1. Chennai and surrounding districts get light to moderate rain, holiday for schools  The New Indian Express
2. Tamil Nadu weather: Schools shut in Chennai, IMD puts 17 districts in state on heavy rainfall alert  Business Today
3. Chennai rain: IMD predicts heavy rainfall for Tamil Nadu. Are schools, colleges closed today?  Hindustan Times
4. Tamil Nadu rains: Schools, colleges closed in several districts amid heavy rain  The Hindu
5. Tamil Nadu weather: Schools shut in few districts, yellow alert in place  India Today

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner claiming to be owner of land measuring 3 Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos. 210 (02-00) & 216 (01-

00) situated at Phalyana, Tehsil & District Rajouri, which on requisition has been under the occupation of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ever since the year 1961/62 and that the petitioner as owner of the land, had been receiving the settled rent for use of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, from the Collectorate.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the coming into effect of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 on 31.08.2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was organized into two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and in terms of Section 95(2) of the aforesaid Act, all the laws mentioned in the 5th Schedule applicable to the existing State of Jammu & Kashmir, immediately before the appointed day were made applicable in the manner provided in the 5th Schedule; that the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (State Act), was mentioned at serial no. 133 in TABLE-3 of 5th Schedule which contained the enactments which stood repealed correspondingly Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act) was made applicable. He further submits that the Central Act provides for a limitation of 17 years for holding the property on requisition and on expiry of 17 years from the date of occupying the property under occupation is either to be acquired in view of the law applicable or its possession is to be handed over to the owner.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought temporary bail for the purpose of attending marriage ceremony of his younger brother which is stated to be scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2024.

2. Heard and considered.

3. The petitioner has been arrested in a case arising out of the Crime No. 15/2024 for the commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act. As per case of the prosecution, commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 27.08.2024 when he along with co-accused was travelling in a bus. The investigation is stated to be still in progress.

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  

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short "NFAC"), for the Assessment Years ITA Nos. 521 to 524 /Ahd/2023 Inox India Limited Asst.Years 2000-01 & 2002-03 to 2004-05)

- 2- 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2004-2005. Since common issues are involved in all the year under consideration of appeals before us, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.

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

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

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.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Kumawat for Mr. Shailender Balwada For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide an advertisement in the Year 2012, applications were invited for the [2024:RJ-JP:46382] (3 of 3) [CW-2354/2019] post of Constable moreover, total seats intake for the said post were approximately 49898.

It is further submitted that final result was declared and subsequent selection is made. Moreover, a legal notice was filed by the petitioner long ago.

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

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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. Mr. Khalid Jahangir Qazi, a national of United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India,1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking entry to India. He challenges the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him - order dated 12th May, 2023 issued by the Consulate General of India, New York,2 cancelling his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955,3 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and a subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Foreigners Act, 1946,4 restraining his entry into India. The underlying basis of these actions, as asserted by the Respondents, is the Petitioner's alleged involvement in activities deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of India.

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:-

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

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

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

1. In this original application, one of the Alumni of Respondent No. 2, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has made an allegation of large-scale felling of trees within the campus without any permission by the competent authority. The allegation is that the trees of Shagaun, Sandalwood, Mango, etc. have been cut.

2. The Tribunal on 31.07.2024 had issued notice to the respondents and had also formed a two-member Joint Committee with a direction to the Committee to visit the site and ascertain the correct position and submit the report.

3. The Joint Committee has submitted the report dated 29.10.2024 disclosing that the Divisional Forest Officer, Varanasi in the year 2022- 23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (till now) had granted permission to cut 135 trees in the campus. But as against this, Respondent No. 2 had cut 149 trees, and university could not clarify the position in respect of 14 trees. The Joint Committee had found that 6 Mango, 3 Gold Mohar, 1 Kathal and 2 Mahua trees were illegally cut on the spot for which the Forest Department of Varanasi has registered the Forest Offence No. 43/2024- 25 dated 23.10.2024. The report of the Joint Committee further discloses that Committee constituted by the Forest Department, Varanasi had found that total 161 trees were cut in the campus and permission only for 135 trees was granted, therefore, 26 trees were cut by the university administration without the permission of the Forest Department for which the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi had sent the letter no. 1053/2-43 dated 15.10.2024 to the Deputy Director, Forest (Central), Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The report further reflects that 7 sandalwood trees have been cut illegally without any permission.

[2024:RJ-JD:45604] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11138/2024 Gurvindra Singh @ Gindi S/o Dilawar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kamalewala, Teh. And Dist. Firozpur, Punjab (Lodged In Sub Jail Anupgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, PP JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

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

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

APPEARANCE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

This appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is filed by the Original Petitioner, challenging the judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 37000 of 2024, dated 30 October 2024. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the Petitioner's request, the mother of the minor survivor girl, to medically terminate her pregnancy.

2. The petitioner is the mother of a 16-year-old school-going girl. She has been subjected to repeated sexual assault. A crime has been registered at the police station under Sections 354, 354A(2), 354B, 376, 376(2)

(n), 376(3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 4(1), (2) read with Sections 3(a), 6 read with 5(j)(ii), (1), 8 read with 7, and 12 read with 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Neither the minor nor her mother was aware of the pregnancy until a Gynaecologist confirmed it. By that time, the foetus had reached a gestational age of 25 weeks and 6 days, and it was not possible to medically terminate the pregnancy without intervention of the Court.

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.

Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

1. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to the Respondents authorities in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for not declaring the land as the forest land of the petitioner of Mauza- Targachha of Khata No. Khesra No. 1 of Thana No. 517 of Area 27 acres 61 decimal of District- Banka which belongs to the petitioner upon which, this petitioner planted the trees and cultivated the land twice a year.

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

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.

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 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 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 20.05.2023 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 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।"

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

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

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

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

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

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

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

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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

Through: -

Ms. Sufaya, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The minor petitioner was born on 5th October, 2011. The case set up by the petitioner is that at the time of his birth his uncle told his biological father that since he did not have any issue, he would adopt him and, therefore, his uncle got his name entered in the parentage column of his date of birth certificate.

11-11-2024

1. Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 17th May, 2024 respondent no. 4 (State of J & K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government Revenue Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu) and respondent no. 5 (Assistant Commissioner) were granted four weeks' time for filing reply, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/-(three thousand) to be deposited in the Advocates Welfare Fund. Since the needful was not done, this Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2024 granted last and final opportunity to said respondents for doing needful, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/ (five thousand) (inadvertently mentioned in order dated 16th October, 2024 as 50000/-) which order was also not complied with and in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court vide order dated 16th October, 2024 directed respondents 4 and 5 to appear before this Court on the next date fixed and to file an affidavit stating therein reasons for not complying orders passed by this Court mentioned supra.

Accused No.3 in Special C.C.No.17/2024 pending on the file of learned XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS, Bengaluru arising out of NCB Crime No.48/1/29/2023/BZU, registered by Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Bengaluru for the for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii) (A), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed statement of objections.

SEBI and Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies have not filed their reports.

2. Investigating Officer is directed to communicate this order to the officer concerned of SEBI as well as Mr. P. K. Dutta, learned Advocate who ordinarily represents SEBI as well as the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for due compliance.

3. Let the matters appear on 25.11.2024.

4. Interim order passed earlier shall continue for a period of four weeks from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

12.11.2024 jb.

jdt.

Allowed C.R.M. (SB) 150 of 2024 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 31/2022 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 380 with added Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Prasanta Jana ... Petitioner.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

FAT 191 of 2020.

Mr. Sudvasattva Banerjee Mr. Shounak Mukherjee, Mr. Shubradip Roy, Advs.

..........for the appellant/ plaintiff/decree holder in FAT 191 of 2020 and for the respondent in FAT 194 of 2020.

2

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter arises out of a judgment on admission passed by the Trial Court and the consequential decree.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013.