R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the ‘Award dated October 31, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.7252 of 2016’ ['impugned Award' for short] by the 'Special Sub Judge – II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short]. The petitioner in the aforesaid Original Petition has filed C.M.A. No.1406 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The second respondent / Insurance Company has filed C.M.A. No.855 of 2022 praying to set aside the impugned Award. This Common Judgment will now dispose of both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 & 2, thereby rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and ordered for maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month, payable by the third respondent to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is his daughter. The petitioner has one daughter and one son. The petitioner had purchased a house plot comprised in S.F.No.144/2 at Koranampatti, Edappadi Taluk, Salem district, to an extent of 3744½ sq.ft., in which the petitioner also constructed a small hut and living there. It was purchased by him through registered sale deed dated 24.11.2010 vide document No.4313 of 2010. After marriage of the third respondent, due to love and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis affection, the petitioner had executed settlement deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the third respondent on 13.12.2019 vide registered document No.5380 of 2019. However, the third respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner to vacate the hut which is put up in the settled property.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.10.2023, thereby partly allowed the complaint filed by the fifth respondent and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, in favour of the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner is the son of the fifth respondent and the respondents 6 & 7 are the daughters of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent got married one Kala and gave birth to the petitioner and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 6 & 7 herein. The property ad measuring 493 sq.ft., situated at Door No.7/1, 9th lane, Narayan nayakkan Street, Pudupet, Chennai, was settled in favour of the fifth respondent by his father. It consists ground floor plus 2 floors. In the ground floor, there is an yarn company and employees are staying in the said premises. The fifth respondent's wife owned property at Chintadripet, in which the petitioner is receiving the rent of Rs.25,00,000/- per month. The petitioner is doing his business in the Chintadripet house.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2024, thereby confirming the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to provide all amenities to the petitioner including food and shelter and also restrain the third respondent from torturing the petitioner and his wife.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is the son. The petitioner got married one Girija and gave birth to the third respondent and one daughter. While he was in service in the police department, he had purchased a property ad measuring 4½ cents comprised in Survey No.665/1B and 665/2 part situated at Echanari, Near Ammal Temple, Kurichi Village, Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010, bearing document No.446/2010. Thereafter, he constructed a house and was residing there.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2000 passed by the Respondent No.2, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Respondent No.1 on an appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the punishment of dismissal from service in the year 2013 and seeking a consequential relief to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:-

2.1. The petitioner herein, while working as a 'Peon' in Rasipuram Branch of the respondent Bank, Salem Division, he was subjected to departmental proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet dated 21.06.1997 containing two charges. The said charges reads as under:-

These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner based on the same fact situation and as such, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2751 and 9303 of 2020

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as 'Grade-II, Police Constable' in TSP-I Battalion, Trichy and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Armed Reserve Perambalur District and in the year 2004, he was transferred to District Armed Reserve Nagapattinam District and thereafter, he was transferred to Taluk Police Establishment in the year 2010 and then he was upgraded as ‘Grade I, Police Constable’ in the year 2006 and further upgraded as 'Head Constable' in the year 2011. The petitioner also claimed to have received 16 rewards for his performance and there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner through out his service.

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5785 of 2022 in C.C.No.224 of 2024 dated 25.03.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirumangalam.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.41 of 2022 against 9 persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 147,148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has filed a final report against 8 persons and also filed a report deleting the petitioner/9th accused from the above case before the jurisdictional Court. The learned Magistrate, after receipt of the charge sheet as well as the deletion report, has issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent has entered into appearance and filed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.5785 of 2022 and the learned Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 by holding that there existed prima facie case against the petitioner and ordered for issuance of summons to all the accused including the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order adding the petitioner as one of the accused and for issuance of summons, the present revision came to be filed.

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to recompute the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, who are all retired from service under the 2nd respondent management on the basis of average salary drawn by them for the last 10 months prior to their retirement and also direct the second respondent to pay arrears of pension.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with ICICI Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein by the Scheme of amalgamation with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees of Bank of Madura are protected.

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

These two appeals are preferred challenging an order of the Execution Court allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.A. No.52 of 2015. Of them, C.M.A. No.460 of 2023 was filed by the purchaser in an auction sale held in E.P. No.168 of 2013, which the appellant/workman in C.M.A.No. 944 of 2023 had laid for executing an award passed under Sec.33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1.2 Broadly the issue is that, in the said E.P. Respondents 1 to 5 have taken out an application in E.A.52 of 2015, staking a claim to about 5.43 acres in SyNo:298 of Kuniyamuthur village, and it came to be allowed by the Execution Court. This block of 5.43 acres was part of a larger extent of 37.0 acres, spread over multiple survey numbers, and it was brought to court-auction-sale and was purchased by the appellant in CMA 460 of 2023. The sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is yet to be confirmed by the Execution Court in terms of Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. The decision of the Execution Court in allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 over 5.43 acres implies that the Execution Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.460 & 944 of 2023 may not now confirm the auction-sale as pertaining to this block of land.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the ‘learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Villupuram’ ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.69 of 2011 modifying the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the ‘Principal Sub Court, Villupuram’ ['Trial Court' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. Case of the Plaintiffs:

3. The Suit Properties along with some other properties belonged to one Adhimoolam. The said Adhimoolam died intestate 40 years before the date of Plaint. Govindasamy and Krishnan were the sons of said Adhimoolam.

The accused No.2 in C.C.No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

Conviction for the Offence under Sentence of Imprisonment Section 8(c) r/w 21(C) of the NDPS Act 12 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- in default to undergo 6 months S.I

These two Arbitration Original Petitions have been filed under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the Impugned Arbitral Awards both dated 22.04.2022 have been challenged.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)Nos.646 & 647 of 2022

2. The Respondent herein was the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal and had filed two claims in respect of Chimney No.I and Chimney No.II under Work Order No.AXON/WO/017/2010-2011 (Chimney No.I) dated 09.08.2010 and Work Order No.AXON/WO/019/2010-2011 (Chimney No.II) dated 21.08.2010 respectively.

11.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 498-A / 323 / 342 / 506 /307 / 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of D.P. Act in G.R. Case No.1305 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur arising out of Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.373 of 2024.

11.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 341/384/294/506/307/323/ 325/379 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.87 of 2018 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara arising out of Nimapara P.S. Case No.33 of 2018.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.2915 of 2018. The said bail application was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court on 30.01.2019 thereby directing the Petitioner to surrender before the court below and move an application for bail with a corresponding direction to the learned court in seisin over the matter to dispose of the bail application on the very same day. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that due to communication gap with the conducting counsel, the Petitioner could not take advantage of order dated 30.01.2019.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with G.R. Case No.104 of 2020 arising out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.58 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aul for alleged commission of offences under sections 341/294/323/324/354- B/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Perused the first information report annexed to the anticipatory bail application.

12.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/ 468/471/ 420/ 120-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4/5 of The Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act in 1.C.C. No.1498 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.953 of 2014 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2014.

11.11.2024 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Senior learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act in C.T. Case No.399 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.11 of 2024.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Mahakalpara P.S. Case No.218 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2351 of 2022, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307, 506, 325, 34 of I.P.C.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Aska P.S. Case No.111 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.237 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/149 / 307/323/324/458 of the I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.2898 of 2022 vide order dated 26.04.2022.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 48 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Konark P.S. Case No.118 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.506 of 2021, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Konark, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Byree P.S. Case No.95 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.946 of 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 507, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.35 of 2018 arising out of Berhampur Badabazar P.S. Case No.93 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur for offences punishable under sections 147/148/302/120-B/307/326/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Paikmal P.S. Case No.194 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.47 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court, under POCSO Act, Bargarh for offences punishable under sections 366-A/370/370-A/ 372/376(2)(n)/109/34 of the I.P.C., section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 3/4/5/6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Marine P.S. Case No.13 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.245 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chhatrapur for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/ 353/341/323/324/291/336/307/427/506/ 149 of the I.P.C. and section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.11824 of 2020 as per order dated 05.11.2020 and at that time, the investigation was under progress but in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted and in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal -Vrs.- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 831, the petitioners may be permitted to surrender in the Court below and move an application for bail and provisions laid down therein may be considered by the learned Court below while adjudicating the bail application.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Puruna Bazar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.765 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (Cog.-I), Bhadrak for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/294/454/427/395/436/153-A/506/ 149 of the I.P.C.

Perused the F.I.R.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that first information report was not lodged against the petitioner but subsequently, he has been entangled in this case and similarly situated co-accused, namely, Sk. Bhalu has been directed to be released on anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.8038 of 2017 vide order dated 12.07.2017 and on hearing learned counsel for the State, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investigating Officer.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.103 of 2017 arising out of S.T.F. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.3 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 16/17/18/18(B)/20/21/28/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and section 124(A) of the I.P.C.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 03.01.2024.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the petitioner No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/323/325/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

Page 1 of 4

3. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2016. Few days after their marriage, dissention arose in their family for which the petitioner No.2 lodged the F.I.R. being Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 for the above alleged offences.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Ranpur P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No.22 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 294/ 354/ 307/ 506/324/452/427/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Nayagarh.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 10.01.2015, the complainant reported at the P.S. that, on the same day, when he was working with labourers, the petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 removed his stumps and destroyed. When the labourers opposed the same, they left the place. Then in the same evening, while the complainant was coming from his house to pay his labourers, the above accused persons being armed with lathi, katari etc. entered into his house and abused him in obscene languages. The petitioner No.2 attacked him by means of katari to kill him. At that time, one Sunil Samantaray of his village obstructed the same and he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand. Thereafter, his sister-in-law, father and mother also tried to rescue him, but the accused persons pushed them and dragged the saree of his sister- in-law and kicked her. At that time, his brother Harmohan Nayak, Prafulla Nayak, Gagan Nayak, Sanjay Nayak and others reached at the spot and rescued them. All the accused persons threatened to kill them. Hence, the F.I.R.

Date of Hearing :08.11.2024 :: Date of Order :11.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack is taken up into consideration.

{{ 2 }}

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 remaining in the jail custody since 29.01.2024 as an under trial prisoner having been charged under Section 292-A, 212, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 66-E, 67-A & 67-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 along with his other co-accused persons on the allegations alleged against him that, due to the frequent talking between the petitioner and the victim since the month of May, 2022, they loved each other and the petitioner proposed the victim for marriage. Thereafter, in the months of August and November, 2023, the petitioner took the victim by his motorcycle to the OYO Hotel on three different dates and made sexual intercourse with her in a room of that hotel in each occasion and took the naked/nude photographs of the victim inside the room of that hotel through his mobile phone and sent the said nude/naked photographs to the mobile phone of the victim through whatsapp and the said nude photographs of the victim were in her mobile phone, to which, she (victim) had not disclosed before {{ 3 }} any of her family members including her parents. Thereafter, there was disturbance between the victim and the petitioner, for which, the victim stopped her talking with the petitioner. So, the petitioner made the nude photographs of the victim viral. Thereafter, on dated 07.01.2024, she (victim) lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner at Sadar police station, Cuttack, alleging the aforesaid allegations.

RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 12th NOVEMBER 2024 _______________________ Judgment (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.)

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 18-WP(L)-17982-2024(J).DOCX

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly, the petition challenges an order dated 30 th March 2024 passed by respondent No.1 ("impugned order" for short). By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner dated 9 th November 2022 seeking waiver of interest charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Income Tax Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 ("A. Y. Year 2021-22" for short) stood rejected. The reliefs/prayers in the petition are set out at pages 52 to 54 in para 12 thereof. The substantive relief/prayer is to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and to grant waiver of interest for an amount of Rs.3,88,59,353/- charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act. Such is the limited issue for consideration before us.

1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gave necessary instructions to the CriAppeal-704-2005+ complainant and the shadow pancha. On their instructions, both, complainant and shadow pancha, visited court. There, accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification and when informant was paying the same, it was directed to be paid to accused no.2, after which pre- determined signal was relayed by informant, leading to further trap and apprehension of accused persons. Thereafter, PW6 lodged report, carried out investigation, chargesheeted both accused, who were made to face trial before learned Special Judge vide above referred Special Case No. 4 of 2003 and on appreciating prosecution evidence as well as defence witnesses, learned trial Judge, by impugned order dated 29.09.2005, held both accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act, respectively. Said judgment is now subject matter of the appeals before this Court.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under: