" CERTIORARI: quashing the letter No.ENT/DCS/2014/2010- 215 dated 17.11.2014 whereby the District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner), Samba (respondent No.2) has provided respondent No.3, the list of employees of the office of respondent No.3 who have been deployed for election duties and called for training as per the schedule mentioned against each".

2. Since the Legislative Assembly Elections, 2014 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are already over, therefore, this petition with the afflux of time has been rendered infructuous.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 26.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Urgency application and Exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit in support of the urgency application and to exempt the applicant from depositing court fees, are filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown.

The urgency application and the exemption application are not opposed by the State.

The urgency application is allowed accordingly. The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 and Notification No. 89/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 18.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the applicant.

The learned Government Advocate requests two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 27.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4734 of 2020) is allowed.

Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1160/2020) stands disposed of accordingly.

Heard on the bail application. Having been implicated in the Case Crime/FIR No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, PS Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, the applicant is in jail.

Learned Counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of doubt; applicant was not named in the FIR; two FIRs have been registered on the same cause of action and the appellant has been granted bail in the main case and there is no other pending case against the applicant except these two and he is in jail since 23.9.2019.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

At the request of learned counsel for the State, list the matter on 14.05.2020. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State may file objections. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 21.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State.

Exemption Application no. 1143 of 2020 is allowed.

Heard.

Admit the appeal.

Summon the lower court record. Also heard on bail application no. 1114 of 2020.

Applicant-appellant Ankush has been convicted under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without proper appraisal of evidence and has convicted the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

List after ten days. (N.S. Dhanik, J.) 06.5.2020 Prabedh

Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aamir Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate with Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA for the State.

This is an appeal against conviction, where the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only).

This is a belated appeal. The delay is of 47 days in filing the appeal, however, it is accompanied with a delay condonation application.

The main reason assigned for the delay is that the appellant could not move a proper appeal within time due to present COVID-19 pandemic.

Learned Government Advocate has very fairly stated that he has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4709/2020) is allowed.

Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1111/2020) stands disposed of accordingly.

Heard on the bail application (CRMA 954/2020).

Learned Counsel for the applicants would contend that the maximum sentence awarded to appellants is to undergo imprisonment for five years; appellant no. 2 is seriously ill and on account of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, there is possibility of the appellants contracting the said disease; appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty and they are in jail since 5.3.2020.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Karan Anand, learned Counsel for the complainant.

Time extension application has been moved on behalf of the accused.

From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, a short term bail for a period of three months commencing from the date of his actual release was granted to the accused by this Court in connection with Crime No.387 of 2019, u/s 420, 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 4/5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Registered at P.S. Kotwal, District Dehradun.

From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, it is clear that three months time has been completed, but the accused did not file any time extension application before the expiry of three months, hence the accused is directed to surrender himself before the Magistrate on 11.05.2020 at 10:30AM.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2020 Jitendra

The applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem, who are in custody, in connection with FIR No. 43 of 2020, under Sections3/5/11(1) of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar have sought their release on bail.

As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2020, 80 Kg. beef was recovered from the custody of the applicants. Applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem were arrested at the spot.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the FIR is delayed; there is no public witness and no FSL report. It is argued that applicants have no criminal history.

Learned State Counsel also admits that there is no criminal history of the applicants.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

The applicant Pawan, who is in custody, in connection with Case Crime No. 249 of 2019, under Section 380, 411, 34 of IPC, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail.

It is argued that co-accused Amit @ Romi has been granted bail, who has a similar role.

Learned counsel for the State would admit that the co-accused, whose role is similar, has been granted bail.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Pawan, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

This first bail application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. No. 3 of 2020, registered with the Police Station Mukhteshwar, District Nainital for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act, 1985").

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 19.02.2020 by S.O. Kuldeep Singh that while he was on daily routine duty along with other police personals in order to maintain law & order, an information was received that a person was coming with illicit Charas. The informant informed the Circle Officer of the Police. After that, the applicant came there. He was searched in the presence of the Circle Officer. On search, 750 grams Charas was recovered from his jacket.

The exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit, has been filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown with short term bail application.

The exemption application is not opposed by the State.

The exemption application is allowed 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 applicant.

The regular bail application no. 546 of 2020 is pending before this Court.

The applicant is in custody since 10.02.2020 in connection with the F.I.R. No. 1 of 2020, registered with the Police Station Baijnath, District Bageshwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the I.P.C.

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").

2. Applicant Neeraj, who is in judicial custody, in Case Crime No. 107 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 506, 354(D) and 376 IPC and Section 3(a) read with 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ganganahar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

3. Prosecution story, briefly stated is that the applicant and the victim were in relationship, but when the victim learnt about the bad habits of the applicant, she severed her relationship. But, the applicant started following her, pressurised her and started threatening her that in case, she would not follow the commands of the applicant, he would make her photographs viral. On 16.01.2019, the applicant telephonically called the victim; threatened her. Under the tremendous threat extended by the applicant, when the victim reached at the designated place, the applicant took her in a hotel, there the victim met two more boys, who guarded the room. There in the hotel, the applicant raped the victim; took her photographs and threatened her of dire consequences, if she reveals this incident to anyone. The boys, who were in the hotel with the applicant, started molesting her. Even the applicant made the photographs 2 viral. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 08.03.2019. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

This first bail application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 270 of 2018, registered with the Police Station Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 504 & 307 of the I.P.C.

On 04.05.2018, the informant lodged an F.I.R. alleging that about two years ago, he came in contact with the present applicant and co-accused Dinesh. They told him that they were in business of sale- purchase of Diamonds through their company "J.J. Company" at Delhi. On instigation, the informant gave money time to time to the accused persons. He gave total Rs. 60,60,000/- to the co-accused persons. They assured to return the money, however, even after two years, his money has not been returned. On 01.03.2018, the informant pressurized the accused persons to return his money, on which, the informant was being called on 03.05.2018 at Ulhera Bagh, where the applicant and co-accused persons abused and threatened him, the present applicant assaulted him through a Balkati and other co-accused persons assaulted with kicks and fists.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan.

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

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

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

2. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.44/2020 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2343/2020] District Alwar, Police District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act.

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

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

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

3. F.I.R. No.307/2019 was registered at Police Station New (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:12 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2314/2020] Mandi, Hindauncity, District Karauli for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 382 of I.P.C.

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

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

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

3. F.I.R. No.242/2014 was registered at Police Station Thanagazi Alwar for offence under Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Petitioner is in custody for last one and a half years. Criminal antecedents pointed out against the petitioner are prior to the year 2014.

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

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

2. Counsel for the complainant has not given his detail, hence, could not be connected.

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

4. F.I.R. No.343/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 323, 365, 201, 302/34 of I.P.C. (FIR has been lodged for offence under Section 302 of IPC.)

5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that eye witnesses have turned hostile. As per the FSL report, cause of death is inconclusive. There was only a bruise on the person of the prosecutrix.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

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

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the contentions.

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

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

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

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

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

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND BIRLA CABLES LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

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

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

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

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

2

PRESENT :

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

These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether 1 “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof”. The appeals are against a common decision and we shall also deal with both these appeals together in this judgment. The respondent-assessee want their goods to be placed under Chapter heading 5703.90. We shall refer to the specific entries against this item later in the judgment. The respondent, at the material point of time were engaged in the business of manufacture of textile floor coverings and car matting. The subject-goods have been referred to interchangeably by the revenue also as car mattings and car carpets. The respondent, at the material time, were clearing the goods declaring them to be goods against Heading No.570390.90. Effective rate of excise duty on goods under that entry was 8% and education cess at the applicable rate for the subject period. We find this rate of duty, 2 inter-alia, from the order of the Commissioner dealing with the first and the second show-cause notices. The rate of basic excise duty would have been 16% apart from education cess if these goods were classified against goods specified in heading no.8708.99.00. Altogether three show-cause-notices were issued against the respondent over clearance of goods under the said heading. These notices required them to answer as to why they should not be charged the differential rate of duty and interest. We would like to point out here that in the show-cause notices, the respective chapter sub-headings have been referred to as 8708.99.00 and 570390.90 and in the order of the Tribunal also, the sub-headings have been referred to as such. But the authorities themselves in certain places described the sub-headings in shorter numerical forms, as 5703.90 and 8708.00. We find these minor variations in the paper-book. But this variation of the sub- headings represented in numerical form is not of any significance so far as adjudication of these appeals are concerned. The respondent were also to answer as to why penalty should not be 3 imposed upon them in terms of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Rules made thereunder. The first show-cause notice is dated 9th August, 2005 in regard to clearance of goods made during the period between 9 th July, 2004 and 31st March, 2005. They had cleared altogether 8,65,777 pieces of those items in different sizes in that period. The second show-cause notice was issued on 2 nd May, 2006 and related to clearance of 12,02,482 pieces of the same goods for the period between 1st April, 2005 and 31st January, 2006. The third show- cause notice is of 7th March, 2007 and the clearance involved 20,15,412 pieces from 1st February, 2006 to 31st January, 2007. For the period involved in the third show-cause notice, clearance was made by the respondent under Chapter sub-heading no.570500.19, which carried effective rate of duty @8%.

1. The matters have been referred in view of conflicting decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors. 1, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2, T. Velayudhan Achari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 3, and Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors. 4. The question relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45 of List I viz. ‘Banking’ and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament to legislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to the co­operative banks.

1. The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit.

2. The seminal facts which are relevant for the present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises for our consideration are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH that the appellant­plaintiff filed suit before 4 th sub­judge, Chapra Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:14 IST Reason:

seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 15 th 1 September, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the respondents­defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property.

1. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel.

2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA No. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC No. 3740/2013), LPA No. Signature Not Verified 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and LPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court, dated 24.06.2015. Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06

3. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has 16:03:11 IST Reason:

been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “BSSC”) and 2 the other set (referred to as “the aggrieved party appellants”) by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge. The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants were not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected in terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown as not qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of the Court by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench were by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned the judgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect of all questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected in the final results declared.

1. Leave granted.

2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:16 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?

1. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. One appeal (CA 2969/2010) has been preferred by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereafter,"Gujarat Urja"or "GUVN”) ；the second (CA 2793/2010) has been preferred by CLP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Gujarat Torrent Energy Corporation Ltd; later, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd, a generating company, hereafter collectively "CLP”). Both appeals challenge a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity（“APTEL” hereafter).

2. The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) (now “Gujarat Urja”) entered into a power purchase agreement (“PPA”）with CLP on 03.02.1994. In terms of the Signature Not Verified PPA, Gujarat Urja was under an obligation to purchase - and CLP was under Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:10 IST Reason:

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.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 1 in Second Appeal No. 771/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2011 came to be affirmed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (original plaintiffs) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:13 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the first appellate Court” 2 Ratnagiri3 being RCS No. 25/2005 for permanent injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 20 (State of Maharashtra), restraining them from starting the Solid Waste Disposal Project4 at the suit property, has been decreed. In other words, the trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed (decreed) the same, which decision has been upheld by the High Court in the Second Appeal.