1. "Legal Process Shouldn't Prejudge Guilt Of Accused": Supreme Court On Bulldozer Justice  NDTV
2. Supreme Court’s Big Ruling On Bulldozer Justice: 'Guilt Of An Accused Can't Be Prejudged'  News18
3. Bulldozer justice: Executive can't become judge, demolish house of accused, SC says  The Times of India
4. Unconstitutional to demolish house without following due process merely because they are involved in a crime: SC  The Indian Express
5. Supreme Court's key verdict on ‘bulldozer justice’ today | What happened in hearings  Hindustan Times

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:-

(i) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly respondent No. 3 to hand over the physical possession of plot No. 288/15 Sector-C measuring 44'x60' at Sainik Colony Jammu to the petitioner by executing all necessary documents.

(ii) The respondent No. 3 be further directed to extend the period of 05 years as stipulated in condition No. 4 of the perpetual lease deed dated 18/07/1994 for raising constructions.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

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 Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

Name of Party Before District Forum Before State Commission Before National Commission ( Original Memo of Parties) Before National Commission ( Amended memo of parties) Public College Samana Complainant Respondent No.1 Petitioner Petitioner State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall OP No.1 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana OP No.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 State Bank of India, Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.3 Appellant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commission OP No.4 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.2   For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis  

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)"), Delhi, dated 19.02.2024/20.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY") 2017-18.

2. First, will take up ITA No 701/Chny/2024 against Ld CIT(A) order dated 19.02.2024; and note that the main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the following actions of the AO (i) making an addition of Rs.19,28,069/- as unexplained money on ITA Nos.701, 743 to 745/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) M/s. Covai Marketing :: 2 ::

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 28.06.2024 for A.Y.2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

"1. The Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.15,60,115/- claimed by the appellant u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Alternatively, the interest income earned by the appellant from the investments in a co-operative bank is also eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw all or any one of the above grounds of appeal."

1. By way of the present the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 28/12/2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 25/12/2019, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.

2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.3577/Mum/2024

A.Y.2017-2018 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Officer was not justified in disallowing the bonafide claim of deduction u/s 80P12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NPAC) in dismissing the appeal as infructuous and not deciding the appeal on merit as per the Grounds of Appeal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('State Commission') in FA No. 875/2014 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navsari, ('the District Forum') order dated 28.11.2013 wherein the District Forum had allowed the complaint by the Petitioner.

2.      As per report of the Registry there is a delay of 91 days in filing of the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking Condonation of delay, the same is condoned.

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

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.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

18.2 The above facts revealed that the TAL had neither submitted the correct ST-3 returns showing the above taxable amount nor deposited the Service Tax on the taxable amount representing the amount received from the SKOL as License endorsement fees. It appears that TAL had deliberately suppressed their receipts against License endorsement fees and have also sought to mislead the investigation by claiming that the said receipts are not related to renting of the immoveable property while both TAL the service provider and SKOL the recipient of service have accounted for the amount paid as license endorsement fees as Rent in their Balance sheets. It therefore appears from the foregoing that the noticee has resorted to fraud, willful mis-statement, and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. M/s TAL have thus suppressed the taxable value to ST/52898/2018 the tune of Rs. 18,93,66,667/- from the Service Tax department and evaded the Service Tax amounting to Rs 2,02,15,467/-(Service Tax Rs 1,96,26,667 + Ed Cess 3,92,533/- + Ed Cess Rs 1,96,267/-) in respect of taxable services rendered by them for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.01.2013 by contravening the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Thus, the service tax not paid by TAL on the value of taxable services suppressed by them is recoverable from them by invoking the extended period under proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 along with interest at the appropriate rate as per Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994."

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate impugned orders of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter in short 'the AO') dated 29.03.2021 / 31.03.2021 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short 'the DRP') both dated 05.02.2021 and pertain to Assessment Years (hereinafter in short 'AY') 2016-17 & 2015-16 respectively.

IT(TP)A Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2015-16) M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd.

:: 2 ::

2. Both parties agreed that issues permeating in both the assessment years are similar and identical except that of ground no.3, 5, 9, 12 & 13 for assessment year 2016-17, which will be discussed at the last.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

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. In this original application, registered suo motu, the Tribunal is considering the issue of delay in filing the reports by the State Expert Committees and its effect on the unclassed forests.

2. By order dated 31.07.2024, 38 respondents were impleaded and notices have been served upon them.

3. Replies on behalf of only UT of Ladakh and State of Andhra Pradesh have been received.

4. The previous order also indicates that there are 7 States, i.e., Goa, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, who do not appear to have constituted the Expert Committees till now.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC submits that the Ministry is in touch with the authorities of all the States and the last meeting was held on 03.10.2024 and that after collecting the relevant information, the MoEF&CC will file the reply within four weeks.

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the reply has been filed but the same has been filed belatedly, therefore, it has not come on record. The office is directed to place it on record.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply a copy thereof to the Counsel for the Applicant within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has also informed that the Officer of UPPCB had visited the site and found that the solid waste was unauthorizedly dumped in an area of 1600 sq.m. He has pointed out that there is no sanction/approval granted by the UPPCB in respect of this secondary collection point. He has sought two weeks' time to file the reply.

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. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the reply has been filed but the same has been filed belatedly, therefore, it has not come on record. The office is directed to place it on record.

2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply a copy thereof to the Counsel for the Applicant within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has also informed that the Officer of UPPCB had visited the site and found that the solid waste was unauthorizedly dumped in an area of 1600 sq.m. He has pointed out that there is no sanction/approval granted by the UPPCB in respect of this secondary collection point. He has sought two weeks' time to file the reply.

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. 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.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submits that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra and stands concluded vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 12895/2024 (Ajay Meena & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.). The order reads as under:-

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent be consider the petitioners for appear in typewriting test on computer who shall be scheduled very soon.

~~~~~~~~~ The petitioners are depositors of the Kadanad Service Co-operative Bank Limited. Respondents 2 and 3 were the former President and Vice President of the Bank. Respondents 4 to 13 were former Committee Members. The 1 st respondent is the Secretary of the Bank.

2. The petitioners state that though the Fixed Deposits of the petitioners are matured long back, those deposits are not paid back. Respondents 1 to 13 committed grave offences. They cheated the Banks and its depositors. Huge loans were given to their own men creating false records and documents. Those loans are now irrecoverable. Ext.P1 inquiry report under 2024:KER:82916 Section 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 would prove the misappropriation and forgery.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

‭ 1‬ ‭ ‭.R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN RAO‬ P PARTNER, M/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, WOODLAND JUNCTION,‬ ‭ M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16.‬ ‭ 2‬ ‭ ‭/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS,‬ M KOCHI-16.‬ ‭ 3‬ ‭ ‭TATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY‬ S THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,‬ ‭ ERNAKULAM.‬ ‭ ‭1 & R2 BY ADVS.‬ R SRI.JOHN BRITTO‬ ‭ SRI.C.A.RAJEEV‬ ‭ R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA C.‬ ‭ THIS‬‭ ‭ CRIMINAL‬‭ APPEAL‬‭HAVING‬‭ BEEN‬‭ FINALLY‬‭ HEARD‬‭ ON‬‭ 30.10.2024,‬ THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:‬ ‭ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 2‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"CR"‬ ‭J U D G M E N T‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭in‬ ‭CC‬ ‭No.238‬ ‭of‬ ‭2002‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭file‬ ‭of‬ ‭Additional‬ ‭Chief‬ ‭Judicial‬ ‭Magistrate,‬ ‭Ernakulam,‬ ‭filed‬ ‭this‬ ‭appeal‬ ‭challenging‬ ‭acquittal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬ ‭Instruments‬ ‭Act‬ ‭(hereinafter‬ ‭referred‬ ‭as 'the NI Act'), as per judgment dated 31.05.2007.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭M/s.Sree‬ ‭Gokulam‬ ‭Chit‬ ‭&‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Company,‬‭is‬‭a‬‭Private‬‭Limited‬‭company‬‭having‬‭its‬‭registered‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭Chennai‬ ‭and‬ ‭a‬ ‭branch‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭MG‬ ‭Road,‬ ‭Ernakulam.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭represented‬ ‭by‬ ‭its‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭holder,‬ ‭who‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭company.‬‭He‬‭is‬‭empowered‬‭to‬‭institute‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭The‬ ‭2nd‬ ‭accused‬ ‭is‬ ‭M/s.Woodlands‬ ‭Jewellers‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬‭1st‬‭accused‬‭is‬‭its‬‭partner.‬‭Rs.2,13,000/-‬‭was‬‭due‬‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭towards‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭of‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭transactions,‬ ‭which‬‭the‬‭2nd‬‭accused‬‭had‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant-company.‬ ‭Towards‬ ‭discharge‬‭of‬‭that‬‭debt,‬‭the‬‭1st‬‭accused‬‭issued‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.12.2001,‬ ‭assuring‬ ‭that,‬ ‭it‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭encashed‬ ‭on‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 3‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭presentation‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭Bank.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭presented‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭for‬ ‭collection‬ ‭but‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason,‬ ‭'A/c‬ ‭transferred‬ ‭to‬ ‭suit‬ ‭file.‬ ‭No‬ ‭Balance.',‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭Ext.P3‬ ‭memo.‬ ‭Complainant‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭registered‬ ‭lawyer‬ ‭notice‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭and‬ ‭in‬‭spite‬‭of‬‭receipt‬‭of‬‭notice,‬‭they‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭repay‬ ‭that‬ ‭amount,‬ ‭though‬ ‭a‬ ‭reply‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭with‬ ‭untenable contentions. Hence the complaint.‬ ‭3.‬ ‭After‬ ‭taking‬ ‭cognizance‬ ‭and‬ ‭on‬ ‭appearance‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court,‬ ‭particulars‬ ‭of‬ ‭offence‬ ‭were‬ ‭read‬ ‭over‬ ‭and‬ ‭explained,‬ ‭to‬ ‭which,‬ ‭they‬ ‭pleaded‬ ‭not‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭and‬‭claimed‬‭to‬‭be‬‭tried.‬‭Thereupon,‬‭PW1‬‭was‬‭examined‬‭and‬ ‭Exts.‬‭P1‬‭to‬‭P10‬‭and‬‭P10(a)‬‭were‬‭marked‬‭from‬‭the‬‭side‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭complainant.‬ ‭On‬ ‭closure‬ ‭of‬ ‭complainant's‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭were‬ ‭questioned‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭313‬ ‭of‬ ‭Cr.P.C.‬ ‭They‬ ‭denied‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭incriminating‬ ‭circumstances‬ ‭brought‬ ‭out‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭and‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭them,‬ ‭they‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭chitty‬ ‭conducted‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭terminated‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1998.‬ ‭They‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭amount‬ ‭due,‬ ‭and‬ ‭thereafter‬ ‭their‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭closed.‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 4‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭given‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭one,‬ ‭only‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security,‬ ‭when‬ ‭he‬ ‭bid‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty.‬ ‭After‬ ‭closing‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty,‬‭the‬‭accused‬ ‭demanded‬ ‭back‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭given‬ ‭as‬ ‭security,‬ ‭but‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭returned,‬ ‭saying‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭kept‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭head‬‭office‬ ‭at Madras. No defence evidence was adduced.‬ ‭4.‬‭On‬‭analysing‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭evidence,‬‭and‬‭on‬‭hearing‬ ‭the‬ ‭rival‬ ‭contentions‬ ‭from‬ ‭either‬ ‭side,‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭acquitted‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭finding‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭properly‬ ‭instituted,‬ ‭as‬ ‭PW1-Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭properly‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭or‬‭to‬‭give‬‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭failed‬ ‭to‬ ‭prove‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭Aggrieved‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭acquittal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the accused, the complainant has preferred this appeal.‬ ‭5.‬ ‭Heard‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬‭appellant‬‭and‬‭learned‬ ‭counsel for the respondents.‬ ‭6.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭since‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭Private‬ ‭Limited‬ ‭company,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭an‬ ‭incorporeal‬ ‭body,‬ ‭only‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee‬ ‭or‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 5‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭representative‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company‬‭can‬‭prefer‬‭the‬‭complaint.‬‭The‬ ‭company‬ ‭becomes‬ ‭a‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭and‬ ‭its‬ ‭employee‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭representative‬ ‭representing‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬‭proceedings‬‭becomes‬‭the‬‭de‬‭facto‬‭complainant.‬‭In‬‭a‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭with‬ ‭regard‬ ‭to‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭issued‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭purpose‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭142‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭will‬ ‭be‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭and‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭purpose‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭200‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Criminal‬ ‭Procedure‬ ‭Code,‬ ‭its‬ ‭employee,‬‭who‬‭represents‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭will‬‭be‬‭the‬‭de‬‭facto‬ ‭complainant.‬ ‭A‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭be‬ ‭represented‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee,‬ ‭or‬ ‭even‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭non-employee‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭and‬ ‭empowered,‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭or‬ ‭a‬ ‭power of attorney.‬ ‭7.‬ ‭According‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭empowered‬ ‭PW1-Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan,‬ ‭who‬ ‭was‬ ‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭extract‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭of‬ ‭Directors‬ ‭meeting,‬ ‭held‬ ‭on‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭at‬ ‭its‬ ‭corporate‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭Chennai,‬ ‭which‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 6‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭authorised‬‭the‬‭Assistant‬‭Manager‬‭Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan,‬‭to‬‭do‬‭the‬ ‭following acts:‬ ‭'‭(‬ 1)‬ ‭To‬‭institute,‬‭commence,‬‭prosecute,‬‭carry‬‭on‬‭or‬ ‭defend any suit or legal proceeding,‬ ‭(2)‬‭To‬‭sign‬‭and‬‭verify‬‭all‬‭plaints,‬‭written‬‭statements‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭pleadings,‬ ‭applications,‬ ‭affidavits,‬ ‭petitions‬ ‭or‬ ‭documents‬ ‭and‬ ‭produce‬ ‭them‬ ‭before any Court,‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭To‬ ‭appoint,‬ ‭engage‬ ‭and‬ ‭instruct‬ ‭any‬ ‭solicitor,‬ ‭Advocate‬ ‭or‬ ‭Advocates‬ ‭to‬ ‭act‬ ‭and‬ ‭plead‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭wise‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭sign‬ ‭any‬ ‭Vakalathnama‬ ‭or‬ ‭other authority in this regard,‬ ‭(4)‬ ‭To‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭in‬ ‭any Court of law, and‬ ‭(5)‬ ‭To‬ ‭do‬ ‭all‬ ‭other‬ ‭lawful‬ ‭acts,‬‭deeds‬‭and‬‭things‬‭in‬ ‭connection‬‭with‬‭filing‬‭of‬‭any‬‭suit‬‭and‬‭conducting‬ ‭any‬‭legal‬‭proceedings‬‭in‬‭any‬‭court‬‭of‬‭law‬‭and‬‭to‬ ‭withdraw the case on behalf of the Company.'‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 7‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭8.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭1‬ ‭and‬ ‭2‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬‭that,‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭is‬‭not‬‭admissible‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭has‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬‭proved‬‭by‬‭producing‬ ‭the‬‭original.‬‭He‬‭would‬‭rely‬‭on‬‭a‬‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬‭High‬‭Court‬‭of‬ ‭Judicature‬ ‭at‬ ‭Bombay‬ ‭in‬ ‭Ashish‬ ‭C.‬ ‭Shah‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭Sheth‬ ‭Developers‬‭Pvt.‬‭Ltd.‬‭&‬‭Others‬‭reported‬‭in‬‭[CDJ‬‭2011‬‭BHC‬ ‭339:‬‭2011‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭6506]‬‭,‬ ‭to‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Section‬ ‭194‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭of‬ ‭meetings‬ ‭kept‬ ‭in‬ ‭accordance‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭provisions‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭193,‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings‬ ‭recorded‬ ‭therein.‬ ‭No‬ ‭provision‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭Companies‬‭Act‬‭was‬‭brought‬‭to‬‭the‬‭notice‬‭of‬‭that‬‭court‬ ‭which‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭certified‬‭copy‬‭or‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭admissible‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭without‬ ‭proof‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭original.‬ ‭Section‬ ‭65(f)‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭secondary‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭given,‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭existence,‬ ‭condition‬‭and‬‭contents‬‭of‬‭the‬‭document,‬‭when‬‭the‬‭original‬‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭document,‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭a‬ ‭certified‬ ‭copy‬ ‭is‬ ‭permitted‬ ‭by‬‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭or‬ ‭by‬ ‭any‬ ‭other‬ ‭law‬ ‭in‬ ‭force‬ ‭in‬ ‭India,‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭given‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭He‬ ‭would‬ ‭rely‬ ‭on‬ ‭another‬ ‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 8‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭Delhi‬ ‭High‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭Escorts‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬‭Sai‬‭Autos‬‭and‬‭Others‬ ‭[1991‬ ‭Company‬ ‭Cases‬ ‭Volume‬ ‭72‬ ‭Page‬ ‭483]‬ ‭to‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭enough‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭book,‬ ‭containing‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭relied‬‭on,‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭brought to the court.‬ ‭9.‬ ‭Section‬ ‭119‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭2013‬ ‭which‬ ‭corresponds‬‭to‬‭Section‬‭196‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Companies‬‭Act,‬‭1956‬‭says‬ ‭that,‬‭the‬‭books‬‭containing‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭of‬‭the‬‭proceedings‬‭of‬ ‭any‬ ‭general‬‭meeting‬‭of‬‭a‬‭company‬‭or‬‭of‬‭a‬‭resolution‬‭passed‬ ‭by‬ ‭postal‬ ‭ballot‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭kept‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭registered‬ ‭office‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬‭and‬‭it‬‭shall‬‭be‬‭open‬‭for‬‭inspection‬‭by‬‭any‬‭member‬ ‭during‬ ‭business‬ ‭hours‬ ‭and‬ ‭if‬ ‭any‬ ‭member‬ ‭make‬ ‭a‬ ‭request,‬ ‭for‬ ‭a‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬‭it‬‭shall‬‭be‬‭furnished‬‭within‬‭seven‬ ‭days,‬ ‭on‬‭payment‬‭of‬‭prescribed‬‭fees.‬‭So,‬‭Section‬‭119‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭for‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬ ‭and‬ ‭moreover,‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬‭that,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭every‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭sent‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Registrar‬ ‭for‬ ‭recording‬ ‭the‬ ‭same‬ ‭within‬ ‭30‬ ‭days‬ ‭of‬ ‭passing‬ ‭the‬ ‭same.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭Section‬ ‭54‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭1956,‬ ‭a‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 9‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭document‬ ‭which‬ ‭requires‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭signed‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬‭director,‬‭the‬‭manager,‬‭the‬‭secretary‬‭or‬‭other‬ ‭authorised‬‭officer‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭and‬‭need‬‭not‬‭be‬‭under‬‭its‬ ‭common‬ ‭seal.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭according‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes,‬‭which‬‭contains‬‭the‬‭resolution‬‭authorising‬‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭or‬ ‭civil‬ ‭cases‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬‭etc.,‬‭signed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭director‬‭of‬‭Sree‬‭Gokulam‬‭Chit‬‭&‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Co.‬‭(P)‬‭Ltd.,‬‭was‬‭sufficient‬‭authority‬‭for‬‭PW1,‬‭to‬‭file‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭10.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭point‬ ‭out‬‭that,‬‭Ext.‬‭P8‬‭was‬‭not‬‭produced‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭complaint,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭produced‬ ‭subsequently‬ ‭after‬ ‭questioning‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭313‬‭of‬‭Cr.P.C.‬‭Relying‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬ ‭M.‬ ‭M.‬ ‭T.‬ ‭C.‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Medchil‬ ‭Chemicals‬ ‭And‬ ‭Pharma‬ ‭(P)‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭[2002‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭241],‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭contended‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority‬ ‭initially,‬ ‭still‬ ‭the‬‭company‬‭can‬‭rectify‬‭that‬‭defect,‬‭at‬‭any‬‭stage.‬‭In‬‭para‬‭12‬ ‭of that judgment, we read thus:‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 10‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭is‬ ‭made‬‭in‬‭the‬ ‭name‬ ‭of‬ ‭an‬ ‭incorporeal‬ ‭person‬ ‭(like‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭or‬ ‭corporation)‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭necessary‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭natural‬ ‭person‬ ‭represents‬‭such‬‭juristic‬‭person‬‭in‬‭the‬‭court.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭court‬ ‭looks‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭natural‬ ‭person‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭for‬ ‭all‬ ‭practical‬ ‭purposes.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭body‬ ‭corporate‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭must‬ ‭necessarily‬ ‭associate‬ ‭a‬ ‭human‬ ‭being‬ ‭as‬ ‭de‬‭facto‬‭complainant‬‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭former‬ ‭in‬ ‭court‬ ‭proceedings.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭further‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬‭no‬‭Magistrate‬‭shall‬‭insist‬‭that‬ ‭the‬‭particular‬‭person,‬‭whose‬‭statement‬‭was‬‭taken‬‭on‬ ‭oath‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭instance,‬ ‭alone‬ ‭can‬ ‭continue‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭till‬ ‭the‬ ‭end‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭there‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭occasions‬ ‭when‬ ‭different‬ ‭persons‬ ‭can‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭open‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭company‬‭to‬‭seek‬‭permission‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭court‬ ‭for‬ ‭sending‬ ‭any‬ ‭other‬ ‭person‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭court.‬ ‭Thus,‬ ‭even‬ ‭presuming,‬ ‭that‬ ‭initially‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority,‬ ‭still‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can,‬ ‭at‬ ‭any‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭rectify‬ ‭that‬ ‭defect.‬ ‭At‬ ‭a‬ ‭subsequent‬ ‭stage‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭send‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭who‬ ‭is‬ ‭competent‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complaints‬‭could‬‭thus‬‭not‬‭have‬‭been‬‭quashed‬‭on‬‭this‬ ‭ground."‬ ‭11.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭decision,‬ ‭Bhupesh‬ ‭Rathod‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Dayashankar‬ ‭Prasad‬ ‭Chaurasia‬ ‭and‬ ‭Another‬‭[‭2 ‬ 021‬ ‭(6)‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 11‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭KHC‬ ‭368],‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority‬ ‭initially,‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭at‬ ‭any‬ ‭stage‬ ‭rectify‬ ‭that‬ ‭defect‬ ‭by‬ ‭sending‬ ‭a‬ ‭competent‬ ‭person.‬ ‭In‬ ‭that‬ ‭case,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭was‬ ‭filed‬ ‭along‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint.‬ ‭An‬ ‭affidavit‬ ‭was‬ ‭brought‬ ‭on‬ ‭record‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭affirming‬ ‭the‬ ‭factum‬ ‭of‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Managing‬ ‭Director.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭accepted‬ ‭the‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution,‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director‬ ‭was‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭attend‬ ‭all‬ ‭such‬ ‭affairs‬ ‭which‬ ‭may‬‭be‬‭needed‬‭in‬‭the‬‭process‬‭of‬‭legal‬ ‭actions. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that judgment read thus:‬ ‭"‭2 ‬ 3.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭also‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭to‬ ‭note‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭Resolution‬‭was‬‭filed‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭complaint.‬‭An‬‭affidavit‬ ‭had‬ ‭been‬ ‭brought‬ ‭on‬ ‭record‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭Trial‬ ‭Court‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company,‬ ‭affirming‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭factum‬ ‭of‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director.‬‭A‬‭Manager‬‭or‬‭a‬‭Managing‬ ‭Director‬‭ordinarily‬‭by‬‭the‬‭very‬‭nomenclature‬‭can‬‭be‬‭taken‬ ‭to‬‭be‬‭the‬‭person‬‭in‬‭-‬‭charge‬‭of‬‭the‬‭affairs‬‭Company‬‭for‬‭its‬ ‭day‬ ‭-‬ ‭to‬ ‭-‬ ‭day‬‭management‬‭and‬‭within‬‭the‬‭activity‬‭would‬ ‭certainly‬‭be‬‭calling‬‭the‬‭act‬‭of‬‭approaching‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭either‬ ‭under‬ ‭civil‬ ‭law‬ ‭or‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭law‬ ‭for‬ ‭setting‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭in‬ ‭motion‬ ‭(Credential‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭State‬ ‭of‬ ‭Maharashtra,‬ ‭1998‬‭(3)‬‭Mah‬‭L J‬‭805).‬‭It‬‭would‬‭be‬‭too‬‭technical‬‭a‬‭view‬‭to‬ ‭take‬ ‭to‬ ‭defeat‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭merely‬ ‭because‬ ‭the‬ ‭body‬‭of‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 12‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭does‬ ‭not‬ ‭elaborate‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation.‬ ‭The‬ ‭artificial‬ ‭person‬ ‭being‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭had‬ ‭to‬ ‭act‬ ‭through‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭/‬ ‭official,‬ ‭which‬ ‭logically‬ ‭would‬ ‭include‬ ‭the‬ ‭Chairman‬ ‭or‬ ‭Managing‬‭Director.‬‭Only‬‭the‬‭existence‬‭of‬ ‭authorisation could be verified.‬ ‭24.‬‭While‬‭we‬‭turn‬‭to‬‭the‬‭authorisation‬‭in‬‭the‬‭present‬‭case,‬ ‭it‬‭was‬‭a‬‭copy‬‭and,‬‭thus,‬‭does‬‭not‬‭have‬‭to‬‭be‬‭signed‬‭by‬‭the‬ ‭Board‬‭Members,‬‭as‬‭that‬‭would‬‭form‬‭a‬‭part‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭meeting‬ ‭and‬ ‭not‬ ‭a‬ ‭true‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation.‬ ‭We‬ ‭also‬ ‭feel‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭wrongly‬ ‭concluded‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director‬‭was‬‭not‬‭authorised.‬ ‭If‬ ‭we‬ ‭peruse‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭form‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭certified‬ ‭copy‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Resolution,‬‭it‬‭states‬‭that‬‭legal‬‭action‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭taken‬ ‭against‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭for‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭cheques‬ ‭issued‬ ‭by‬ ‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭his‬ ‭liabilities‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Company.‬ ‭To‬ ‭this‬ ‭effect,‬ ‭Mr.‬ ‭Bhupesh‬ ‭Rathod‬ ‭/‬ ‭Sashikant‬ ‭Ganekar‬ ‭were‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭appoint‬ ‭advocates,‬ ‭issue‬ ‭notices‬ ‭through‬ ‭advocate,‬ ‭file‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭verifications‬ ‭on‬ ‭oath,‬ ‭appoint‬‭Constituent‬‭attorney‬‭to‬‭file‬‭complaint‬‭in‬‭the‬‭Court‬ ‭and‬ ‭attend‬ ‭all‬ ‭such‬ ‭affairs‬ ‭which‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭needed‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭process of legal actions. What more could be said?"‬ ‭12.‬ ‭Obviously‬ ‭Hon'ble‬‭Apex‬‭Court‬‭accepted‬‭copy‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭resolution‬‭to‬‭find‬‭the‬‭factum‬‭of‬‭authorisation‬‭in‬‭favour‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭Managing Director.‬ ‭13.‬‭In‬‭the‬‭case‬‭on‬‭hand,‬‭PW1-Assistant‬‭Manager‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭complainant-company‬‭filed‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬‭gave‬‭evidence‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 13‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬ ‭of‬ ‭directors‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭do‬ ‭so.‬ ‭The‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭only‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭book‬‭was‬‭produced,‬ ‭without‬ ‭producing‬ ‭the‬ ‭original,‬ ‭or‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭was‬‭produced‬ ‭at‬ ‭a‬ ‭belated‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭etc.,‬ ‭will‬ ‭not‬ ‭take‬ ‭away‬ ‭that‬ ‭right‬ ‭from‬ ‭him.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭he‬ ‭could‬ ‭have‬ ‭filed‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭given‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭also‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭strength‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬‭of‬‭directors,‬‭an‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭which‬ ‭was produced as Ext.P8.‬ ‭14.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭would‬‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭executed‬ ‭or‬ ‭authenticated‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬‭Notary‬‭Public‬‭and‬‭so,‬‭it‬‭could‬‭not‬‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭accepted‬ ‭to‬ ‭draw‬ ‭power‬ ‭for‬ ‭PW1,‬ ‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭According‬ ‭to‬ ‭him,‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬ ‭ingredients‬ ‭contained‬ ‭in‬ ‭Section‬ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭viz.‬ ‭execution‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public‬ ‭are‬ ‭very‬ ‭essential.‬ ‭The‬ ‭words‬ ‭'executed‬ ‭before',‬ ‭and‬ ‭'authenticated‬ ‭by',‬ ‭are‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬ ‭conditions‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭satisfied‬ ‭in‬ ‭order‬ ‭to‬ ‭attract‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 14‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act.‬‭He‬‭would‬‭rely‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬‭Bank‬ ‭of‬ ‭India‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭Allibhoy‬ ‭Mohammed‬ ‭and‬ ‭Others‬ ‭reported‬ ‭in‬ ‭[‬‭AIR‬ ‭2008‬ ‭BOMBAY‬ ‭81],‬ ‭to‬ ‭support‬ ‭his‬ ‭argument‬‭.‬‭In‬‭paragraph 18 of that judgment, we read thus:‬ ‭"18.‬ ‭Let‬ ‭me‬ ‭turn‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Legal‬ ‭Provisions;‬ ‭namely,‬ ‭Section‬ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭which‬ ‭lays‬ ‭down‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭shall‬ ‭presume‬ ‭due‬ ‭execution‬ ‭and‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭of‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭when‬ ‭executed‬ ‭before,‬ ‭and‬ ‭authenticated‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭or‬ ‭any‬ ‭Court,‬ ‭Judge,‬ ‭Magistrate,‬ ‭Indian‬ ‭Counsel‬ ‭or‬ ‭it's‬ ‭Vice‬ ‭Counsel‬ ‭or‬ ‭representative‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬‭Central‬‭Government,‬ ‭etc.‬ ‭This‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭is‬ ‭available‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬‭Power‬‭of‬‭Attorney‬‭holder‬‭provided‬‭mandate‬‭of‬ ‭Section 85 is duly followed."‬ ‭15.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭though‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬‭is‬‭produced‬‭and‬‭marked‬‭as‬‭Ext.P9,‬‭it‬‭does‬‭not‬‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭executed‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭in‬ ‭presence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭and‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭no‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭executed‬ ‭before‬ ‭her.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭some‬ ‭force‬‭in‬‭the‬‭argument‬‭put‬‭forward‬‭by‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭accepted,‬‭for‬‭want‬‭of‬‭proper‬‭execution‬‭and‬‭authentication‬‭as‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 15‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭envisaged under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.‬ ‭16.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that,‬‭even‬‭if‬‭the‬‭power‬‭of‬‭attorney‬‭is‬‭ignored,‬‭then‬‭also,‬‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭is‬ ‭filed‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭and‬ ‭he‬ ‭was‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭the‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭marked‬ ‭as‬ ‭Ext.P8.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭view‬ ‭that,‬ ‭though‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭accepted,‬ ‭being‬ ‭the‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭by‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭PW1‬ ‭was‬ ‭empowered to file the complaint and to give evidence.‬ ‭17.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭appellant‬‭would‬‭say‬‭that,‬‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭was‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭authority‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭or‬‭to‬‭give‬‭evidence,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭open‬‭for‬‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭and‬‭establish‬‭the‬‭same‬‭during‬‭the‬‭course‬‭of‬‭trial.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭TRL‬ ‭Krosaki‬ ‭Refractories‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭(M/s.)‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭SMS‬ ‭Asia‬ ‭Pvt.‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭and‬ ‭Another‬ ‭[2022‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭157:‬‭2022‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭KLT‬ ‭OnLine‬ ‭1043‬ ‭(SC)]‬ ‭made‬ ‭that‬ ‭position‬ ‭clear,‬ ‭by‬ ‭holding‬ ‭that,‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬‭complainant/payee‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭an‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭employee‬ ‭can‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 16‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭company.‬ ‭Such‬ ‭averment‬ ‭and‬ ‭prima‬ ‭facie‬ ‭material‬ ‭is‬ ‭sufficient‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭learned‬ ‭Magistrate‬ ‭to‬ ‭take‬ ‭cognizance‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭issue‬ ‭process.‬ ‭If‬ ‭at‬ ‭all‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭any‬ ‭serious‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭with‬ ‭regard‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭prosecuting‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭not‬ ‭being‬ ‭authorized,‬ ‭or‬ ‭if‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬‭demonstrated‬‭that‬‭a‬‭person‬‭who‬ ‭filed‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭has‬ ‭no‬‭knowledge‬‭of‬‭the‬‭transaction‬‭and‬ ‭as‬‭such‬‭that‬‭person‬‭could‬‭not‬‭have‬‭instituted‬‭and‬‭prosecuted‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭it‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭open‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭to‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭the‬‭position‬‭and‬‭establish‬‭the‬‭same‬‭during‬‭the‬‭course‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭trial.‬ ‭18.‬ ‭Though‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭authority‬ ‭of‬ ‭PW1,‬ ‭vide‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬‭as‬‭Ext.P9‬‭power‬‭of‬‭attorney,‬‭they‬‭did‬‭not‬‭take‬‭any‬‭steps‬ ‭to‬ ‭establish‬ ‭that‬ ‭position,‬ ‭during‬ ‭trial.‬‭So,‬‭the‬‭finding‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭trial‬‭court,‬‭that‬‭PW1‬‭was‬‭not‬‭authorized‬‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭basis‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution, is liable to be set aside.‬ ‭19.‬‭Coming‬‭to‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭of‬‭the‬‭case,‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬ ‭the‬‭appellant‬‭would‬‭submit‬‭that,‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭subscribed‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 17‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭seven‬ ‭kuries‬ ‭of‬ ‭Rs.5,00,000/-‬ ‭each,‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭company,‬ ‭and‬‭they‬‭auctioned‬‭that‬‭kuri‬‭on‬‭14.02.1997.‬‭They‬ ‭defaulted‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭and‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭liability,‬ ‭the‬ ‭1st‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭issued‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.12.2001‬ ‭for‬ ‭an‬ ‭amount‬ ‭of‬ ‭Rs.2,13,000/-.‬ ‭When‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭presented‬ ‭before‬ ‭Bank,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭returned‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason‬ ‭'A/c‬ ‭transferred‬ ‭to‬ ‭suit‬ ‭file.‬ ‭No‬ ‭balance.'‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭signature‬‭in‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭or‬‭the‬‭issuance‬‭of‬‭that‬‭cheque‬‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant.‬ ‭All‬ ‭statutory‬ ‭formalities‬ ‭to‬ ‭bring‬ ‭home‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭punishable‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act‬ ‭was‬ ‭complied‬ ‭with.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumptions‬ ‭available‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭118‬ ‭and‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act‬ ‭will‬ ‭come‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭aid‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭learned‬‭trial‬‭court‬‭went‬‭wrong‬‭in‬ ‭acquitting the accused.‬ ‭20.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭when‬ ‭they‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 18‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭balance‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭given‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭signed‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭and‬ ‭even‬ ‭after‬ ‭they‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭fully,‬ ‭and‬ ‭closed‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri,‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭entrusted‬‭with‬‭the‬‭appellant‬‭was‬‭not‬‭returned.‬ ‭Only‬‭to‬‭see,‬ ‭whether‬ ‭they‬ ‭could‬ ‭extract‬ ‭some‬ ‭more‬ ‭money‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭they‬ ‭filed‬ ‭a‬ ‭false‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭misusing‬ ‭that‬ ‭blank cheque.‬ ‭21.‬‭Relying‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Hon'ble‬‭Apex‬‭Court‬‭in‬ ‭Bir‬ ‭Singh‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Mukesh‬ ‭Kumar‬‭[(2019)‬ ‭4‬ ‭SCC‬ ‭197],‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭argue‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭leaf,‬ ‭voluntary‬ ‭signed‬ ‭and‬ ‭handed‬ ‭over‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭towards‬ ‭some‬ ‭payment,‬ ‭would‬ ‭attract‬ ‭presumption‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭139‬‭of‬‭the‬‭NI‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬ ‭of‬ ‭any‬ ‭cogent‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭issued‬ ‭in‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭Paragraphs‬ ‭33‬ ‭to‬ ‭36‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭judgment read thus:‬ ‭"33.‬ ‭A‬ ‭meaningful‬ ‭reading‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭provisions‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬ ‭Instruments‬ ‭Act‬ ‭including,‬ ‭in‬ ‭particular,‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭20,‬ ‭87‬ ‭and‬ ‭139,‬ ‭makes‬ ‭it‬ ‭amply‬ ‭clear‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭who‬ ‭signs‬ ‭a‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭and‬ ‭makes‬ ‭it‬ ‭over‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭payee‬‭remains‬‭liable‬‭unless‬‭he‬‭adduces‬‭evidence‬‭to‬‭rebut‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 19‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭had‬ ‭been‬ ‭issued‬ ‭for‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭debt‬ ‭or‬ ‭in‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭liability.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭immaterial‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭may‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭filled‬ ‭in‬ ‭by‬ ‭any‬ ‭person‬ ‭other‬ ‭than‬ ‭the‬ ‭drawer,‬ ‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭duly‬ ‭signed‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭drawer.‬ ‭If‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭otherwise‬ ‭valid,‬ ‭the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.‬ ‭34.‬‭If‬‭a‬‭signed‬‭blank‬‭cheque‬‭is‬‭voluntarily‬‭presented‬‭to‬‭a‬ ‭payee,‬‭towards‬‭some‬‭payment,‬‭the‬‭payee‬‭may‬‭fill‬‭up‬‭the‬ ‭amount‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭particulars.‬ ‭This‬ ‭in‬ ‭itself‬ ‭would‬ ‭not‬ ‭invalidate‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque.‬ ‭The‬ ‭onus‬ ‭would‬ ‭still‬ ‭be‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬‭to‬‭prove‬‭that‬‭the‬‭cheque‬‭was‬‭not‬‭in‬‭discharge‬‭of‬ ‭a debt or liability by adducing evidence.‬ ‭35.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭not‬‭the‬‭case‬‭of‬‭the‬‭respondent‬‭-‬‭accused‬‭that‬‭he‬ ‭either‬ ‭signed‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭or‬ ‭parted‬ ‭with‬ ‭it‬ ‭under‬ ‭any‬ ‭threat‬ ‭or‬ ‭coercion.‬ ‭Nor‬ ‭is‬‭it‬‭the‬‭case‬‭of‬‭the‬‭respondent‬‭-‬ ‭accused‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭unfilled‬‭signed‬‭cheque‬‭had‬‭been‬‭stolen.‬ ‭The‬ ‭existence‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭fiduciary‬ ‭relationship‬ ‭between‬ ‭the‬ ‭payee‬‭of‬‭a‬‭cheque‬‭and‬‭its‬‭drawer,‬‭would‬‭not‬‭disentitle‬‭the‬ ‭payee‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭benefit‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭139‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Negotiable‬‭Instruments‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬‭of‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭of‬ ‭exercise‬ ‭of‬ ‭undue‬ ‭influence‬ ‭or‬ ‭coercion.‬‭The‬ ‭second question is also answered in the negative.‬ ‭36.‬ ‭Even‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭leaf,‬ ‭voluntarily‬ ‭signed‬ ‭and‬ ‭handed‬ ‭over‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭towards‬ ‭some‬ ‭payment,‬ ‭would‬ ‭attract‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬‭Instruments‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬‭of‬‭any‬ ‭cogent‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬‭that‬‭the‬‭cheque‬‭was‬‭not‬‭issued‬ ‭in discharge of a debt."‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 20‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭22.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭issuance‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭though‬‭according‬‭to‬‭them,‬‭it‬ ‭was‬‭issued‬‭as‬‭a‬‭blank‬‭signed‬‭cheque.‬‭They‬‭are‬‭not‬‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭fact‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭which‬ ‭they‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭and‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭were‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭paid,‬ ‭even‬‭after‬‭auctioning‬‭the‬‭kuri.‬‭Obviously,‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭was‬ ‭issued‬‭not‬‭under‬‭any‬‭threat‬‭or‬‭coercion,‬‭and‬‭even‬‭according‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭respondents,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭issued‬‭as‬‭a‬‭security‬‭for‬‭the‬‭future‬ ‭instalments‬‭to‬‭be‬‭paid‬‭in‬‭the‬‭kuri,‬‭which‬‭they‬‭had‬‭auctioned.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Moideen‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Johny‬ ‭[2006‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭1055],‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security,‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭in‬ ‭possession‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭can‬ ‭enter‬ ‭the‬ ‭amount‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭liability‬ ‭and‬ ‭present‬ ‭it‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭bank.‬ ‭When‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭issued‬ ‭by‬ ‭one‬ ‭to‬ ‭another,‬ ‭it‬ ‭gives‬ ‭an‬ ‭authority‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭person,‬ ‭to‬ ‭whom‬ ‭it‬‭is‬‭issued,‬‭to‬‭fill‬‭it‬‭up‬‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭appropriate‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭necessary‬‭entities‬‭regarding‬ ‭the‬ ‭liability,‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭present‬ ‭it‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭bank.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭event‬ ‭of‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭absolved‬ ‭from his liability.‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 21‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭23.‬‭Another‬‭contention‬‭taken‬‭up‬‭by‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭is‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭produce‬ ‭the‬ ‭account‬ ‭books‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭Rs.2,13,000/-‬‭was‬ ‭due‬ ‭from‬ ‭them.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that,‬ ‭production‬ ‭of‬ ‭account‬ ‭books‬ ‭etc.‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭civil‬ ‭court,‬ ‭but‬ ‭as‬ ‭far‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭criminal‬‭case‬‭under‬ ‭Section‬‭138‬‭of‬‭the‬‭NI‬‭Act‬‭is‬‭concerned,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭presumption‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭holder‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭and‬ ‭so‬ ‭the‬ ‭burden‬ ‭is‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬‭to‬‭rebut‬‭that‬‭presumption.‬‭She‬‭would‬ ‭rely‬ ‭on‬ ‭a‬ ‭decision‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬‭in‬‭Chandel‬‭D.‬ ‭K.‬‭v.‬‭M/s.‬‭Wockhardt‬‭Ltd.‬‭and‬‭Another‬‭[2020‬‭KHC‬‭6204]‬ ‭which‬ ‭says‬ ‭that‬ ‭production‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭account‬ ‭books/cash‬ ‭book‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭civil‬ ‭court;‬ ‭but‬ ‭may‬ ‭not‬ ‭be‬ ‭so,‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭case‬ ‭filed‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭because‬ ‭of‬ ‭the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque.‬ ‭24.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭fact‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭had‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭kuries‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭commenced‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1996,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭terminated‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1998.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 22‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭first‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭passbook,‬ ‭a‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭is‬ ‭found‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭date‬‭14.02.1997‬‭.‬‭According‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭the‬‭date‬ ‭on‬‭which‬‭that‬‭kuri‬‭was‬‭auctioned‬‭by‬‭the‬‭respondents.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬ ‭10th‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭passbook,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭an‬‭endorsement‬‭in‬‭red‬ ‭ink,‬ ‭as‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'.‬ ‭So‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭the‬ ‭endorsement‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'‬ ‭and‬‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page‬‭of‬‭the‬‭passbook,‬‭will‬‭show‬‭that‬ ‭he‬ ‭had‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭amount‬ ‭due‬ ‭under‬ ‭that‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭and‬ ‭so,‬ ‭no amount was due, so as to issue Ext.P2 cheque.‬ ‭25.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬‭if‬‭the‬‭kuri‬‭was‬‭closed‬‭on‬‭14.12.1998,‬‭the‬‭passbook‬‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭the‬ ‭seal‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed'‬‭,‬ ‭just‬ ‭like‬ ‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭was‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭definitely‬ ‭there‬ ‭would‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭paid‬ ‭monthly,‬ ‭till‬ ‭the‬ ‭termination‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭kuri.‬ ‭When‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭alleging‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭it‬‭is‬‭their‬‭burden,‬‭to‬‭prove‬ ‭it‬‭with‬‭cogent‬‭evidence.‬‭They‬‭could‬‭have‬‭very‬‭well‬‭called‬‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭Registers‬ ‭pertaining‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 23‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭amount‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭paid‬ ‭by‬ ‭them.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭since‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭custody‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭they‬ ‭themselves‬ ‭might‬ ‭have‬ ‭made‬ ‭the‬ ‭red‬ ‭ink‬ ‭entry‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭the‬ ‭manipulation‬ ‭as‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭ruled‬ ‭out.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭seems‬ ‭to‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭carried‬ ‭away‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭seen‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭dues‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭was‬ ‭paid‬ ‭off‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents.‬ ‭Obviously,‬ ‭that‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭was‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭payment‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭company, when the kuri was auctioned by the respondents.‬ ‭26.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭would‬‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭on‬ ‭receipt‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭lawyer‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭they‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭reply‬ ‭notice‬ ‭disowning‬ ‭the‬‭liability‬‭and‬‭disputing‬‭issuance‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque.‬ ‭But‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭produced‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭on‬ ‭receipt‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭stated‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭facing‬ ‭financial‬ ‭difficulties‬ ‭and‬ ‭they‬ ‭were‬ ‭making‬ ‭every‬ ‭effort‬ ‭to‬ ‭raise‬ ‭funds‬ ‭to‬ ‭settle‬ ‭the‬ ‭account.‬ ‭But,‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 24‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭they‬ ‭never‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭reply‬‭notice‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant.‬‭But‬‭Ext.P10(a)‬‭postal‬‭cover‬‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭that,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭to‬ ‭Adv.Sri.K.S.Babu,‬ ‭who‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice.‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭notice‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭Ext.P10‬‭notice‬‭are‬‭on‬‭the‬‭same‬‭day‬‭i.e.‬‭10.01.2002.‬ ‭But‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭was‬ ‭addressed‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭directly.‬ ‭The‬ ‭postal‬‭receipt‬‭or‬‭acknowledgement‬‭card‬‭of‬‭Ext.D2‬‭notice‬‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭produced‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭advocate,‬ ‭normally‬ ‭the‬ ‭reply‬ ‭also‬ ‭should‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭given‬ ‭to‬ ‭that‬ ‭advocate.‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice‬ ‭along‬ ‭with‬ ‭Ext.P10(a)‬ ‭cover‬ ‭seem‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭more‬ ‭reliable.‬ ‭On‬ ‭going‬ ‭through‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭it‬ ‭could‬ ‭be‬ ‭seen‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭admitting‬ ‭their‬ ‭liability‬ ‭to‬ ‭certain‬ ‭extent,‬ ‭towards the balance amount due on prized chits.‬ ‭27.‬‭Adverting‬‭to‬‭the‬‭aforesaid‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭circumstances,‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭view‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭went‬ ‭wrong‬ ‭in‬ ‭acquitting‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused.‬ ‭So,‬‭the‬‭impugned‬‭judgment‬‭is‬‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭set‬ ‭aside.‬ ‭There‬ ‭is‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 25‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt,‬ ‭and‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason‬‭'A/c‬‭transferred‬‭to‬‭suit‬‭file.‬‭No‬‭balance.'‬‭The‬‭appellant‬ ‭had‬ ‭complied‬ ‭with‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭statutory‬ ‭formalities‬ ‭in‬ ‭order‬ ‭to‬ ‭attract‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭punishable‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act.‬‭The‬‭complainant‬‭was‬‭authorized‬‭as‬‭per‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution,‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭failed‬ ‭to‬ ‭rebut‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumptions‬ ‭available‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭118‬ ‭and‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭1‬ ‭and‬ ‭2‬ ‭are‬ ‭found‬ ‭guilty‬‭under‬ ‭Section 138 of the NI Act.‬ ‭28.‬ ‭As‬ ‭per‬ ‭Section‬ ‭141‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭committing‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭every‬ ‭person‬ ‭who,‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭time‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭was‬ ‭committed,‬ ‭was‬ ‭in‬ ‭charge‬ ‭of,‬ ‭and‬ ‭was‬ ‭responsible‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭business‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭deemed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭and‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭proceeded‬ ‭against‬ ‭and‬ ‭punished‬ ‭accordingly‬‭. Section 141(2) of the NI Act reads thus:‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 26‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"141. Offences by companies. --‬ ‭(1) xxx xxx xxx‬ ‭(2)‬‭Notwithstanding‬‭anything‬‭contained‬‭in‬‭sub-section‬‭(1),‬ ‭where‬ ‭any‬ ‭offence‬ ‭under‬ ‭this‬‭Act,‬‭has‬‭been‬‭committed‬‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭proved‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭committed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭consent‬ ‭or‬ ‭connivance‬ ‭of,‬ ‭or‬ ‭is‬ ‭attributable‬ ‭to,‬ ‭any‬ ‭neglect‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭part‬ ‭of,‬ ‭any‬ ‭director,‬ ‭manager,‬ ‭secretary‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭such‬ ‭director,‬ ‭manager,‬ ‭secretary‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭officer‬ ‭shall‬ ‭also‬ ‭be‬ ‭deemed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭offence‬ ‭and‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be proceeded against and punished accordingly.‬ ‭Explanation‬‭: For the purposes, of this section,--‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭"company"‬‭means‬‭any‬‭body‬‭corporate‬‭and‬‭includes‬‭a‬ ‭firm or other association of individuals; and‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭"director",‬ ‭in‬ ‭relation‬ ‭to‬ ‭a‬ ‭firm,‬ ‭means‬ ‭a‬ ‭partner‬ ‭in‬ ‭the firm."‬ ‭29.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭the‬ ‭2nd‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭partnership‬ ‭firm‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭1st‬ ‭res

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.

The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.666/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error by not considering the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital / share premium of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there is accommodation entry in the instant case?

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.

The Court:- This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1964/Kol/2019 and C.O. No.39/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the invocation of sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of appellant, the appellant's claim that expenditure of Rs.9,77,888/ was incurred in relation to the exempt income was not correct?

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/491/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

a. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in granting relief to the assessee without considering the fact that neither the assessee nor the amalgamating company informed the AO about the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore defect in not issuing notice in the name of amalgamated company remained a curable defect under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against an order dated October 26, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.1842/Kol/2017, for the assessment order 2009-10.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additional made by the A.O. towards unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions overlooking the fact that not even a single Director of the share subscribing companies appeared before the Assessing Officer nor provided a valid reason for their non-appearance?

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.

and submitted an inspection report on 11.05.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the inspection report dated 11.05.2024, the only allegation, which has been made, is regarding enhancement of charges in respect of hajri form disproportionately and Patna High Court CWJC No.10426 of 2024 dt.12-11-2024 discontinuance of the share of Advocates and Advocate clerks in the same, resulting in resentment in the Bar, apart from some allegations being made in the said report regarding functioning of the Committee during the period 2022 to 2024, for which the petitioner is not responsible, inasmuch as his financial power had been seized vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 03.04.2017, ASI Usman Ali vide DD no. 3A had received an information regarding the present accident. He also received a call from Trauma Centre that the present accident had occurred. After receiving the call from Trauma Centre, ASI alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached the Trauma Centre and collected MLC no. 214228 of injured Raj Kumar. As per MLC, the doctor opined that the injured was "unfit for statement". IO met with an eye witness in the hospital, whose name was Guddu. IO recorded the statement of eye witness. Witness has stated that Raj Kumar had met with an accident when he was crossing the road on foot near Yamuna River. Eye witness, with the help of the driver of the offending vehicle, sent the injured to the hospital in the offending vehicle itself and went to the hospital by his motorcycle. On the basis of the MLC and statement of the eye witness, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised PPA No.07/2020 M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 of 2015 passed under Section 5(1) of the Act holding the appellant to be in unauthorised occupation of the subject premises w.e.f. 01.03.2015, as well as another order dated 17.01.2010 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 (A) of 2015 passed under Section 7(2) and 7(2A) of the Act holding the appellant liable to pay dues of Rs.6,81,08,996/- as on 31.12.2019.

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking the following information:

"1. The name of revenue villages with survey nos of tower line erected for PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

2. The copy of item wise list of cut and removed trees, category, age, analysis and evaluation certificate from Agriculture Department for erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

3. The copy of details of the following a. Land compensation paid.

b. Compensation paid for crops (item wise) c. Compensation paid for trees (item wise) For erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd-800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dt?