TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the judgement dated 10th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 12165/2024 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant also seeks quashing of the NEET Disability Certificate issued by respondent no.2 as well as the Medical Report of the AIIMS, New Delhi dated 6th September, 15:01:10 2024; and prays for declaring the appellant eligible to pursue medical courses and allowing him to take part in the ongoing counselling process. Alternatively, the appellant seeks re-evaluation and re-assessment of his suitability to pursue MBBS course notwithstanding the impugned Regulations. A challenge is also made to Footnote 3 to Appendix H-1 to the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Regulations, 2023 being ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with directions to the respondent no.1 to issue fresh Regulations/Guidelines in this respect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

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

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

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk Hkqlkoj] ftyk Hkjriqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 236@2023 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 143] 323] 341] 365 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gS vkSj rnqijkar Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 ds varxZr vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 ds varxZr izdj.k cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA fpfdRld dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vkgr dks dkfjr dksbZ Hkh pksV e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, laHkkfor ugha ikbZ xbZ gS vkSj u gh izk.k?kkrd ikbZ xbZ gS o vkgr dks dkfjr pksVsa fdlh ekfeZd Hkkx ij ugha gS] iSj ij dkfjr gSa] vf/kd ls vf/kd Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 325 ds varxZr vijk/k curk gS] tks fd vius vkiesa tekurh;

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 The matter pertains to the Year 2021. From a perusal of the Court file it is noted that no sincere efforts are taken by the counsel representing the parties, to contest the instant matter.

Even today, when the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.437/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46153] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13722/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.71/2024, registered at the Police Station Clock Tower, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341 & 308 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

1. The case has been heard through Video Conferencing from Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Vaibhav Kalia (in bail no.1538/2023), Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava (in bail nos.11541/2022, 14110/2022, 14113/2022 & 14164/2022), Sri Manish Mani Sharma (in bail nos.1575/2023, 1640/2023, 1920/2023, 1998/2023, 2066/2023, 2090/2023 & 2316/2023), learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Ajai Kumar, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the informant as well as Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

First Bail Applications Moved On Behalf Of The Applicants:-

3. Applicant- Nandan Singh Bisht went to jail on 19.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 120-B, 34, 427 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred to as 'MVC-III') under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') which are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'EDMC'). EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation').

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

1. Vide order dated 29.08.2024 Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit was directed to file the reply. Learned counsel representing respondent/ Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit has submitted that due to technical reasons reply has not been uploaded. The same may be filed within two weeks with copy to the opposite parties.

2. In the meantime, learned counsels for the State and BMC are directed to trace the map, revenue record with regard to allotment/allocation of green belt in the Map as approved.

3. Applicant present in person has submitted that the present matter relates only to the cutting of trees. MPPCB has issued notice to the Prakash Grih OA No. 139/2023(CZ) Krishnarani Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit with assessment of environmental compensation but the same has not been replied till date. State PCB is directed to finalise the matter and report within two weeks.

1. Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the Applicant.

2. Affidavit dated 04.11.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.3, Central Pollution Control Board bringing on record the Joint Committee Report; the same is taken on record.

3. We find that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) has not been impleaded in the present proceedings as Respondent. We, accordingly direct the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) through its Chief Managing Director (CMD) be impleaded in the array of Respondents as Respondent No.5.

4. Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No.5 in the following address, returnable within four weeks: -

1. Heard Mr. Supriyo Dutta, representing the Applicant is present in person.

2. This Original Application has been registered on the basis of a letter petition submitted in the office of the Tribunal through email dated 18.07.2024 alleging that industrial factories and workshops around the village of the Applicant at Purbannapara located at Makardah Mouza under Domjur Block, District, Howrah has been causing severe environmental problems to the lives of the local people due to obnoxious gaseous effluents.

3. It is also alleged that the Saraswati Canal has been blocked due to it being used for dumping of waste water and other industrial waste material3 by several industries present in the area that continue unregulated dumping of the industrial wastes also resulting in deterioration of the environment in the locale.

1. In this original application, registered suo motu, the issue under consideration relates to the large-scale encroachment on the forest land across the country.

2. The Tribunal by the order dated 19.04.2024 had required the States/Union Territories(UTs) to furnish the detailed information in the format provided in that order and also to supply a copy thereof to Counsel for the Respondent No.1, MoEF&CC, who was directed to compile the information in a separate table which was also provided in that order.

3. The MoEF&CC has filed the interim affidavit dated 30.07.2024 disclosing that the reply was received by the MoEF&CC by 23 States/UTs out of which, 16 States/UTs had provided the data in the prescribed format.

The 'preliminary report' dated 24.07.2020 filed by the Expert Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2020 is taken on record. On the request of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, adjourned to 06.08.2020. Liberty to file further submission, if any, before the next date.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S. P. Wangdi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM July 29, 2020 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) & Original Application No. 44/2020(EZ) DV

1.1 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Hearing concluded. Order reserved. The order will be uploaded on the website, after due consideration, on or before 19.02.2021.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM February 15, 2021 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) with connected matters DV

1. Case taken up by video conference on Vidyo App.

2. These cases are taken up together as identical questions have been raised. The Applicant in O.A. No. 43/2020/EZ, an environmentalist, who has preferred the application alleging failure of the Respondent Authorities in preventing the blowout of Baghjan 5 oil well of the Respondent No. 1, M/s. Oil India Ltd. (OIL in short), resulting in a massive fire causing irreparable loss to the entire biodiversity of the region and loss of lives and property.

3. It is stated that on 27.05.2020 at around 10:30 AM the producing well of Baghjan 5 under the Baghjan Oilfield of OIL in Tinsukia District, Assam, released natural gas in an uncontrolled manner. Baghjan is one of the 23 oil wells set up by OIL to tap the large gas reserves in the Brahmaputra basin located near the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The released gas is stated to be a mix of propane, methane, propylene and other gases that flow with the wind the condensate of which mostly falls on the bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru- Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants, including a wide variety of rare orchids. It harbours the tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill.

1. This order is being passed in continuation of orders dated 24.06.2020 and 02.07.2020 dealing with the issue of providing remedies to the victims and for restoration of environment as a result of incident of oil blowout on 27.05.2020 and other consequential events that followed at Baghjan in Tinsukia District of Assam.

2. The Tribunal noted the case of the applicant that as a result of blowout on 27.5.2020, the Baghjan Oil well set up by the Oil India Limited (OIL) released propane, methane, propylene and other gases causing damage to bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants including a wide variety of rare orchids. The area harbours tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill. The oil also spilled into the Dibru river causing a film of oil in the river that passes through the Maguri- Motapung wetlands, an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and along the Dibru Saikhowa National Park. The Maguri-Motapung Wetland, located less than 10 km from Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, is a part of the Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve (DSBR) and hosts some of the most vulnerable species of birds such as Swamp Francolin, Marsh Babbler, Greater Adjutant and Pallas's Fish-eagle, Red-headed Vulture and White-bellied Heron, and over 80 species of fish. River Dibru is a tributary of River Lohit which then forms river Brahmaputra in the lower reaches. Brahmaputra river system is also a home to Gangetic dolphins. As a result of the blowout, there was also a fire on 09.06.2020. The applicant has also stated that the blowout has left behind huge volumes of residue as gas condensate which is a mixture of chemical compounds that are toxic for land and vegetation and is a known carcinogen. The blowout is not only hazardous to the health of the people but also severely affect their livelihood whose occupation is mainly agriculture, fishing and animal rearing. 1610 families were displaced as a result of the gas leak.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mohammad Tahzeeb, impugning the order dated 27.09.2024 as well as 04.10.2024 whereby 308.14 tons of coal, which is claimed to be the property of the petitioner, has been given in custody of the respondent No. 2 and the prayer for giving zimma of the same to the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the proprietor of Lalpahar Coal Depot, Tinsukia, Assam and operates a lawful business of coal processing and distribution with requisite statutory licenses and authorization including GST registration and NOC from local authorities.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State Respondent. Also heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The other respondents are not represented, though notices are duly served.

The present petition is filed under section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2012, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.25(J)/2000, acquitting the accused respondent from the charges under section 304/149 IPC.

Perused the grounds of preferring the appeal against acquittal.

11.11.2024 Herd Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

As Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has entered Page No.# 3/3 appearance on behalf of the State respondent No.1, a copy of the petition along with the documents annexed thereto be furnished to him during the course of the day.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, for the respondent No.2.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner, namely, Shri Abir Dutta, son of Late Jagat Chandra Dutta, resident of Village/Town- Ward No.7, South Amolapatty, Mohanghat, Near Borah Hyundai, District- Dibrugarh has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in C.I.D. P.S. Case No.11/2024 (C.R. Case No. 4427/204) registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

3. The matter relates to alleged illegal claim of land acquisition compensation of land relating to Dag Nos. 8 and 9 under Jhapora Gaon of Dibrugarh Town Protection (DTP) Dyke/Mathauri that was constructed in the year 1954-56, which is Government land and allegedly purchased by father of the petitioner late Jagat Chandra Dutta during his lifetime in the year 1971.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI/NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5.

In view of the Judgment of the three-Judges Bench decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others, reported in [2018] 15 SCC 356, and the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 558/2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would complete his instructions on the issue of the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the Judgment and Order under challenge is passed by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a reference under Section 3H[4] of the National Highways Act, 1956.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved with the order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Calcutta, West Bengal in Case No.CS59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC directing the petitioner for his appearance on 11.07.2024 and the order dated 11.07.2024 of the said Court by which it issued Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner for his appearance in said Case No.CS/59941/24.

3. Petitioner has filed this application under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India stating that as per the Business Loan Agreement dated 25.11.2023, with Loan Application ID No. 107024 the agreement was executed at Chennai with the respondent No.1, whereas, the borrower i.e., the petitioner/lonee is from the District of Karimganj, Assam, therefore, the Court at West Bengal does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any such proceeding on the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, Mintifi Finserve Private Limited under Section 200 CrPC with charge under Sections 406/420 IPC against the petitioner before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th at Calcutta being registered as Case No.CS/59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC. According to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th at Calcutta, West Bengal on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

11.11.2024 Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the Page No.# 3/3 judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and appeal as such the petitioner may be allowed to remain on previous bail or to go on bail.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Faruque Al Bash has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

Case diary is received.

The allegation in the FIR reveals that the daughter of the informant was dragged by the petitioner to an unknown place on his bike and sexually assaulted her.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sheikh Abdur Rezzaque Ahmed,

2. Rukia Khatun and 3. Sheikh Junayed Ahmed have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order, dated 28.06.2024, this Court granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and they have appeared before the I.O. and gave their statements.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A. I. Uddin, Advocate For the respondents :

Dates of hearing : 08.11.2024 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023- 2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4"x5" size polybags.

11.11.2024 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Page No.# 2/6 Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 25/07/2023 vide Mankachar PS case No. 308/2023 u/s 376 AB/511 IPC read with Section 8/10 of POCSO Act and section 67 of IT Act.

3. The allegation as per FIR is that on the date of incident when the minor daughter of the informant while visited the house of her father-in-law, the present petitioner along with other co-accused No. 3 and 4 handed over the victim to accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had kissed the victim girl on her face and different parts of her body and tried to commit rape on her. They also took the photographs of the said incident and made them viral through mobiles.

1. Heard on I.A.No.20559/2024, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor.

2. On due consideration and the reasons contained in the application, the same is allowed. Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing of this case.

3. The applicant has filed this second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 01.03.2024 by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, M.P. relating to Crime No.66/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.27396/2024.

Case diary is available.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2024 registered at Police Station Dharkundi,, District Satna for offence under Sections 406, 06, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that applicant has filed a Writ Petition No.23452/2024 for transfer of investigation to another Investigating Agency and in that case by order dated 22.08.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in WPO/1664/2023 challenging the interim order dated 14.12.2023.

By the said interim order the positive direction has been issued to the appellant to disburse the dues to the writ petitioner in terms of the bills for the period other than pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and also the appellant has been restrained till the disposal of the writ petition from refusing to accept the bills which has been filed by the writ petitioner for the subsequent period including the current years.

We find that relief granted to the writ petitioner is in fact the relief which has been prayed for by the writ petitioner in prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The learned Single Bench was also conscious of the fact that to decide the matter finally affidavits have to be called for and, accordingly, issued appropriate direction.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar

The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14.

We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law.

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.

Bivas Pattanayak, J. :-

1. The instant execution case has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-judgment debtor for execution of a decree dated 24th March, 2021 for a sum of Rs.12,54,607.68/-.

2. In its affidavit in support of tabular statement the decree holder contends that the judgement-debtor holds immovable property namely an office at Golpark Co-operative Housing Society, Flat no. 13/B2, 4th Floor, 49C, Govindapur Road, Lake Gardens (near Jodhpur Market), Kolkata-

2

700068 and operates bank account at UCO Bank, Park Circus Branch, Kolkata-700014.

3. The judgement debtor through its partner filed its affidavit of assets who contends that he possesses the above mentioned flat and the bank account.

Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No.2 as the plaintiff.

1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144672

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course.

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No.159, dated 05.07.2017, under Sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149 of IPC (challan presented under sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149, 201 IPC), registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Further prayer has been made for staying all the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR during the pendency of the present petition.

1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145330

1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2- 2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880 Ludhiana on Monday.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein prays for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, whereby the election(s) for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District Ludhiana, has been cancelled just few hours before the start of polling, thus inter alia on the ground, that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has been condemned unheard, besides is beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner further seeks the making of a mandamus, thus directing the official respondents to immediately hold the elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District 1 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146136-DB Ludhiana, between the candidates (i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.8) whose nomination papers were validly accepted and to whom election symbols were allotted by the Returning Officer.