Australia's largest airline Qantas is offering tickets to the United States for just $400.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has defended the decision to stand down 20,000 staff in the face of the coronavirus outbreak which he described as the worst crisis to ever hit the airline industry.

Supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths were the first to flag offers for staff members being made redundant during the coronavirus pandemic.

Almost 90,000 Australians lost their jobs on Monday as the government moved to shut all pubs, bars, cinemas and gyms in a bid to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Thousands of citizens are understood to be stranded overseas, but four international routes are now being subsidised by the federal government.

Luke Sikalias lost his claim for unfair dismissal at the Fair Work Commission after an incident before a flight from Melbourne to Sydney in May 2018.

5,500 workers at Dnata, which supplies frozen meals to businesses like Qantas received the news they were no longer eligible for the $1500/fortnight payment on Monday.

Veteran Robert Embleton, 79, was left devastated by residents' response when he returned to his Plymouth retirement home after beating coronavirus in hospital.

Deputy director of China's National Health Commission Li Bin said that reforms are underway to improve the country's disease prevention and control mechanisms.

'We've been working with them, but we have not given the green light,' Alameda County Health Officer Erica Pan said of Tesla. 'We have not said it is appropriate to move forward.'

Sir Reginald Sheffield, Samantha Cameron's father, was targeted in the grounds of Normanby Hall near Flixborough outside Scunthorpe, in an alleged tussle with a man accused of stealing his iPhone 8.

In a video posted on the event's Twitter account, the Duke of Sussex urged the 'Invictus family' to look out for each other and encouraged them to get involved with virtual activities.

Daily coronavirus tests fell the below 100,000 target for a seventh day in a row. Health Secretary Matt Hancock urged Boris Johnson to 'give me a break' in a furious bust-up over the coronavirus crisis.

President Trump announced the $3billion food buy - part of April's $16billion farmer assistance program - would begin next week, as unemployment continues to soar in the US.

Leaders of unions such as Unite, Unison and the General have written an open letter to Boris Johnson demanding the government puts policies in place to make workplaces safe.

Boris Johnson is expected to drop the 'stay at home' slogan during a televised address to Britain on Sunday at 7pm in an effort to reopen parts of the economy damaged during the coronavirus crisis.

Roger Federer, who will be 39 in August, leads the race with 20 Grand Slam singles titles. Rafa Nadal is hot on his heels with 19 titles, while Novak Djokovic is closing in quickly with 17.

The comedian and political commentator devoted part of Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher monologue to addressing the potential fallout of Reade's claims against the former Vice President.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66603 of 2019, the petitioner was granted bail in connection with Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 282 of 2018 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 194/2019 to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Siwan but inadvertently in the last paragraph of order dated 04.03.2020, in place of Sessions Trial No. 194/2019, the same had been typed as Sessions Trial No. 194/2009.

Heard Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on suspicion, from out side his house, and thereafter house of the petitioner was searched and two litres of country made liquor was recovered.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2019 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10317 of 2020(3) dt.29-04-2020 2/3 is no allegation of tampering of witnesses against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of disclosure made by the co-villagers. The names of the co-villagers have not been disclosed by the prosecution. It is alleged that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln. The brick kiln in question belongs to the joint family of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence. There is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the mother of the petitioner has expired on 13.04.2020. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. Other similarly situated co- accused, namely, Babban Ray has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.78312 of 2019 dated 29.01.2020.

3. Both the Appeals arise out of and are directed against the same order dated 19.5.2018 passed in Complaint No.14/2016 by Shri S V R Srinivas, Principal Seoretary, Information and Technology, Government of Maharashtra in the capacity of Adjudicating Officer (AO) exercising jurisdiction under section 46 of the Information Technology Act,2000, Since parties and the issues are common, both the Appeals have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement.

4. The proceedings before the learned AO commenced on filing of a complaint on 14.12.2015 by the complainant, Sandeep Singhal, a businessman residing at Nagpur. The complaint contains all the relevant informations with respect to both the respondents, Bank of India, Rana Pratap Nagar Branch, Nagpur and Vodafone Cellular Ltd., Maharashira, The particulars of claims show that Rs. 18,75,381.41 has been claimed towards actual losses sustained because of alleged negligence of the bank andfor because of negligence of M/s. Vodafone in illegally issuing the duplicate SIM Card to an imposter, Rs. 5 lakhs have been claimed towards actual costs on account of travelling and ldgation expenses etc. Rs 10 lakh has been claimed towards damages on account of mental agonies caused to the complainant.

Mr, Saniay Govind Dhande & Ors. .. Respondents BERPORE:

HON BLE MR.FUSTICE SHIVA BIRTI SINGH, CHAIRPERSON For Petitioner (in C.A. No.l of 2014) =: Mr, Thyagrajan, Advocate Ms. Akanksha Banerjee, Advocate For Petitioner (in C.A. No.4 of 2014) : Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate For Respondents > Mr. Arpun Natrajan, Advocate QRDER By S.K. Singh, Chairperson -- At the outset, it ig recorded that learned counsel for Vodafone Cellular Ltd, appellant in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has informed that the name of the above corporate entity now stands changed to Vodafone Idea Lid. He prays that this change may be recorded and the changed name should appear in the judgment. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the other side and hence the change in the name of Vodatone Cellular Ltd. to that of Vodafone Idea Lid. is recorded and the cause title of this judgment and order is accordingly modified so as to teflect the name of Vodafone Idea Lid. Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has been taken as the lead matter. The appellant in the other appeal (Cyber Appeal No.4 of 2014) Le. ICICT Bank Lid. is one of the respondents in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014,

2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. This application was filed by the Applicant in the matter of the grant of the mining lease to the Respondent No.1 for executing the construction work of the road from the Jaora-Piplodha-Jalandharkheda & Piploda - Sailana at the instance of the Respondent No. 8/Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC). For the aforesaid purpose the Respondent No.1 was granted temporary mining lease in July, 2013 for mining of material i.e. stone/boulder and murrum from the land in Khasra no. 308/1/1/a, village Amba, Tahsil Sailana, District Ratlam. The question raised by the Applicant was looking to the close proximity to the site of the aforesaid mining lease granted to the Respondent No.1, to the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary famous for the Lesser Floricon bird, commonly known as Kharmour which is reported to be on the verge of near extinction and the aforesaid Sanctuary is one of the few habitats left over for the breeding purpose preferred by this bird, would be extensively disturbed as a result of the mining activity in such close proximity of the Sanctuary as also the fact, as was revealed before the Tribunal during the hearing, that the extent of the area of the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary was limited to just about 13 sq.km.

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

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

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

Case No. 45 of 2019 2

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

Case No. 34 of 2019 1

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

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

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

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Arajit Das: that is not required.

On 28-02-2019, Sri. K.P. Mathaikunju and 3 others filed a contempt of court case before this court against the respondents herein, alleging that the respondents have committed civil contempt by publishing a face book post in a face book page to which the respondents are the admins and also published a similar news in the website www.ovsonline.in on 27-02-2019, to the effect that the cases, O.P (C) No.65/2019 & Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, which pertains to the dispute regarding the 'Vadavukod Church' were dismissed by the High Court on 27-02- 2019, which in fact were only reserved for judgment on that day. It is alleged that the act of the respondents in this regard would amount to interference with the administration of justice and therefore they have committed contempt of court punishable under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registry of this court expressed doubt with respect to maintainability of CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -4- the above said contempt of court petition. Therefore the case was posted before the learned Single Judge who as dealing with OP (C) No.65/2019 and Tr.P (C) No.76/2019, as unnumbered contempt petition. Initially, the learned Judge appointed an 'amicus curiae' in the matter, through order dated 01-03-2019. But subsequently, on 31-05-2019, the Single Judge directed the Registry of this court to place the petition before Hon'ble Chief justice for appropriate further action on the administrative side, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Rehim P. V. M.V. Jayarajan and others (2010 (4) KLT 286). When the matter was placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 25-06-2019, it was ordered to place the matter as a suo motu criminal contempt case, for preliminary hearing, before the appropriate Bench. When the matter came on the judicial side, this court ordered notice to the respondents. Personal appearance of the respondents were dispensed with for the time being. The respondents appeared and each of them had filed separate affidavits. Now the case is coming up for consideration as to whether there exists prima facie contempt and to decide whether further proceedings need to be pursued in the case by framing charge against the respondents. CON.Case (Crl. ) No.1/2019 (Suo motu) -5-

The above appeal was originally filed as a 'Motor Accident Claim Appeal', ('MACA'). The appeal memorandum reflected that the appeal was filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.), read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the Registry of this court noted defect, the appeal was sought to be be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry has not yet accepted the same for the reason that the order impugned is not an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Unnumbered Crl. Appeal 16 of 2020 -:4:- Registry noted that, probably an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone may lie against the order impugned. However, the matter was posted before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. On 05.09.2016, learned counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that the Registry is correct in holding that an appeal will not lie under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought time for curing the defect, which was allowed. Thereafter the case was re-presented with correction made in the 'Docket Sheet' in the cause title portion, styling it as an 'appeal', instead of "MACA". But the memorandum of appeal in all other respects remained as such. On the request of the counsel for the appellants, the matter was posted before this Bench, for hearing on the question of maintainability. Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijayabhanu has consented to assist the court as Amicus Curiae. Hence the question of maintainability was heard in detail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The registration of the first information report is the process in terms of which the criminal law is set in a cognizable case. True, the first information report and all further proceedings thereto can be quashed by this court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any cognizable offence, or where the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 5 private and personal grudge. It is, however, settled that the power to quash the first information report is a power that must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases. It is also settled that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry in such cases as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report. The court cannot also enquire whether the allegations in the first information report are likely to be established [See M.Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, (2003)11 SCC 251].

SECRETARY GENERAL: Sir, I have to report the following message received from the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha:

“In accordance with the provisions of rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Raya Sabha, I am directed to inform the Lok Sabha that the Rajya Sabha at its sitting held on the 4th December, 2019, agreed without any amendment to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Bill, 2019 which was passed by the Lok Sabha at its sitting held on the 28th November, 2019.”          

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे (गोड्डा): माननीय अध्यक्ष जी, मैं आपके माध्यम से … * भ्रष्टाचार की गंगोत्री है,के बड़े स्कैम की तरफ देश और पार्लियामेंट का ध्यान आकृष्ट करना चाहता हूं ।             महोदय, जब माननीय वाजपेयी जी की सरकार थी,वर्ष 2003 में सरकार ने तय किया था कि हम लोगों को एस बैंड के लिए कंपनी बनानी चाहिए और एन्ट्रिक्स को इसकी मार्केटिंग करनी चाहिए । वर्ष 2003 में एक आदमी के साथ उसकी बातचीत स्टार्ट हुई । हमारी सरकार चली गई । आपको जानकर आश्चर्य होगा कि हमारी सरकार के जाने के बाद 28 जनवरी, 2005 को एन्ट्रिक्स और देवास नाम की कंपनी के साथ एक एग्रीमेंट साइन हुआ । …(व्यवधान) देवास कंपनी 17 दिसम्बर, 2004 को बनी । …(व्यवधान) उसके साथ 60,000 करोड़ का एग्रीमेंट भारत सरकार ने साइन किया । …(व्यवधान)           महोदय, दूसरा सवाल है कि जिन कंपनियों से पैसा आया, मॉरिशस की कंपनी   …(व्यवधान) कंपनी 2006 में बनी, 2009 में बनी, 2010 में बनी ।…(व्यवधान) और … * जी ने एफआईपीबी का क्लियरेंस दिया । …(व्यवधान) माननीय अध्यक्ष: श्री संतोष पाण्डेय जी ।

माननीय अध्यक्ष: माननीय सदस्यगण, जैसा कि आप सभी को विदित है, अठारह वर्ष पूर्व 13 दिसम्बर, 2001 को एक दुस्साहसिक हमले में हमारी लोकतांत्रिक राजव्यवस्था की प्रतीक भारतीय संसद आतंकी हमले का निशाना बनी ।

          यह हमला संसद परिसर की सुरक्षा में लगे हुए सतर्क सुरक्षा बलों द्वारा निष्फल कर दिया गया था। दिल्ली पुलिस के पांच सुरक्षाकर्मी, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल की एक महिला कांस्टेबल, संसद सुरक्षा सेवा के दो सुरक्षा सहायक तथा एक अन्य कर्मचारी भी इस आतंकी हमले में शहीद हुए ।

          यह सभा हमारे बहादुर सुरक्षा कर्मियों द्वारा दिए गए सर्वोच्च बलिदान के प्रति अपनी श्रद्धांजलि अर्पित करती है तथा उनके परिवारों के साथ मजबूती से खड़ी है ।

          इस अवसर पर, हम आतंकवाद से लड़ने तथा अपने देश की एकता, अखंडता और सम्प्रभुता की रक्षा करने संबंधी अपने संकल्प को एक बार पुन: दोहराते हैं ।

2. Notice issued shall indicate that reply shall be filed within two days of the receipt of notice.

List on 27th April 2020.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (GITA MITTAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 23.04.2020 Raj Kumar RAJ KUMAR 2020.04.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Issue notice of this application to the respondents. Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG accepts notice.

2 WP(C) PIL NO. 41/2019 Let a copy of this application be sent to Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG by Mrs. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate, who shall seek instructions that immediate steps are taken to ensure food and all facilities to these survival of natural calamity.

Let a copy of this application be also furnished to Mr. M. K. Sharma, Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jammu and Ms. Sandeep Kour, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Udhampur to ensure that these people are given immediate assistance.

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

The respondent no. 2 filed counter against the bail application through e-mail during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown with exemption application to exempt the respondent no. 2 from filing affidavit in support of the counter.

The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the respondent no. 2.

The counter of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

The Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant-applicant against the Judgment & Order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Special Sessions Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2013 State Vs. Pranay Sati, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the offence punishable under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act, 1985").

----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.

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.

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]

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.]

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.

(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.

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. 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.