The prayer is allowed. The date of hearing in the main petition is preponed from 13.08.2020 to 05.05.2020. The same is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioner has been retired on superannuation, therefore, these petitions have been Page 2 of 2 SWP No.34/2017 in SWP No. 893/2017 rendered infructuous and may be dismissed as such. His statement is taken on record.

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous along with connected CM(s).

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

" 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.

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.

----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.

2

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although only one of the companies was alleged to have committed default, the DIN of the petitioners was deactivated in respect of the other companies, in which they were directors, as well, which was de hors the law.

4. Moreover, even in respect of the defaulting company, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the allegations made against them in respect of each company.

5. The disqualification of the company‐in‐question took place in the year 2014, that is, prior to the 2018 Amendment of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") and as such, the provisions of the 2018 Amendment would not be applicable thereto.

Appearance:

Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

The Court : At the instance of the petitioner the matter is appearing today under the heading "To Be Mentioned" for correction of a typographical error crept in the order dated March 11, 2020. By the said order this Court disposed of the application, AP No.49 of 2020.

Let the amount of money mentioned in the third line at the fourth page of the said order dated March 11, 2020 be corrected as Rs.9.8 crore in place and stead of Rs.9.2 crore.

A Bench of this Court while dealing with Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2019 took note of a letter dated 23.03.2019 received by the office of the Judges of the Bench on 25.03.2019. This was a copy of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India, Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In the said letter, reference was made to two complaints – one made by the Indian Bar Association, dated 20.03.2019 through alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Vijay Kurle, State President of 1 Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, and the second complaint dated 19.03.2019 made by alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National Secretary of the Human Rights Security Council. It was mentioned that these complaints have not only been sent to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India but also have been circulated in the social media and the complaints were attached as Annexures­1 and 2 to the said letter. The Bench took note of the letter and the complaints attached to the said letter and specifically noted the prayers made in both the complaints and found that both the complaints are substantially similar. The Bench on noting the allegations made in the complaints was of the view that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of the said Bench and, therefore, notice was issued to Shri Vijay Kurle, alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3 and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged contemnor no. 4. The Bench also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and decide the contempt case.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal the Original Claimant challenges the final judgment and order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CAN No.10094 of 2018.

3. The basic facts culled out from the award dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Arbitrator in the present case are:-

“That the respondent company who is engaged in the business of infrastructure development activities approached the claimant company who is also dealing in the business of providing equipments for 2 Civil Appeal No.2378 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) NO.11011 of 2019) QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD. Vs. JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LTD.

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. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition. By the said writ petition, the appellants had sought following reliefs: ­ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 “8. The petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be 16:03:09 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 310/2009, whereby, the LPA filed by the appellants came to be dismissed while affirming the decision of the learned single Judge, dated 10.2.2009 in allowing the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 867/1999.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:08 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2

3. The Division Bench took note of the relevant background facts necessitating filing of writ petition by the respondent No. 1 for a direction to the appellant­Bank to pay his lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement dated 27.5.1990 (Annexure 5(b) appended to the writ petition) and also to deposit the income­tax papers with immediate effect. The Division Bench has noted as follows: ­ “4. The facts of the case is that the writ petitioner had taken a term loan of Rs.10,000/­ from the Bank by way of financial assistance to run a business in the name of “Sanjeev Readymade Store” from Haveli Kharagpur Branch of Punjab National Bank in the district of Munger. The writ petitioner was paid the said sum of Rs.10,000/­ in two instalments of Rs.4,000/­ on 21.07.1984 and Rs.6,000/­ on 01.10.1984. The writ petitioner had yet another savings account in the same branch of the respondents­bank. However, on 14.02.1990, the term loan with interest had mounted upto a figure of Rs.13,386/­. In 1989, the writ petitioner, who is Respondent no. 2 in the appeal, was granted two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ each by the Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur under the Earthquake Relief Fund. The said two cheques were deposited with the Bank for encashment in the other savings account, but instead, were transferred to the loan account. This was done without any authorization of the writ petitioner and without direction of any competent authority. Some time thereafter, the writ petitioner’s son was afflicted by cancer, which required immediate treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. In order to meet the expenses of the treatment, writ petitioner sold 406 bhars of gold jewellery of his wife’s “stridhan” and received Rs.14,93,268/­. He approached the branch of the respondents­bank with a sum of Rs.14,93,000/­ on 04.08.1989 for issuance of two bank drafts, one in his name and the another in the name of his wife. The then Accountant, Mr. T.K. Palit showed his inability to prepare the drafts on the ground of shortage of staff on that day and requested the writ petitioner to deposit the amount in the savings account No. 1020 in the said 3 branch. The Accountant, after receipt of the money, transferred total amount of Rs.15,03,000/­ to the loan account, whereas in the loan account upto 14.02.1990 outstanding dues of principal and interest was only Rs.13,386/­. The writ petition made grievance before the Branch Manager of the said branch and also filed representations before the Bank authorities. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Sri Nanhe Prasad, who ordered the then Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger, Sri Binod Kumar Singh to make a detailed enquiry into the matter and report. Accordingly, a Misc. Case No. 4 (DW 1) PNB/1989­90 was initiated and in those proceedings, various officials of the Punjab National Bank, including the then Branch Manager, District Coordination Officer of the Punjab National Bank and the Accountant of the Bank were examined from time to time and reports were submitted to the District Magistrate, Munger. Several witnesses were examined even by the District Magistrate, Munger. There were officers from the Regional Office of the Punjab National Bank, one of them being Sri Tej Narain Singh, the Regional Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Patna­B also deposed making reference of what had transpired to the Zonal Office of the Bank. On the basis of these statements, which were recorded by the Circle Officer and / or by the then District Magistrate­cum­Collector, Munger, Sri Gorelal Prasad Yadav, the matter proceeded. The basic assertion of the writ petitioner having been found correct and the liability having been accepted by the respondents­bank, it was reduced to an agreement dated 27.05.1990, which is Annexure­5B to the writ application between the parties. The agreement was signed by one and all in presence of the Circle Officer and the overall supervision of the District Magistrate. It was duly recorded in writing that the bank had received the deposit amounting to Rs.15,03,000/­ as per deposits made on 02.08.1989, 04.08.1989 and 04.10.1989. It was also recorded that the total term loan and the liability of the writ petitioner up to 14.02.1990 came to Rs.13,386/­ only and the amount of Rs. 14,89,614/­ of the writ petitioner would be kept in the Fixed Deposit of the bank and shall be paid with interest by September, 1997. The writ application was filed, when the bank refused to honour this agreement. In support of the writ application, certified copies of the entire proceedings, depositions as had been obtained by the writ petitioner in the year 1990 were annexed.” 4 The appellant­Bank contested the said writ petition and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and disputed the money claim set up by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of alleged contractual agreement dated 27.5.1990. The appellant­Bank denied the allegation of transfer of proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each, allegedly received by the respondent No. 1 from the district authorities, to the loan account. The Bank also denied the allegation of deposit of Rs.14,93,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs ninety­three thousand only) by the respondent No. 1 in his Savings Fund Account No. 1020 or transfer of the said amount in his loan account. Further, on receipt of complaint from the respondent No. 1, the Regional Manager of the appellant­Bank instituted an internal enquiry conducted by Mr. N.K. Singh, Manager, Inspection and Complaints, E.M.O., Patna, who in his report dated 23.11.1998 noted that the respondent No. 1 had been paid the proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each in cash and there is no record about the deposit of Rs.14,93,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs ninety three thousand only) in his account with the concerned Branch. The appellant­Bank explicitly denied the genuineness and existence 5 of the documents annexed to the writ petition and asserted that the same are forged, fabricated and manufactured documents. The Bank also placed on record that the respondent No. 1 had filed similar writ petition against another bank, namely, the Munger Jamui Central Cooperative Bank Limited being CWJC No. 4353/1993, which was eventually dismissed on 7/3.7.1995, as the claim set up by the respondent No. 1 herein in the said writ petition was stoutly disputed by the concerned Bank.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur1 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 271/1982, whereby the conviction of the respondent No. 1/original accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Mr. Chhagna Ram) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code2 has been converted into one under Section 326, IPC and the substantive sentence awarded therefor is reduced only to the period already undergone (about five months) by the accused No. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:39:58 IST Reason:

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jangsher Ali, (2) Omar Ali, (3) Kayum Ali, (4) Sobur Uddin and (5) Badsha Miya, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 207/2020 registered under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 369(K)/2020.

As per the FIR of the case, the present accused petitioners along with 11 (eleven) named accused persons and 10 (ten) to 15(fifteen) others illegally entered the land that belongs to the father of the informant around 08:00 in the morning on 01.03.2020 while they were planting rice paddy saplings armed with dao, stick etc. and attacked his family members namely, Ainul Hoque, Saniara Khatun, Jahiruddin, Rupchand Ali, Sukur Ali, Hanif Ali and killed his uncle Ainal Hoque.

List after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Considering the same, matter stands adjourned today. List after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

1. The applicant, namely, Jeherul Islam has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No.812/2019, under Section 366(A) IPC.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

Page No.# 2/2

4. I have taken into account the accusations made by the informant who is the father of the victim. It has been alleged that on 23.10.2019 at about 6.15 PM, the applicant along with his associates came in a Maruti car, entered the house, asked the victim to serve water and in the meantime forcefully caught hold of her from the back, gagged her mouth and dragged her to the vehicle. Being helpless, she raised an alarm. Neighbours came there. On seeing that the neighbours had come, the accused fled.

1. By way of thisjudgement, weshall dispose of the above-noted appeals preferred against the common order dated 19.03.2018, whereby Appellant's (VIPL) objection petitionsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter 'the Act')have been rejected, and common arbitral award dated 20.05.2017 stands confirmed.This impugned arbitralaward deals with two separate claim petitions preferred by the Appellant relating to respective Space Buyer Agreements(hereinafter 'arbitration agreements')concerning separate portions of same property. Since the objection petitions have been disposed of vide a common judgment, wealso consider it convenient to dispose of theappeals vide a common judgement.

2. Summons in the present suit were issued on 24th October 2014 and vide order dated 3rd April 2018, following issues weresettled: -

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree against the defendant, if so for what amount? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP iii. Relief.

3. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that he is a duly registered Class- I contractor, under the name Bharat Construction Company, a CS(COMM) 719/2017 Page 1 of 18 proprietorship firm with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The plaintiff was awarded construction work of outfall drain from A-74, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area to DTC Nallah at Loha Mandi Naraina in Karol Bagh Zone vide work order No. EE-Project Karol Bagh/SYS/2011- 2012/14 dated 10th February 2012. The contractual amount of the work was Rs. 4,05,26,960 and the time for completion was of 6 months.

CS(COMM) 336/2019 Page 1 of 21

2. Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is dealing in the medicinal and pharmaceutical product under the mark AMADAY which is used for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease and the defendant is selling its drug under the name ANADAY which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's rights in its trademark; even though the drug produced and sold by the defendant under the trademark ANADAY is used for treatment of breast cancer.

3. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff first obtained the title in the trademark AMADAY by its first application bearing No. 747783 on 10th July, 1997 and thereafter started using the said trademark AMADAY from 2001. On 4th February, 2008 defendant filed its application bearing No. 1649587 for the impugned mark ANADAY which was duly opposed by the plaintiff and the defendant did not pursue the said application and vide order dated 15 th March, 2016 of the Trade Mark Registry, the same was declared abandoned. On 8th October, 2016 defendant filed another trademark application for registration of the trademark ANADAY vide application No. 3384539 in Class 5 which is currently pending. In the third week of June, 2019 the representative of the plaintiff came across defendant's medicinal preparation AMADAY at Delhi, and hence the suit.

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test CRL. M.C. 1468/2020 Page 1 of 26 Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Applicant has been arrested on 13.2.2020 by Police Station Crime Branch, Gwalior in connection with Crime No.30 of 2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.411 and 414 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that allegation of misappropriation of amount of Rs.2 crore has been levied against the present applicant. It is submitted that the amount was being taken for depositing in the bank and belonged to M/s Gupta Traders which is corroborated from daily cash summary annexure P/2. Dinesh Gupta is the proprietor of the firm. The investigation in the matter is over and the charge sheet has been filed. The offence does not carry punishment for more than three years and the offences alleged against the applicant are 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.11826.2020.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.56/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, 63 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Investigation is over in matter and charge sheet has been filed. He is in custody since 10.03.2020. The applicant undertakes to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. He further submits that looking to the pandemic situation of COVID- 2

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 16/03/2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur, whereby applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 452 and 325, 323/34 of IPC undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months and applicant No. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 452 and 325/34, 323 of IPC to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1583-2020 (RAMCHARAN GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-, Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- each respectively with default stipulation.

For Respondent No.2/State: Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Law laid down Suit for specific performance of contract- readiness and willingness for a seeking decree of performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to produce strong documentary evidence relating to his financial condition- only oral evidence in respect of financial condition to establish readiness and willingness is not sufficient- The Court cannot assume or presume the financial status of the plaintiff only on the basis of oral evidence- The suit of specific performance of contract cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiff unless readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is proved by the plaintiff.

For Respondent/University: Shri Samresh Katare, Advocate.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on : 12.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, they are heard finally. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P. No.1157/2019 are being taken- 2

W. P. No. 1157/ 2019 & W. P. No. 1011/2019 up.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N K Agrawal, Sr. Advocates Mr. Vikramaditya and Mr. Amnesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No 7, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Nautan PS Case No. 184 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 instituted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of kidnapping the brother of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not named in the FIR and only on suspicion has been arrested. It was submitted that because the petitioner was apprehended in Nautan PS Case No. 185 of 2019, he has been also made accused in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that there has been no recovery from the petitioner.