1. Niva Bupa Share Price LIVE: Stock lists at 5.5% premium over IPO price on NSE  Upstox
2. Niva Bupa Health Insurance shares list at ₹78.14 on NSE, a premium of 5.5% from IPO price  Mint
3. Niva Bupa Healthcare shares list at 6% premium over IPO price  The Economic Times
4. Niva Bupa IPO shares to make stock market today; check GMP ahead of listing​​​​​​​  Business Today
5. Niva Bupa shares list at 6% premium over IPO price in decent stock market debut  Moneycontrol

1. Gautam Adani plans to invest $10 billion in US energy, infrastructure to create up to 15,000 jobs  Moneycontrol
2. 'To create 15,000 jobs': Gautam Adani to invest $10 billion into US energy and infra, congratulates Donald Trump  Hindustan Times
3. 'Congratulations Donald Trump': Gautam Adani says his group will invest $10 billion in US energy, infra p  The Times of India
4. Adani commits $10 billion in U.S. energy, infra projects  The Hindu
5. Adani Group commits $10 bn in US energy, infrastructure projects  The Economic Times

1. Stock market today: Trade setup for Nifty 50 to Q2 results today; five stocks to buy or sell on Thursday — Nov 14 | Stock Market News  Mint
2. Trade setup for Thursday: Top 15 things to know before the opening bell  Moneycontrol
3. GIFT Nifty starts in the red, down 10 points; market trading setup for today  India Today
4. Bloodbath on D-street: Investors lose Rs 13 lakh crore in last 2 days- Top reasons why market is falling  The Times of India
5. Sensex Today | Stock Market LIVE Updates: GIFT Nifty signals a muted start; Asian shares trade mixed  The Economic Times

1. Sri Lanka Leader Seeks to Bolster Power With Parliamentary Vote | Company Business News  Mint
2. Sri Lanka Heads For Snap Elections Today, Results Likely On Friday  NDTV
3. Sri Lanka votes today: President Dissanayake faces litmus test as NPP aims for majority control | All you need to know  Mint
4. Sri Lanka to hold key parliamentary vote on November 14  The Hindu
5. Snap Sri Lankan election poses test for new leader  BBC.com

1. Won’t back off from ‘Pharma Village’, says Telangana CM’s brother  The Siasat Daily
2. Lagcherla: KTR named in remand report  Deccan Chronicle
3. Ex-BRS MLA held over mob attack on Vikarabad collector  Hindustan Times
4. Video | Violence Over Land Row In Telangana Chief Minister's Constituency, 55 Detained  NDTV
5. Govt. charges BRS with hatching conspiracies to stall development projects for political gains  The Hindu

1. Wayanad, where Priyanka made poll debut, records lowest-ever voter turnout since constituency’s formation  The Indian Express
2. Wayanad, where Priyanka Gandhi made election debut, sees lowest-ever voter turnout  Hindustan Times
3. Bypolls for one Lok Sabha, 31 Assembly seats keep 10 states busy  The Economic Times
4. Rahul Gandhi Takes Kerala's Longest Zipline In Landslide-Hit Wayanad  NDTV
5. You’re inspiration to keep fighting for ideals nation was built on: Priyanka to Wayanad voters  The Indian Express

1. Jharkhand Phase-I Assembly poll records over 65% turnout; Wayanad bypoll 64.72%  The Hindu
2. Watch: MS Dhoni casts his vote in Ranchi for Jharkhand Assembly Elections  The Times of India
3. First phase of polling ends in Jharkhand with 64.86% turnout of voters  The Hindu
4. Situation in West Asia matter of deep concern: Jaishankar  The Economic Times
5. Jharkhand Assembly elections: High voter turnout recorded in Maoist-hit pockets  Telegraph India

1. To Own A Home Is Everybody's Dream: Poet Pradeep's Couplet Finds Mention In SC's Demolition Verdict  News18
2. SC lays down path, timeline that bulldozers must follow  The Times of India
3. Video | Dimple Yadav Slams BJP Over 'Bulldozer Action' In Supreme Court Statement  NDTV
4. Supreme Court verdict on bulldozer demolitions: Jamiat hails verdict, victims seek compensation  The Hindu
5. Right To Shelter A Facet Of Article 21; State Must Satisfy Why Entire Property Needs To Be Demolished :...  Live Law - Indian Legal News

1. Baba Siddique Shooter Waited Near Hospital For 30 Minutes To Confirm Death  NDTV
2. Suspect Watched From Hospital as NCP Leader Baba Siddique Died After Shooting | Mumbai News  The Times of India
3. Baba Siddique murder case: Main accused Shivkumar Gautam makes another BIG revelation | DETAILS  India TV News
4. Baba Siddique killing: Camped outside Siddique’s house in morning, office in evening for a month, accused tells police  The Indian Express
5. Baba Siddique murder: Main shooter returned to murder spot, visited Lilavati Hospital to confirm death  Hindustan Times

1. Delhi air pollution: AQI ‘severe’ again; thick smog reduces visibility. Schools to be closed soon?  Hindustan Times
2. Delhi air in ‘severe’ category with AQI of 426 — worst in India  The Hindu
3. Flights Impacted, Trains Running Late As ‘Severe’ Smog Chokes Delhi, Visibility Dips  News18
4. Delhi air pollution: City chokes as AQI level reaches 'severe' category  The Times of India
5. Delhi Covered In Toxic Smog, Visibility Low At Airports Across North India  NDTV

The Colonel is not so happy with Church's choice of words in recent ads.

Musk and Ramaswamy have to find ways to cut down on government spending and overall bureaucracy.

Brands like Straightaway Cocktails are putting their own spin on a practice you might remember from childhood.

Want to attract and convert more customers? Here's what you need to know.

The device will arrive by March at the earliest, according to reports.

Bluesky has been seeing noticeable growth since the election, though its user numbers are nowhere close to Meta's X competitor, Threads.

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon said on Wednesday he is leaving Elon Musk’s X, a decision made less than a year after X announced that “The Don Lemon Show” would appear on the social media platform three times a week. That deal was canceled before it was ever signed, and Lemon sued Musk and X […]

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

App developers now have a new way to promote their app launches, updates, and other new features on Apple’s App Store. First announced at the company’s Worldwide Developers Conference in June, Apple this week introduced a “Featuring Nominations” option in App Store Connect, which is the service developers use to submit their apps, games, and […]

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

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek has once again teased the company’s long-delayed HiFi or “super premium” tier, a higher-qualify subscription offering the streaming service first announced in 2021 and then failed to roll out. In the company’s third-quarter earnings call with investors on Wednesday, the exec suggested that such a product was still on the way, […]

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

1. By the present petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to transfer him to New Delhi from Jodhpur for further treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi.

2. Issue notice.

3. Notice is accepted by Mr.Shrey Sharawat, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Order dated 23.02.2022, passed by this Court in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) 857/2022, the petitioner joined at STC, BSF, Jodhpur. AIIMS, Jodhpur, however, required all the medical documents and data of the petitioner's treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi to be forwarded to them. The respondents forwarded this request to AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.04.2022, however, the said documents/data were not supplied by AIIMS, New Delhi to AIIMS, Jodhpur. The petitioner claims that because of this, he has to travel from Jodhpur to Delhi each time for his treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. He, therefore, prays for being transferred back to Delhi in order to have proper treatment.

MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL) CM APPLs.65148-65149/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 15514/2024 & CM APPL.65147/2024

3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent/Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital to open the financial bid of the petitioner and finalize the tender dated 12th June, 2024 for operating two kiosks at the premises of respondent hospital.

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to communication dated 24.06.2024, whereby her candidature for appointment to the post of TGT (Maths) has been cancelled by Respondent No.2/National Education Society for Tribal Students ('NESTS').

2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary is that NESTS is an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. NESTS published an advertisement in 2023 inviting applications for EMRS Staff Selection Exam (ESSE)-2023 for filling up various posts in Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS) which included 686 posts of TGT (Maths). The eligibility conditions including essential educational qualifications for the post of TGT (Maths) were prescribed in the advertisement.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Orders dated 14.09.2024 and 26.10.2024 passed by the IG/Principal, CTC CRPF, Panihar, Gwalior, respondent no. 3 herein, directing the recovery of the alleged inadmissible training allowance granted to the petitioners.

2. In the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2024 itself, the petitioners have been granted an opportunity to make a representation against the same within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said notice.

CM APPL. 65920/2024 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 15698/2024

1. The present petition, filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ to the respondents directing respondent No.1 to not dispossess them from the premises in question. It is claimed that they are protected under Delhi Rent Control Act and the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) cannot override the beneficial objective behind the enactment of Delhi Rent Control Act.

CM APPL.63468-469/2024

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL.63470/2024

2. The present application has been filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, „CPC‟) seeking condonation of 99 days delay in re-filing the appeal.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 99 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. FAO(COMM) 213/2024 & CM APPL.63467/2024

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The revision petition bearing CRL.REV.P. No. 444/2024 has been filed on behalf of Smt. Shalini Kapoor who is wife of the revisionist in CRL.REV.P. No. 685/2024. For the sake of convenience, this Court is treating the position of parties as per the petition bearing no. 444/2024. The brief facts leading to the instant revision petitions are as follows:

a) The petitioner and the respondent got married in the year 2010 as per the Hindu rituals and a child was born out of the wedlock in the year 2013.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The revision petition bearing CRL.REV.P. No. 444/2024 has been filed on behalf of Smt. Shalini Kapoor who is wife of the revisionist in CRL.REV.P. No. 685/2024. For the sake of convenience, this Court is treating the position of parties as per the petition bearing no. 444/2024. The brief facts leading to the instant revision petitions are as follows:

a) The petitioner and the respondent got married in the year 2010 as per the Hindu rituals and a child was born out of the wedlock in the year 2013.

13.11.2024 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

I.A. No. 4172/2023 (Application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to challenge the validity of the defendants' trademark registrations)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking permission to challenge the validity of the defendant‟s trademark registrations.

1. The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) to issue writ of mandamus/direction to institute comprehensive enquiry by appropriate agency preferably by C.B.I, for fixation of responsibility on those officials and contractors involved in the construction of multistoried complex of 816 flats at Jhilmil Colony, Phase - II in the year 1986-88.

(bi) the respondent to pay sum of Rs. 12,10,000/- to the petitioners as a compensation on account of loss of dependency, reimbursement of medical expenses, repair of balcony, loss of love & affection, mental agony and harassment suffered due to sudden demise of Shri Suresh Rustagi on 20.07.2000, as a result of collapse of balcony, of the flat no. 121-C, IInd Floor, Pocket A-1, Jhilmil, Phase-II, Delhi - 110095.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The instant appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, impugns order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"], whereby, the ITAT ruled in favour of the respondent/Assessee and dismissed the appeal preferred against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CITA"]. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"A. Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] fall into error in holding that the entity assessed was no longer in existence having regard to the circumstance that M/s. Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. merely underwent a name change and had responded to the Revenue's notices, having regard to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"]?

13.11.2024 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

I.A. 14145/2023 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking interim injunction for restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or promoting by using the mark/ trade name „ALDER BIOCHEM‟ and any other mark/ trade name/ label/ device that contains the trademark BIOCHEM.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

CM APPL. 47591/2022

CM APPL. 34855/2023

By way of CM APPL. No. 47591/2022 filed under Order XLIII Rule 1A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 („CPC‟), the appellant seeks recall of order dated 24.05.2012 made in the present proceedings, whereby the present regular first appeal alongwith RFA No.193/2003, were disposed-of as settled and satisfied in terms of the observations in that order; or, in the alternate, for modification of that order and a direction to the respondent to obtain a sanctioned building plan from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi („MCD‟) alongwith the structural building certificate to comply with that order. By way of CM APPL. No. 34855/2023 filed under section 151 CPC, the respondent seeks dismissal of CM APPL. No. 47591/2022 and modification of order dated 31.01.2023 passed by this court, whereby the respondent was directed to take steps for regularisation of property being the Third Floor of property bearing No. B-2/88, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi („suit property‟).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

(BY SRI B.V.ACHARYA, SPL.PP A/W SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG AND SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4;

SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP FOR R-5;

PROF.RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI ADITYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;

SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR I.A.NO. 1/2024 FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECITON 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO TRANSFER AND ENTRUST THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE CRIME NO. 118/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE - Q, LEVELING OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 149, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4-CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-4 TO CARRY OUT SPEEDY AND EXPEDITIOUS INVESTIGATION IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11231 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 4149 of 2013 Reserved on: 05.11.2024 Date of Decision: 13.11.2024 State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant.

Versus Suresh Kumar ...Respondent. Coram

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

All the three appeals were heard together which are directed against the judgment/ order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 of 26 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146538-DB CRA-D Amritsar dated 12.10.2022/18.10.2022, 12.10.2022/18.10.2022, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:-

under:

Name of Under section Punishment Fine In default of fine appellant Sahil alias 302 read with Imprisonment `10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment Salu Section 149 IPC for life for 03 months 307 read with Rigorous ` 5,000/- Rigorous imprisonment Section 149 IPC imprisonment for one month for 05 years 120-B IPC Imprisonment ` 10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for life for 03 months 148 IPC Rigorous ` 2,000/- Rigorous imprisonment imprisonment for 15 days for 03 years George 302 read with Imprisonment `10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment Masih Section 149 IPC for life for 03 months 307 read with Rigorous ` 5,000/- Rigorous imprisonment Section 149 IPC imprisonment for one month for 05 years 120-B IPC Imprisonment ` 10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for life for 03 months 148 IPC Rigorous ` 2,000/- Rigorous imprisonment imprisonment for 15 days for 03 years Rahul 302 read with Imprisonment `10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment alias Lahla Section 149 IPC for life for 03 months 307 read with Rigorous ` 5,000/- Rigorous imprisonment Section 149 IPC imprisonment for one month for 05 years 120-B IPC Imprisonment ` 10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for life for 03 months 148 IPC Rigorous ` 2,000/- Rigorous imprisonment imprisonment for 15 days for 03 years

1. Since the issue involved in all these three (3) Writ Petitions are identical, all were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

2. For the sake of brevity, pleadings made in W.P.(C ) No.36125 of 2023 was taken as the lead case for deciding the issue in question.

3. Writ petition in W.P.(C ) No.36125 of 2023 has been filed challenging the advertisement issued by the State Selection Board (in short, "the Board") on 11.09.2023 under Annexure-1.Vide the said advertisement, the Board invited applications to fill up the post of Lecturers in various discipline including Physics in non-Government Aided Colleges of Odisha and the last date for making such application was fixed to 13.10.2023.

1. By way of present bail application, the petitioner/applicant seeks regular bail in the proceedings emanating out of ECIR/35/DLZO/I/2022 dated 16.09.2022 which was registered on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 9A dated 23.11.2016 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter, the CBI), AC-III, New Delhi under Sections 120-B of IPC & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.

2. The allegations made in the aforesaid FIR, in nutshell, are that Mr. Amanatullah Khan, i.e. the main accused, in his tenure as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board (hereafter, the „DWB‟), misused his position from March 2016 - October 2016 to appoint and engage relatives and other known persons to various posts in the DWB, from which they derived pecuniary benefits. It was further alleged that the tenancies of DWF properties were allotted without inviting bids and leased out only on reserve price. There were also allegations of misuse of DWB funds.

Extreme penalty provided under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) i.e. Death Penalty imposed by the Sessions Judge is placed before us for scrutiny due to mandate of Section 366 of the Code, as well as by virtue of appeal preferred by the accused in terms of Section 374[2] of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

2. Appellant Nos.1 to 3 were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2024 in Sessions Case No.57/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 506 [Part-II] read with Section 34 of the IPC. Though they have also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Rgd.

judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS 2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in

Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

Extreme penalty provided under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) i.e. Death Penalty imposed by the Sessions Judge is placed before us for scrutiny due to mandate of Section 366 of the Code, as well as by virtue of appeal preferred by the accused in terms of Section 374[2] of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

2. Appellant Nos.1 to 3 were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2024 in Sessions Case No.57/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 506 [Part-II] read with Section 34 of the IPC. Though they have also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Rgd.

judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS 2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in

Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS 2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in

Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

1. Heard the petitioner who appears in person as well as Shri Skand Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent, on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC more particularly the provisions of Sub Rule (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. Arguing on Sub Rule (a) of Order 7 Rule 11 the argument of the Shri Skand Bajpai is that the said sub rule pertains to rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action.

3. Reference has been made to Section 36 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1951') to contend that the said provision pertains to scrutiny of nomination. Sub Section (1) of Section 36 of the Act, 1951 provides for examination of the nomination papers of all candidates which power has been given to the candidates, the election agents, one proposer of each candidate and one other person duly authorized in writing by each candidate but no other person; Sub Section (2) of Section 36 of the Act, 1951 provides for the nomination papers to be examined by the returning officer and to decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and thereafter to reject any nomination either on his own motion or on such objection as might have been preferred.

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

These writ petitions raise an interesting question as regards the scope, content and extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression enuring to the media when they report facts about ongoing criminal investigations or the proceedings in cases pending adjudication before the various adjudicatory forums in the country. The writ petitions were initially considered by a Full Bench of this Court. However, by an order dated 24.05.2018, the Full Bench took the view that in the light of an earlier decision of another Full Bench of this Court in S. Sudin v. Union of India and Others - [2015 (2) KLT 296 (FB)], these matters needed to be referred to a Larger Bench of five Judges for consideration. It is thus, and pursuant to an order dated 02.09.2024 of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, that these matters are now before us.

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

These writ petitions raise an interesting question as regards the scope, content and extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression enuring to the media when they report facts about ongoing criminal investigations or the proceedings in cases pending adjudication before the various adjudicatory forums in the country. The writ petitions were initially considered by a Full Bench of this Court. However, by an order dated 24.05.2018, the Full Bench took the view that in the light of an earlier decision of another Full Bench of this Court in S. Sudin v. Union of India and Others - [2015 (2) KLT 296 (FB)], these matters needed to be referred to a Larger Bench of five Judges for consideration. It is thus, and pursuant to an order dated 02.09.2024 of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, that these matters are now before us.