deteriorating health ‘rumours’ amid severe weight loss claims  Hindustan Times
3. NASA Astronaut Sunita Williams debunks health rumors: 'I weigh the same' from the ISS  Moneycontrol
4. Inside Sunita Williams' extended mission: What she’s doing in space  India Today
5. Why is astronaut Sunita Williams losing weight at ISS? NASA worried, here's what the agency is planning to  The Economic Times

1. Amazon Sale 2024 Deals on Best Laptop Under 40000: Explore Top Brands at Discounted Rate  HerZindagi English
2. Amazon Laptop days: Get over 50% off on best selling laptops from top brands like Acer, HP. Sale ends today!  Mint
3. Best-selling gaming laptops on Amazon: Starting at 44990, get up to 12000 off on exchange, 12-month no-cost EMI  Hindustan Times
4. Amazon Sale: Bumper Discount Of 26% Off On Best Gaming Laptop Under 1 Lakh  Jagran English
5. Get Best Branded Laptops Under Rs 50,000 on Amazon  Times Bull

1. Retail inflation surges to a 14-month high of 6.2% in October  The Times of India
2. Retail inflation jumps to 14-month high of 6.21 per cent, breaches RBI tolerance level  Telegraph India
3. Rising food prices are likely to push back beginning of rate cutting cycle  The Indian Express
4. Consumer inflation at 14-month high of 6.2%  Hindustan Times
5. Rate cut unlikely even in February, inflation to dip January onwards: SBI research  The Economic Times

1. Jharkhand elections 2024 LIVE updates: Over 13% turnout till 9:30 a.m. as voting underway for 43 seats  The Hindu
2. Video | Phase 1 In Jharkhand Polling: 13% Voter Turnout Till 9 am  NDTV
3. Jharkhand Election 2024 Live Updates: 13.04% voter turnout till 9am  The Times of India
4. INDIA or NDA? 43 Jharkhand seats up for grabs in high-stakes Phase 1 polling today  India Today
5. Vote to protect rights, strengthen Constitution: Rahul Gandhi to Jharkhand voters  Telegraph India

1. Swiggy Share Price Live Updates: Stock makes a positive debut, opens with 7.69% premium at ₹420 on NSE; check GMP | Stock Market News  Mint
2. Swiggy shares list at 8% premium over IPO price  The Economic Times
3. ‘You and I…’: Zomato welcomes Swiggy on Dalal Street after stock market listing  India Today
4. Swiggy’s reclusive CEO Sriharsha Majety makes rare public appearance at IPO listing ceremony  Hindustan Times
5. Swiggy shares list at ₹420 on NSE, opening 7.7% above IPO price in a highly anticipated debut  Mint

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioners through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek the following reliefs:-

i. Mandamus commanding the respondents to prematurely release the petitioners who have been languishing behind bars from more than 22 years.

ii. Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce record of Board meeting for pre-release of life convicts which was constituted in year 2019 and also produce record pertains to issuance of S.O. 390 dated 09.08.2024 of Home Department alongwith complete list of recommended convicts who are recommended for remission in the year 2024 and also recommendation of Board for pre-mature release.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:-

(i) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly respondent No. 3 to hand over the physical possession of plot No. 288/15 Sector-C measuring 44'x60' at Sainik Colony Jammu to the petitioner by executing all necessary documents.

(ii) The respondent No. 3 be further directed to extend the period of 05 years as stipulated in condition No. 4 of the perpetual lease deed dated 18/07/1994 for raising constructions.

08.11.2024 Land Mesuring 03 kanals 02 marlas falling under khasra No. 2549/2406 Min situated at Phagmula Tehsil Pogal Paristan, District Ramban and land measuring 10 marlas falling under khasra No. 2549/2406 situated in the same village along with residential house constructed thereon is said to have been taken over by the respondents for construction of the road.

In the reply filed by the Collector, it has been submitted that the indent has been placed by Chief Engieer, Jammu vide No. CEJ/PMGSY/6706-09 dated 03.07.2023 for acquisition of land in question along with residential house in question. However, it is not mentioned in the reply as to whether any notification for acquisition of the property in question pursuant to the indent has been issued. It appears that pursuant to the indent dated 03.07.2023, the Collector has not issued the notification for initiating the process for acquisition of the property in question in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the court of learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Kathua (hereinafter to be referred the trial court), whereby the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for filing replica to the written statement filed by the respondents has been rejected in part to the extent of replying the factual assertions made in the written statement that the respondents have been recorded in possession of the suit property in the revenue records i.e. Jamabandi 1999-2000, Khasra Kirdawri, 1998 and Kharief, 2022.

2. Mr. Gupta submits that the petitioner has not been permitted to rebut the averments made by the respondents by the learned trial court with regard to the revenue entries mentioned in preliminary objections.

11.11.2024

1. In this case, the appellant was granted bail on 30.12.2019 by this Court, however, till date, he has not been released because no one is there to stand surety for him.

2. This Court takes note of the fact that even after five years of passing of the bail order in his favour, the appellant continues to languish in prison, as nobody has come forward to stand surety for him. The facts disclose that there is prima facie violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Under the circumstances, the appellant shall be released on his personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. In addition thereto, as nobody is there to stand surety for him, the appellant shall appear before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch once in every month, commencing from 18.11.2024 and thereafter, on such dates as set by the learned CJM, Poonch.

08.11.2024

01. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order of Central Administrative Tribunal ["The Tribunal'] dated 04.11.2024 in OA No. 61/1175/2024 titled 'Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.T. of J&K and Ors.', whereby the Tribunal has declined to grant ad-interim ex-parte stay, staying the communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua dated 15.10.2024 addressed to the Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau, J&K and Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu.

02. The application for interim relief is still pending and the same will come up for consideration before the Tribunal after the respondents appear and file their objections. Ordinarily, such ad-interim ex-parte orders are not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, having regard to the fact that the registration of FIR either by the Crime Branch or by the ACB in terms of communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua in OA will seriously prejudice the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the application for interim relief pending before the Tribunal by providing as under:-

08.11.2024

1. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.

2. The respondents submit that the petitioners' claim will be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of law relevant to the subject matter.

3. The petitioners' case is that they have been in possession of Government land and had applied for regularization and conferment of ownership under the repealed Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001. Ownership rights were initially conferred under this Act; however, by an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled 'Prof. S.K. Bhalla vs. State of J&K and others', PIL No. 19/2011, the Act was declared unconstitutional, resulting in the setting aside of ownership rights conferred under it.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks for the following reliefs:-

i) Commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Lambardar in view of his appointment vide order No. 145-47/TBG Auth dated 07.07.2022 and also in view of the J&K Lambardari Act, 1972 and J&K Lambardari Rules, 1980 till general elections are held.

ii) Commanding upon the respondents to confirm the appointment of the petitioner in accordance with the J&K Lambardari Act and Lambardari Rules.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioners have sought a direction upon respondent No. 3 to issue passports in their favour.

2. According to the petitioners, they had applied for passports after depositing the requisite fee. The application of the petitioner was allotted file number JM1066761201422 whereas, application of petitioner No. 2 was allotted file number JM1066765476422, whereafter, the said applications were forwarded to respondent No. 2 for verification. The applications were submitted by the petitioners on 11.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 but despite lapse of so many years, the respondents have not taken any action in the matter which has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court.

PER OSWAL-J

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2023 passed by the learned writ court, whereby the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 3311/2023, filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has no locus to assail the order of demolition dated 07.01.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2.

2. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is in possession of the property pursuant to the Agreement to Sell as well as the will executed by the original allottee and being the occupier of the building in question, has locus to assail the order dated 07.01.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 7(3) of J&K Control of Building Operations Act (For short 'the Act'). He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Union of India &Anr. Vs. K.C. Sharma and Company & others" (2020) 15 SCC 209 and "Maneklal Mansukhbhai vs. Hormusiji Jamshedji Ginwala"1950 SCC 83.

1 The petitioner has challenged order No. 214/NRHM of 2008 dated 10.03.2008 issued by respondent No.2 to the extent of engagement of respondent No.4 as Laboratory Assistant under NRHM. A direction has also been sought by the petitioner upon the official respondents seeking his engagement as Laboratory Assistant in CHC, Marwah.

2 Form a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that a Notification No.02 dated 16.10.2007 was issued by respondent No.2 whereby applications were invited for contractual appointments in various categories at different levels in the erstwhile District Doda. Six posts of Laboratory Assistants were also advertised vide the said notification which was published in a Newspaper on 17.10.2007. A corrigendum to the said notification, was issued vide No.NRHM/DDC/9954 dated 24.10.2007 whereby, besides increasing the number of posts advertised, it was provided that the advertisement of the posts should be read for Districts Doda, Kishtwar and Ramban instead of the erstwhile District Doda. It was further provided that the candidates should be the residents of the erstwhile J&K State and that preference will be given to local candidates. It was also provided that number of posts advertised for the position of Laboratory Assistant would be six (two each) and as per the corrigendum, number of such posts was increased to (12).

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Mohd Musharaf and Sofia Kouser, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Muslim rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from official respondents.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner claiming to be owner of land measuring 3 Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos. 210 (02-00) & 216 (01-

00) situated at Phalyana, Tehsil & District Rajouri, which on requisition has been under the occupation of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ever since the year 1961/62 and that the petitioner as owner of the land, had been receiving the settled rent for use of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, from the Collectorate.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the coming into effect of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 on 31.08.2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was organized into two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and in terms of Section 95(2) of the aforesaid Act, all the laws mentioned in the 5th Schedule applicable to the existing State of Jammu & Kashmir, immediately before the appointed day were made applicable in the manner provided in the 5th Schedule; that the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (State Act), was mentioned at serial no. 133 in TABLE-3 of 5th Schedule which contained the enactments which stood repealed correspondingly Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act) was made applicable. He further submits that the Central Act provides for a limitation of 17 years for holding the property on requisition and on expiry of 17 years from the date of occupying the property under occupation is either to be acquired in view of the law applicable or its possession is to be handed over to the owner.

08.11.2024

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail with effect from 07.11.2024 to 14.11.2024 so as to enable him to attend the wedding ceremonies of his niece, namely, Simerjeet Kour. The petitioner has placed on record the wedding invitation card.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case, titled "U. T of J&K vs Sarita Devi and others" pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba arising out of FIR No. 224/2021 of Police Station, Samba. The said FIR was initially registered for commission of offences under section 363 IPC, however, subsequently after the investigation, charge sheet for commission of offences under sections 363-A, 370, 120 and 34 IPC was filed against the petitioner.

(12.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Ankush Kumar and Isha Devi, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Hindu rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from respondent No.1.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought temporary bail for the purpose of attending marriage ceremony of his younger brother which is stated to be scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2024.

2. Heard and considered.

3. The petitioner has been arrested in a case arising out of the Crime No. 15/2024 for the commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act. As per case of the prosecution, commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 27.08.2024 when he along with co-accused was travelling in a bus. The investigation is stated to be still in progress.

1 The petitioners have challenged order dated 23.11. 2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu ('the Appellate Court' for short) whereby the appeal of the petitioners against order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity Magistrate), Jammu ('the trial Magistrate' for short) in a petition filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short) has been dismissed.

2 It appears that a petition under Section 12 of DV Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioners and others including her husband Gurinder Singh before the learned trial Magistrate. It also appears that the marriage between the respondent and her husband, who happens to be the son of the petitioners herein, had taken place on 29.01.2015, whereafter, the relation between the respondent and her husband and in-laws including the petitioners herein did not remain cordial. In the petition under section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent leveled several allegations of domestic violence against the petitioners and her husband. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioners and other family members of her husband including her husband abused and taunted her for bringing less dowry and she was even beaten up by them. She has given instances with regard to the incidents of alleged acts of domestic violence perpetrated upon her by the petitioners sand her husband. It has been alleged by her in the aforesaid petition that the petitioners and other family members of her husband were forcing her to bring dowry in the shape of different articles 3 It seems that on an earlier occasion, the respondent had filed a similar petition against the petitioners herein and her husband and the same was withdrawn by her in terms of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. After withdrawal of the earlier petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent filed another petition under the same provision against the petitioners as well as her husband and her sister-in-law. During pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners herein as also the sister-in-law of the respondent, namely Smt. Rani Kour filed an application for dropping of the proceedings against them. The trial Magistrate, after inviting objections from the respondent and after hearing the parties, partly allowed the said application in terms of order dated 10.07.2023 thereby accepting the application for dropping of proceedings to the extent of Smt. Rani Kour, sister-in-law of the respondent, but declining the said application to the extent of petitioners herein.

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) The appellant/State has challenged judgment dated 07.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") whereby, in a case arising out of FIR No. 116/2000 for offences under Sections 307/324/326/336/337 RPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e- Bahu, Jammu, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges.

2) The facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are that on 05.04.2000, PW Mohd Ashraf while undergoing treatment in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu for the injury received by him, made a statement before the police that on the aforesaid date at about 10.30 am when he reached his in-laws‟ house at Raika, he saw a number of people having gathered over there. He further stated that his father-in-law Siraj Din and respondent No.1/accused were having a long standing land dispute going on between them. On account of this, the respondents/accused along with 8/10 more persons had come on spot. It was further stated that the respondent No.1/accused Showkat Ali with an intention to commit murder of PW Mohd Ashraf launched a murderous attack on him with a Pathi on left side of his head which resulted in grievous injury to him. It was also alleged that the other respondents/accused were carrying clubs and axes in their hands, but they did not launch any attack upon him. When some people came on spot, the respondents/accused fled away from the spot and PW Mohd Ashraf fell down unconscious.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No. 101/2021 titled Satish Kumar Jain vs. Jugal Kishore & Anr.

2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 07.03.2020 and order on sentence dated 28.08.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

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

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

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

1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 476576/2016 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

2. The complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner and other co-accused persons, acting on behalf of the accused company namely M/s Fresco Foods Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement dated 12.03.2009 with the complainant whereby the respondent disbursed a sum of ₹1,60,00,000/- as a venture capital amount to the accused. This venture capital assistance was refundable upon the full repayment of the term loan. It is the case of the respondent that the accused undertook that in the event of the venture capital amount not being refunded on the same date as that of the repayment of the term loan from the bank, the same would attract interest at the same rate as that being charged by the bank for the term loan.

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

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

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

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

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the judgement dated 10th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 12165/2024 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant also seeks quashing of the NEET Disability Certificate issued by respondent no.2 as well as the Medical Report of the AIIMS, New Delhi dated 6th September, 15:01:10 2024; and prays for declaring the appellant eligible to pursue medical courses and allowing him to take part in the ongoing counselling process. Alternatively, the appellant seeks re-evaluation and re-assessment of his suitability to pursue MBBS course notwithstanding the impugned Regulations. A challenge is also made to Footnote 3 to Appendix H-1 to the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Regulations, 2023 being ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with directions to the respondent no.1 to issue fresh Regulations/Guidelines in this respect.

CM(M) 84/2024

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

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