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occasion, the respondent had filed a similar petition against the petitioners herein and her husband and the same was withdrawn by her in terms of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate.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.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2024 ('impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and order on sentence dated 08.05.2024 ('impugned order on sentence') in case arising out of FIR No. 302/2011 registered at Police Station Seema Puri for offences under Sections 302/308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The appellants, by the impugned judgment, were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/304(II)/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A tabular statement of the conviction rendered and the sentence imposed by the learned ASJ on the appellants is reproduced below from the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2024 ('impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and order on sentence dated 08.05.2024 ('impugned order on sentence') in case arising out of FIR No. 302/2011 registered at Police Station Seema Puri for offences under Sections 302/308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The appellants, by the impugned judgment, were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/304(II)/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A tabular statement of the conviction rendered and the sentence imposed by the learned ASJ on the appellants is reproduced below from the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Simri PS case no. 79 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354(D), 509, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that petitioner was teasing and stalking the informant for the last two years and when the informant protested, the petitioner threatened to make her photograph viral on the social media. On 17.04.2024, while the informant was going towards the house of her friend, petitioner and his friend followed her and made vulgar comments and upon protest, they assaulted her brutally. It has further been alleged that on 21.04.2024 in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70435 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 morning, the petitioner along with other accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sharp cutting weapon came at the door of the informant and assaulted her family members.

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

2. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bihpur P.S. Case No.47 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 447, 385, 387, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act.

3. Allegedly, petitioner along with some known and unknown co-accused persons came to the informant's house and started abusing for demand of extortion. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with one another co-accused started firing with the intention to create fear.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 323, 307, 341, 379, 504, 506/34 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, petitioner along with other co-accused persons have abused and assaulted the informant and other persons with rod, brick and stones. It is further alleged that co-accused Maya Kumari took away locket and jiuitia of Rekha Kumari.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. It is also submitted that occurrence took place on 04.11.2024 but FIR has been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76808 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 lodged on 17.11.2023 i.e after the delay of 13 days. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sahebpur Kamal Police Station Case No. 129 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 385, 338, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report, is that on 04.05.2024, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, armed with lathi, danda, iron-rod and pistol, arrived at the house of the informant and the co- accused persons caught hold her father and assaulted him by means of iron-rod on his head. Co-accused persons Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71179 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 also assaulted the aunt of the informant, looted the house hold article. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with co-accused Md. Ezaj resorted to firing.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Konch Police Station Case No. 245 of 2024, dated 10.06.2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 10.06.2024, the informant, along with his cousin brother, was sitting at his door, in the mean while, his neighbour, Shiv Kumar Prasad, along with other accused persons, including the petitioner, arrived there with lathi, danda, iron-rod, surrounded the cousin brother of the informant, abused him and assaulted him with lathi, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73971 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 danda and iron-rod.

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, registered Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75612 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/325/307/435/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against fourteen named accused persons including the present petitioners with allegation that they have reached at the land of the informant and made the hut. Scuffling took place and the petitioners had attacked on the informant and others, due to which some persons were injured. Names were specifically mentioned in the FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 341/ 323/ 307/ 385/ 504/ 506/34 of the IPC and added Section 302 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner entered the house of informant and started assaulting the informant and others with lathi, danda and iron rods due to which informant and others got injured and four months later, the informant died.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners alongwith other co-accused persons came at the informant's shop and started assaulting him. When the informant's son came to save him then the co-accused, Madan Prasad, hit him with iron pipe which resulted into head injury. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 2 has stolen Rs.35,000/- from the informant's shop.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Dewaria P.S. Case no. 18 of 2024 registered under sections 376, 342, 323, 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information and Technology Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner who happens to be the husband of her cousin sister took her to a room in a hotel, made her to drink an intoxicated tea and on her falling unconscious established physical relations with her. It is further stated that he took objectionable photographs and threatened that he would make Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74140 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 the same viral. It is further stated that he also sent the photographs to some persons from his mobile phone, details of which has been mentioned in the F.I.R.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Buxar (Muffassil) Police Station Case No. 195 of 2024, disclosing offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant and his sister-in-law Rani Devi purchased a piece of land by way of two registered sale deeds from Raghvendra Kishore Srivastava, situated at Mauza Hukaha, Thana No. 281, bearing Khata No. 185, Plot No. 46, having an area of 198 decimals. Thereafter, the informant got the information that accused Dhananjay Singh has executed a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71947 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 forged sale deed, dated 24.01.2024, and in that sale deed some fictious person has been impersonated as seller Raghvendra Kishore Srivastava. The petitioner is one of the identifier and witness in the forged sale deed. After execution of the sale deed, the accused persons, armed with rifle, pistol, katta, lathi and bhala, came on 05.03.2024 and threatened to kill the informant and his family members.

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 452, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. All the F.I.R. named accused persons including these petitioners in furtherance of their common intention armed with deadly weapons are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members with intention to kill them due to which they sustained injuries on vital part also.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 318 of 2024 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 307, 195A, 120B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 01.04.2024 by the informant, Binod Rai.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that as he was sleeping in his office, Rahul Kumar alongwith other accused came and Rahul Kumar opened fire causing injury. Rahul Kumar was again loading another cartridge when an alarm was raised whereafter, they escaped. This led to the FIR.

Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Forest Case No.78-F of 2021, registered u/s 2, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1990) and 2, 27, 29, 31, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended by Amending Act, 2006).

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

4. Permission is granted.

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioners is that after receiving the consideration money of Rs. 17,90,000 from the informant they executed the sale deed in favour of other persons and did not return the aforesaid amount to the informant.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 and sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 448 and 504 of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioners are said to have entered into the house of the informant and indiscriminately assaulted the informant's side.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, petitioners and other co-accused persons entered in the house of the informant and brutally assaulted the informant's side.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75115 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are of simple nature. Petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have no criminal antecedent and petitioner no.3 has one criminal antecedent.

1. Since both these anticipatory bail applications arise out of Bihiya Police Station Case No. 191 of 2024, with the consent of the parties, both these applications are heard together.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. These applications, for grant of anticipatory bail, arise out of Bihiya Police Station Case No. 191 of 2024, dated Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71118 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 26.06.2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341/323/504/307/337/34of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Appeal is admitted.

3. Call for the Trial Court Records of Registration No. 1621 of 2023 arising out of Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 57 of 2023 from the court of learned Special Judge (Excise)-2, Samastipur.

4. The present matter is taken on board for considering prayer of bail and suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.)/Section 430(1) of BNSS as raised through memo of appeal, itself as preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C./ Section 415 (2) of BNSS.

We have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, the learned Spl. PP for the State.

2. Ms. Usha Kumari has informed this Court that she had telephonic conversation with the informant, who has been communicated about this case. However, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.672 of 2024(6) dt.11-11-2024 there is no separate representation of the informant in this case.

3. The written objection is on record.

4. The appellant along with another has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 25(1-B)a and 27 of the Arms Act; and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 vide judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act, Nawada in Exclusive Special (SC/ST) Case No. 16 of 2019, arising out of Pakri Barawan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2019. By order dated 06.04.2024, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months under Section 302 of the IPC; R.I. for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for two months under Section 201 of the IPC; R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.672 of 2024(6) dt.11-11-2024 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for one month under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act; R.I. for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for two months under Section 27 of the Arms Act; and imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 332, 354(B), 436, 427, 379, 353, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, in relation to the Tarabari P.S. Case No.67 of 2024, police recovered kidnapped Chandni Kumari and arrested the accused Mintu Singh and kept them under the supervision of the police officials in the police station. Both Mintu Singh and Chandni Kumari committed suicide by hanging themselves. When the relatives of the deceased persons got the information about the incident, several persons including Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74950 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 the petitioners gathered along with deadly weapons and brutally assaulted the police official and also damaged their vehicles by setting them on fire.

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

Name of Party Before District Forum Before State Commission Before National Commission ( Original Memo of Parties) Before National Commission ( Amended memo of parties) Public College Samana Complainant Respondent No.1 Petitioner Petitioner State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall OP No.1 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana OP No.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 State Bank of India, Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.3 Appellant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commission OP No.4 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.2   For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis  

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short "NFAC"), for the Assessment Years ITA Nos. 521 to 524 /Ahd/2023 Inox India Limited Asst.Years 2000-01 & 2002-03 to 2004-05)

- 2- 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2004-2005. Since common issues are involved in all the year under consideration of appeals before us, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)"), Delhi, dated 19.02.2024/20.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY") 2017-18.

2. First, will take up ITA No 701/Chny/2024 against Ld CIT(A) order dated 19.02.2024; and note that the main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the following actions of the AO (i) making an addition of Rs.19,28,069/- as unexplained money on ITA Nos.701, 743 to 745/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) M/s. Covai Marketing :: 2 ::

1.     This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dated 16.02.2018 in complaint no. CC/26 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.50 lakh to the complainant as compensation for medical negligence for the death of his son with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (23.04.2012) till the date of payment within 2 months of the order.

2.     I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.3577/Mum/2024

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/02/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, ["learned CIT(A)"], for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

"1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs.54,64,000/- under sec.56(2)(b)(vii).

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the bank statement of the appellant, Ledger copy confirmation of the Builder and letter of allotment issued to the appellant by the builder submitted while disputing the proposed addition during the assessment proceedings.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

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

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

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

1.      The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the Order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh ("State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 83/2022, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is 31 days delay filing the Appeal. For reasons stated in IA/9118/2022, the delay is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

4.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's husband, Dilip Kumar Singh, obtained an insurance policy from OP insurance company on 28.06.2015. On 16.08.2015, while returning from Omkareshwar to Ujjain during Kavad Yatra, he met with an accident near Baigram on the Indore-Khandwa road and died. Following his death, the complainant submitted a claim to OP insurance company. However, the same was rejected on the ground that material facts about previous health conditions of the deceased were not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence, complainant filed C.C. No. 83/2022.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

This appeal by the assessee is against the final order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int.Tax Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai, (the "AO" in short) under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) dated 16.12.2021 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised various grounds pertaining to the following issues -

2 ITA No. 235/Mum/2022

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1. Denial of benefit of exemption under Article 8 of the India-USA Tax Treaty ('Treaty') - Ground No.1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 & 1.5)

18.2 The above facts revealed that the TAL had neither submitted the correct ST-3 returns showing the above taxable amount nor deposited the Service Tax on the taxable amount representing the amount received from the SKOL as License endorsement fees. It appears that TAL had deliberately suppressed their receipts against License endorsement fees and have also sought to mislead the investigation by claiming that the said receipts are not related to renting of the immoveable property while both TAL the service provider and SKOL the recipient of service have accounted for the amount paid as license endorsement fees as Rent in their Balance sheets. It therefore appears from the foregoing that the noticee has resorted to fraud, willful mis-statement, and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. M/s TAL have thus suppressed the taxable value to ST/52898/2018 the tune of Rs. 18,93,66,667/- from the Service Tax department and evaded the Service Tax amounting to Rs 2,02,15,467/-(Service Tax Rs 1,96,26,667 + Ed Cess 3,92,533/- + Ed Cess Rs 1,96,267/-) in respect of taxable services rendered by them for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.01.2013 by contravening the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Thus, the service tax not paid by TAL on the value of taxable services suppressed by them is recoverable from them by invoking the extended period under proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 along with interest at the appropriate rate as per Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994."

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

1.      This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dated 16.12.2020 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressals Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 188 of 2020 holding that the appellants herein are not "consumers" under the purview of the Act and dismissing the complaint filed by them.

2.      The delay of 80 days in the filing of this complaint has been considered in the light of the fact that the impugned order was dated 16. 12.2020 and while the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of order, this period coincided with the COVID-19 Pandemic and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 the period for limitation stood extended.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate impugned orders of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter in short 'the AO') dated 29.03.2021 / 31.03.2021 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short 'the DRP') both dated 05.02.2021 and pertain to Assessment Years (hereinafter in short 'AY') 2016-17 & 2015-16 respectively.

IT(TP)A Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2015-16) M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd.

:: 2 ::

2. Both parties agreed that issues permeating in both the assessment years are similar and identical except that of ground no.3, 5, 9, 12 & 13 for assessment year 2016-17, which will be discussed at the last.