1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs Only) on account of cost of dowry articles/ Istridhan etc. detained by the defendants. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present civil suit, the defendants no. 2 and 4 have expired.

Raj wati Vs. Kuldeep Page no. 2 Plaintiff's version as per the plaint

2. The plaintiff states that she is the mother of deceased late Smt. Sunita who was wife of the defendant no. 1 Kuldeep. The marriage of Late Smt. Sunita and the defendant no. 1 was solemnized on 20.02.1996 in accordance with Hindu rights and customs and the plaintiff claims to have spent an amount of more than Rs.5 lacs on the said marriage. The plaintiff relies on a detailed list of dowry articles annexed as schedule C to the plaint.

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Amrinder Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

Complainant's Case

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused and his parents approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if the accused fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

Brief statement of reasons for the decision

1. This case has been instituted by the complainant, Mr. Pawan Kumar under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, Mr. Ved Prakash Dhuria for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").

Brief Facts:

2. The substance of the allegations and assertion of the complainant is that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused on 09.10.2018 for four months with interest at the rate of 2% per month, given the needs of the accused and cordial relations between them. It is alleged that a loan agreement and receipt dated 09.10.2018 were also executed between the parties. It is further alleged that the accused issued two post-dated cheques, cheque No. 000029 dated 06.04.2021 and cheque No. 000030 dated 06.04.2021 both for a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- each drawn on Bank, Of India, Pitampura Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2024.11.11 15:18:42 +0530 "impugned cheque"). After an expiry of four months and despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the loan amount, then, a legal notice dated 14.03.2019 was sent to the accused to discharge his liability. Then, on instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the impugned cheques at his bank. However, both were dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide memos dated 07.04.2021. Then, a demand notice dated 13.04.2021 was sent to the accused's address via Speed Post calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts. Despite the service of notice upon the accused, neither the accused paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

FACTUAL MATRIX-

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2020 at about 07:30 PM, at Road from Village Mundhela Kalan towards Bakhargarh Toll Tax, Delhi, accused was carrying illicit liquor in car bearing registration no.HR-48B-4970, without any valid licence or permit in that regard and knowing that prescribed duty has not been paid thereon and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 33/38/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, for which FIR no.104/2020 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.

INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED

2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under Sections 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused on 08.06.2023 and charge under Section 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act was framed against acucsed Vikram on 16.05.2024. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

1. This is an criminal appeal under section 341 Cr.PC preferred by the appellant/ applicant against the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SED/Saket Court, New Delhi whereby the application of appellant/applicant moved u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

2. The grounds cited by the appellant against the impugned order are as under :

A. Because the Ld. Trial Court duly appreciated the fact that the Respondent Bank concealed the fact regarding the Appellant being in possession of the said property, and yet, in utter disregard of the prejudice caused to the Appellant due to such concealment, regarded the same as being non violative of the principles of natural justice.

1. Two appeals, one preferred by the convicted appellant Satyajeet Singh and the other preferred by the parents of the deceased children, assailing the judgment and sentence by the former whereas the latter have preferred to assail the order on the CA Nos.114/2019 & 128/2019 Satyajeet Singh Vs. State & Anuradha Bhattacharya & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of21 sentence only. Both the appeals are taken up together inasmuch as both are arising out of the judgment dated 07.05.2019 and the order on sentence dated 09.05.2019 and are disposed off through the instant judgment.

2. Before adverting to the contentions of the appellants, facts are required to be looked into against the backdrop of which the appeals have emerged. A group of youngsters comprising of appellant Satyajeet Singh and three others namely Gaurav Sobti, Sneha Kapoor and Anirudh Rawat were out to enjoy an evening on 23.02.2008. They had come together at Chattarpur initially in a party hosted by "Red Bulls", where they reached at around 10.00- 10.30 pm and moved out from there in different lots and went to Park Hotel where they reached one after the other at around 01- 01.30 am. In fact, Gaurav Sobti and Anirudh Rawat were picked up by appellant Satyajeet Singh and they went to the party hosted by "Red Bulls" in Chattarpur, where Sneha Kapoor had also came with a friend. Gaurav along with his another friend Rohan, left for Park Hotel at Connaught Place and went to Dance at Disco Bar 'Agni'. The other friends also joined them after about half an hour, that is, Satyajeet, Anirudh Rawat and Sneha Kapoor. They had food, beer and juices etc., there. About 2 - 2 ½ hours were spent by these persons at Park Hotel and after finishing their dinner, etc., they all decided to go back home. Satyajeet Singh, appellant herein, offered to drop Gaurav Sobti, Sneha Kapoor and Anirudh Rawat in his car.

1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017

2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017

3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035.

4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.

And Also at:

M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co.

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Gursharan Singh Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

Complainant's Case

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused, his wife and his son approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The son of the accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if he fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the son of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

8. That attested copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/1 already on record with the court, attested copy of Charge- sheet is Ex. PW-1/2 already on record with the court, copy of Fir is Ex. PW-1/3 already on record with the court, copy of MLC is Ex. PW-1/4 already on record with the court, copy of post mortem report is Ex. Pw-1/5 already on record with the court, copy of salary certificate is Ex. PW-1/6 already on record with the court, copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/7 already on record with the court, copy of site plan is Ex. PW-1/8 already on record with the court, copy of Insurance Certificate of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/9 already on record with the court, copy fo R/C details of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/10 already on record with the court, copy of Driving Licence Verification report of respondent/accused is Ex. PW-1/11 already on record with the court, copy of arrest memo is Ex. PW-1/12 already on record with the court, Copies of Aadhar Cards of legal heirs are Ex. Pw-1/13 (Colly.) already on record with the court. Copy of Funeral receipt issued from Shamshan Ghat is Ex. PW-1/14. Copy of Death Certificate of my deceased father is Ex. PW-1/15.

30.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd of Rs.1,67,775/-) = (-)Rs. 55,925/-

30.5. Multiplicand ( Rs.1,67,775−Rs.55,925/-) = Rs. 1,11,850/- 30.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:

Rs. 1,11,850/- ( multiplicand) x 14 (multiplier)= Rs.15,65,900/-

Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:

31. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :

''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses..... .

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.

1. The accused Shishu Pal has faced the present trial for the offence u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of his real brother namely Satyadev by strangulating him with the help of a shoe lace.

The case of the prosecution:

2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on receipt of call vide DD No. 31 A dated 15.07.2018, ASI Brahm Swaroop reached Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel (SVBP) Hospital, Patel Nagar where deceased Satyadev was reported to be brought dead. The emergency card of SVBP hospital indicates that he was brought there by the accused. The doctor at the hospital noticed a scar mark on the neck of the deceased. The post mortem report opined that the cause of death as asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. In the subsequent opinion the doctor opined that the death was possible with the alleged weapon of offence i.e shoelace recovered at the instance of the accused. After the post mortem report was received the FIR was registered on 19.07.2018. On the same day the accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. On the next day the IO obtained the police custody of the accused and at the instance of the accused, the shoelace allegedly used in the offence, was recovered from the room situated at the first floor of the house of the accused and the deceased. Pooja, wife of deceased raised her suspicion on the accused as her husband i.e. deceased Satyadev was a habitual drunker due to which there used to be quarrels State Vs Shishu Pal SC No.780/2018 FIR No. 201/2018 2/42 between Satyadev and his elder brother Shishupal. She stated that at the time of incident, she had gone to her parental home at Farukhkabad, U.P. After completion of investigation, t he chargesheet was filed against the accused.

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 05-05-2015 at about 2:15 pm, an information was received at PS New Usmanpur through PCR van B-52 that niece of caller has been thrown off the stairs by her husband at H. No. 22/23, Gali no. 2, G-Block, Shastri Park, Delhi. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 42B (Ex. PW1/A) and the same was marked to SI Dharmender (hereinafter referred to as first IO/ investigating officer). Thereafter, IO along with HC Sudhir and Ct. Rahul reached at the spot i.e. H. No. G-48, Gali no. 2, Shastri Park, Delhi where they found that a 30 years old lady was lying dead and there was an injury mark on her neck. The family members of the said deceased were present there. The father of deceased namely Sh. Om Prakash informed that dead body was of his daughter namely Hemlata, who got married about 6½ years ago. Crime Team and photographer were called and spot was got photographed from different angles. Sh. Rajesh Dhawal, who was looking after the work of SDM Seelampur, had arrived and recorded statement of Sh. Om Prakash, father of deceased. Sh. Om Prakash stated that he was residing at 313A, Neelam Bata Road, AC Nagar, Faridabad. The deceased Hemlata was her second number child amongst four children. His daughter got married with Radhey Shyam s/o late Sh. Makhan Lal about 6½ years ago. The matrimonial life of her daughter was not good. His son-in-law namely Radhey Shyam had started making demands of money after marriage. There used to be continuous quarrel between the couple. His daughter was unhappy for the last six years. They tried to console her but she used to abuse them. His son-in-law was indulged in bad activities and committed various criminal offences which includes theft and stabbing. Every time his daughter used to call him, she stated that her husband used to intimidate her. There were two children out of the wedlock. His daughter Hemlata used to report telephonically to him that her mother-in-law and younger brother-in-law Vicky also used to fight with her and used to snap electricity supply. On 05-05-2015, at about 11 am, his son Rohtash had received a phone call of mother-in-law of Hemlata, who stated that something wrong has happened with Hemlata. When he called them after some time, she stated that his daughter Hemlata is unwell. When they reached the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter, then the mother-in-law of deceased daughter stated that his daughter had fallen from stairs. His son- in-law was also present on the second floor of the house and he did not bother to come downstairs. He asked the mother-in-law of the deceased as to why they had not taken her to hospital if she had fallen from stairs to which she did not give any satisfactory explanation. He noticed injury mark on the neck of his deceased daughter. He immediately called at 100 number. He stated that it appeared that her daughter Hemlata had been killed by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. After recording the above-stated statement, Sh. Rajesh Dhawal immediately directed the IO to take action as per law and to proceed for postmortem of deceased. The dead body was sent to mortuary of GTB hospital under the supervision of Ct. Rahul. The IO prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC. Thereafter, SDM proceeded to record statement of mother of deceased namely Meera Devi, who also levelled similar allegations against the in-laws of the deceased as levelled by father of the deceased. The site plan of the spot was prepared by the IO. The accused Radhey Shyam was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Pointing out of place of incident was prepared. On 06-05-2015, lady Ct. had removed the articles worn by the dead body and the same were handed over to the IO, who prepared pulanda and thereafter, took the same into police possession. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted under the supervision of Executive Magistrate. After conclusion of postmortem, dead body was handed over to the father of deceased Om Prakash. At that stage, Section 302 of IPC was added. PC remand of the accused was obtained and during PC remand, accused Radhey Shyam confessed that he committed murder of deceased Hemlata after strangulating her with nylon chunni. The accused got recovered the said nylon chunni from first floor of his house which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. The said nylon chunni was 64 inch long and 2 inch in width. The said chunni was tied with a black colour thread at one of its end which was 17 inch in length. Accused Gyan Devi and Hari Shankar @ Vicky were being searched but they were not found. Accused Radhey Shyam was got medically examined at JPC hospital. During medical examination, doctor concerned had handed over one pulanda containing blood sample on gauze of accused to police, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW29/B. On 09-05-2014, the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Mahavir Singh (hereinafter referred as second IO). On 18-05-2015, the second IO had obtained viscera of the deceased, nail clippings with seal of JSV from mortuary of GTB hospital. Same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/A. On 25-05-2015, the complainant Om Prakash had handed over photographs of the marriage, marriage card, receipt of motorcycle given in marriage, photocopy of insurance, photographs of motorcycle and list of dowry articles, CD/DVD of marriage to the IO. Same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. On 13-06-2015, postmortem report along with one sealed report with seal of JSV was collected from GTB hospital. In the PM report, cause of death of deceased was opined as asphyxia as the result of antemortem ligature strangulation. Subsequent opinion regarding use of recovered nylon chunni was obtained from the autopsy surgeon wherein the doctor concerned had opined that ligature mark present around neck of deceased corresponds with the alleged ligature material given for examination. The photographs and crime scene inspection report were received. On 28-07-2015, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for opinion. On the same day, the IO got verified one complaint filed by the deceased Hemlata in the year 2010 to CAW Cell, Faridabad. IO got prepared scaled site plan through Inspector Mahesh Kumar. Since the accused Gyan Devi and Vicky were evading their arrest, the IO obtained their NBWs from the concerned court on 02-07-2015. On 30-07-2015, accused Gyan Devi and Vicky had surrendered themselves in the court, they were formally arrested and interrogated. Their disclosure statements were recorded separately. Their PC remand was obtained wherein they pointed out the place of incident. After completion of necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. Ilaqa MM.

1. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2013 complainant Late Sh. Prithvi Bhatia, r/o B-1/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, gave a complaint at PS Paschim Vihar, stating that he was residing at the above said address with his family. Around 2½ years back, he had got the knees of his wife operated and he required a nurse. He got a nurse/maid named Geeta from one Medicare Agency. She came for night duty to their house for 6-8 months. They also used to give an amount of Rs. 600/- towards tuition fees of her daughter. Thereafter she came to their house on 14.09.2013 and told them that she had to purchase a house and asked for Rs. 3 Lakhs, however, they refused. At this, she started quarreling with them and they sent her away from their house. She threatened them to see them and went away. After some time she came with two police officials and started shouting. The police persons namely ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir came and started threatening them that they would implicate him in a rape case and get him sent to jail for a year like Bapu Aasa Ram, who was lodged in jail or to give Rs. 6 Lakhs to settle the matter. They also told that otherwise they will take him to jail and take remand. The complainant got scared and they obtained Rs. 6 Lakhs from him. The complainant further stated that he was suffering from cancer for the past thirty years and used to remain ill. He was 56 years old and he was even not capable of the allegations made by them. He sought that the complaint must be acted upon and he should be returned his money.

CIC/SBIND/A/2023/633692

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 5

(i) Entire file, inter alia, containing Copies of circulars, policies, notes, correspondence, Board resolutions, etc. generated on the issue of engagement of Housing Keeping Contracts, instead of getting such work done from the regular staff of the bank, and polices, circular etc. engagement of Contract labour by the bank. Entire record since last 12 years.

(ii) Copies of tender floated by the Bank for its Corporate Centre office at Wadam Cama Road, for Housekeeping Contract or engagement of contract labour for any activities, during last three calendar years,

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 24.03.2023 seeking the following information:

"1- क्या भारतीय बीमा कंपनी को लाइसेस दे ने पर आई आर०डी० ए०आई०द्वारा प्रमाण-पत्र/लाईतेस के ननलम्वन के ललये कोई ननश्चित ननयम व शते है ।

Page 1 of 7

2- क्या भारतीय बीमा कंपनी के आईआरडीएआई लाइसेस आवेदन में हे रफेर प्रथाओ मे ललप्त होना भी एक ननयम की शते भी प्रमाण-पत्र के ननलम्वन के सालमल है ।

3- क्या आईडीआरडीएआई द्वारा मामले की पूछताछ के ललये ककसी जांि अधिकारी / जााँय अधिकाररयो की टीम को ननयुक्त करता है । 4- क्या जांि अधिकारी को जांि ररपोटट प्रस्तुत करने के ललये ककतनी समय सीमा ननिाटररत है।

:

The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 23.03.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Whether Akola-dhone project received all approvals to start tendering the process, if not, please share the next steps required before going to tendering process and tentative timelines for the same

2. Whether railway board received any request for rake allotment for 16569 train from SWR. If so, what is the timeline to allot the rake

3. Weather railway board conducted any meeting to speedup the 160kmph upgradation between Hyderabad to Bangalore via Kurnool. If not, reasons for the delays"

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.07.2023 stating as under:

:

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?

:

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

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis.

S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations

:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis.

S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations

:

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

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis.

S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations

:

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

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) "Copy of Service Book/PF of my husband late sh. Raju Ram Meena, (Peon)/Cat-

IV employee, was posted at PNB branch-PUR, circle office Alwar(Rajasthan)

(ii) Present status of payment payable in death case to the dependent of deceased employee with full details.

(iii) Copy of my application along with documents submitted for compassionate appointment and its Present status,

(iv) Please Provide reasons for unnecessary delay in processing the same.

Page 1 of 4

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Party wise detailed break up of the amount pertaining to each of the debtors whose debt has been assigned vide aforesaid agreement.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Details of Actual amount paid by the ARC to the bank pertaining to each individual debt.

(iii) Copies of Correspondence with regards to the above between the Assignor (Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd) and Assignee Invent Assets Securitisation Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd prior to and subsequent to the alleged Assignment

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Whether exclusion of the undersigned in the list of DRMs posting order issued by Railway Board dated 07.03.2023 was on account of a pending major DAR case? If so, on what basis order of the undersigned on deputation to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited vide order no. 2022/E(O)II/6/19 dated 12.09.2022 as Chief Engineer (Rolling Stock) was issued despite pending DAR case Whether Railway Board is following different criteria for DAR clearance for deputation posting) (Please furnish name & designation of authority that gave approval for above Major DAR case? Please furnish name & designation of authority who has gone into this DAR case detail and given any recommendation on case file to make it a fit case for major penalty proceeding?)

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 6

(i) "Please provide me with the action taken report on my complaint filed on 30th March 2023.

(ii) Please provide me with the present status of the above-mentioned complaint.

(iii) Please provide me with the norms for disposal of complaints, including the number of days within which complaints are expected to be disposed of, as per the citizen charter."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"As far as internal Vigilance Section of DoPT under this CPIO is concerned, it may be informed that your complaint dated 30.03.2023 was received electronically from CVC vide Commission's OM No. 10929/2023/vigilance-9 dated 11.04.2023 and the same was forwarded to PESB and Estt.II Division, DoPT, for further necessary action at their end, as the subject matter of your complaint was pertaining to them, vide this Department's OM No. C-13014/1/2021-Vig. dated 09.05.2023 (copy enclosed)."

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. प्रार्थी की पत्नि श्रीमति पायल शमाा के ईलाज में बेस हात्पपटल में दी गयी दवाइयो का समपि वववरण उपलब्ध कराये और यह भी अवगि करायें कक दी गयी दवाईयाां ककस बबमारी से सम्बत्धधि है ? जिवरी 2019 से ददसम्बर 2019 का समपि ररकार्ा उपलब्ध करायें।

2. अपीलीय अधधकारी का िाम व पिा अवगि कराये ?"

Page 1 of 5

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.05.2023 stating as under:

"आपके द्वारा उपरोक्ि पत्र के पैरा 1 के अिुसार माांगी गई जािकारी को आरटीआई अधधतियम 2005, धारा ३, ६ (ⅰ), ८ (i) (ई) और धारा ११ के प्रावधािों के िहि िहीां ददया जा सकिा।"

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:-

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date.

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I satyapal Singh was working as a lecturer in Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI) at Computer Engineering Department from Aug 2008 to Aug 2018.

Page 1 of 8

Kindly provide me the following information under the RTI Act 2005

1. Provide me Seniority List of DSGMC employees.

2. Provide me my Personal Account Number as a DSGMC Employee.

3. Provide me my Employee Code as DSGMC employee."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

"Please provide the specific information / clarification on Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. (updated as on 19.09.2022)

(i) Please inform who are 'such Government Servant' referred under Rule 63 (2)(a) above

(ii) Please clarify whether Rule 63(2)(a) is applicable to only to those Government servants refereed 63(1)(a) and (b)

(iii) Whether both the actual amount of leave salary (Rule 63(1)) and study leave conversion to regular leave (Rule 63 (2) (a) are applicable to all government servants referred in 63 (1) and 63 (2)

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.