The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.

The Court:- Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate prays for hearing of this application under section11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the arbitrability of a dispute should not be decided by this Bench. This issue should also be decided by the learned arbitrator. Mr. Mitra further contends that once there is an arbitration clause and arbitration has been invoked under section 21 of the said Act, all that this court is supposed to do is to appoint an independent person to act as an arbitrator.

2

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent opposes such prayer and submits that the order passed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of Mr. Mitra's client, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Mr. Sinha has produced an order dated 15th April, 2024 passed in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute has been raised. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that it would be up to the learned single judge whether to decide the question or to adjourn the proceedings, in order to enable the Division Bench to proceed. Mr. Sinha submits that the erstwhile Single Bench had adjourned this matter, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble appeal Court.

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: Liberty is granted to the advocate-on-record for the claimant to correct the description of the application in the cause title.

By communication dated September 3, 2024, learned sole arbitrator appointed by the court informed the parties that he had resigned from the matter. He thus refused to act as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

2

Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a suit. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) is also pending before the learned Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. As such, this Court must refrain from appointing an arbitrator as the issues involved in the suit are yet to be decided and the application under Section 8 of the said Act has been filed with similar prayers.

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.

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.

Date : 12-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

(i) For issuance of the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions to the respondent authorities to upload the revenue details of the piece of the Land situated under Mauja- Katari, Thana No.182, Khata No.297, Plot No.189, Area 74 decimal on the Website of the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar and issue online Revenue Receipts with regard to aforesaid Land in favour of petitioner.

as contained in Memo No. 274 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nawada to the extent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization has been turned down.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as daily wager against Class-IV Patna High Court CWJC No.2171 of 2019 dt.11-11-2024 post since long. Despite his continuous services for a long period, when his claim has not been considered for regularization, he moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15428 of 2010. The learned Court having considered the grievance of the petitioner has disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Nawada, to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforenoted direction, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. However, the claim of the petitioner has turned down by Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is put to challenge.

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

For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondent concerned to pay the compensation of the land/house of the petitioner which has been acquired for construction of Babura-Doriganj approach road and bridge as per the rate prescribed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 12 decimal land of petitioner bearing Khata No. 2623, Khesra No. 1916 and 1918 was acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No. 01/12-13 for construction of Babura- Patna High Court CWJC No.4465 of 2018 dt.11-11-2024 Doriganj approach road and bridge. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have paid compensation to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the rate fixed in the year 2012 though in the year 2014 new rate has been fixed by the competent authority and hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per rate fixed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings. It is submitted that in spite of several requests made by petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has not paid the enhanced compensation.

which was notified by the Bihar Government vide letter No. 14/DLA-Margdarshal- LA Act (Bharat Sarkar)-238/2013-1342 dated 14.12.2015 in the light of Section 24 (i) (a) of the Provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioners in the light of Market value of the land on 01.01.2014.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the light of fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

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.

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

That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs setting aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, of 2015-16 (wrongly mentioned as 2005) by which he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2nd set against the order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2015-16 by which he has allowed the claim of the petitioners for collection of rent after entering their name in Jamabandi to the land in question and/or to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

. It is submitted that the moment the petitioner realized that his matriculation certificate records wrong name of his father and the date of birth, accordingly, through proper channel the petitioner approached the authorities of Bihar School Examination Board for getting the matriculation certificate rectified by incorporating the correct name of his father and date of birth. It is further submitted that based on the representation of the petitioner, the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was rectified in the year 1998 and the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded as Ramawatar Roy and the date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1974 as would manifest from the rectified matriculation certificate issued in the year 1998 by the Bihar School Examination Board annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application.

has held that the writ petition is not maintainable in Patna High Court CWJC No.5157 of 2020 dt.11-11-2024 view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sidheshwar Prasad (supra) as also the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others [L.P.A. No. 822 of 2015] and accordingly it was disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner of the said writ petition to file appropriate petition under the Act, 1947. The copy of the said order has also been brought on record as Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit.

6. Dr. Anand, learned counsel for the Corporation also countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of merit(s).

, made by the Circle Officer, Baheri, affected families, including the petitioners have though been paid some amount of compensation, however, the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issues by the Principal Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter dated 26.05.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 95,100/- each, in view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and in light of the report submitted by the Revenue Karmchari dated 12.04.2016.

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. Ms. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent.

2. This is an Appeal against conviction. By impugned judgment dated 07.10.2024, passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial Nos. 38 of 2020 and 39 of 2020titled as 'State vs. Shahrukh', appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 4/25 of Arms Act respectively. Under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant has further been directed to undergo two months' additional imprisonment. Under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant has further been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Appellant has filed this Appeal through Jailor, District Jail-Haridwar.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.673 of 2024, under Section 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 25.10.2024, 50.17 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; there is no independent witness; there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act; she is not a previous convict.

2

1. Ms. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent.

2. This is an Appeal against conviction. By impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO), Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2024 titled as 'State vs. Mahendra Kumar', appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 5j(ii), 5(1), 5(n) of Prevention of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Sections 5j(ii), 5(1) and 5(n) of POCSO Act read with Section 376 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty- five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo two years' additional simple imprisonment. Appellant has filed this Appeal through Superintendent, District Jail-Almora.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.138 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused have already been granted bail.

4. This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application is allowed.

2

7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the revisionist.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(a) The judgment and order dated 19.12.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.929 of 2021, Devchandra Purshoda Vs. Chardham Construction, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case").

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State.

3. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered under the provisions of Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is a contractor under the category of work contract and services. The petitioner's company was issued a notice under Section 61 of the Act on 25.10.2023 for scrutiny and assessment of the petitioner's business and the returns submitted by it.

Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the revisionist.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(a) The judgment and order dated 19.12.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.930 of 2021, Devchandra Purshoda Vs. Chardham Construction, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case").

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

1. Ms. Neelima Mishra, learned counsel through Legal Aid for the appellant (via V.C.).

2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. This is an admitted appeal, admitted on 07.03.2024. Now, the Trial Court record has also been received and the paper book is prepared and supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Heard on bail application.

6. The present appellant- Rohit has been convicted pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.04.2022, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)/District and Session Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Special Session Trial No. 10 of 2019, State vs. Rohit and another, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, 5 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC, 10 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and 10 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 5(l)/6 of the POSCO Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

1. The present appellant- Dheeraj Singh Kushwaha has been convicted pursuant to the judgment and order dated 10.05.2022, passed by the 2nd Addl. Session Judge, Haldwani Nainital in S.T. No. 27 of 2020, State vs. Dheeraj Singh Kushwaha whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323, 376 read with Section 511, 354(ka)(1), 354 (gha), 506 IPC read with Section 66E and 67 of the I.T. Act and the maximum sentence as awarded by the Trial court is 7 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 50,000/-

1. Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2019 (State Vs. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakki) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 (b) of the NDPS Act with a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of three month.

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

1. Ms. Shumayla Zafri and Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned AGA assisted by Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents no.1.

3. Heard.

4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the First Information Report No.0587 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun.

Mr. Manish Lohani, learned counsel, for the petitioner.

2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand/1 to 4.

3. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel, for respondent no.5.

4. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel, for respondent no.6.

5. In this writ petition allegedly filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged notification dated 03.09.2024, issued by Urban Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby village Kania, has been included in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar. The said notification has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Board of Nagar Palika Parishad in its meeting held on 30.04.2022, had taken a decision not to extend boundary of Nagar Palika Parishad, not to include the areas falling within two kilometres from the adjoining Corbett Reserve Forest within the municipal limits. He further contended that since the villages, which have been included in Nagar Palika Parishad, have been declared as fruit belt, therefore, they cannot become part of Nagar Palika Parishad. It is further contended that the parameters laid down by Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India have not been followed while issuing the impugned notification

1. Mr. M. S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2021 (State Vs. Shubham) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.162 of 2024, State Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal, in FIR No. 467 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,, pending in the court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Petitioner is defendant in Original Suit No.27 of 2014 (now re-numbered as Civil Suit No.06 of 2023) filed by respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital. The said suit was, thereafter, transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, on account of higher valuation of the suit property. Respondent filed the said suit for eviction against the petitioner contending that petitioner's status was that of a licensee qua the property in question and since the license has been terminated, therefore, he has no authority to continue in possession thereof. Petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in the said suit contending that the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said application has been rejected by learned trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2023. Petitioner challenged the said order in Civil Revision No. 01 of 2024. His Revision Petition too has been dismissed by learned First Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital vide judgment dated 24.09.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Mayank Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3/wife.

4. Objections are taken on record. Accordingly, IA No.2/2024 stands disposed of.

5. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner/accused for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.8505 of 2022, 'State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rajendra Singh', for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun; Charge sheet dated 14.08.2022; F.I.R./Case Crime No.0484 of 2021 dated 08.12.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

3. Petitioner has impugned order dated 23.09.2024 issued by respondent no.2 (annexure no.4), passed under Section 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1961").

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner was employed with Van Vikas Nigam, who expired while still in service on 15.01.2018 leaving behind the petitioner and other legal heirs. The death benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner to the tune of ₹24,00,000/- were transferred to the account of the petitioner. On receipt of ₹24,00,000/- in the account of the petitioner the income skipping assessment was undertaken by the respondent-Department on 11.03.2024 and a tax liability of ₹39,00,000/- inclusive of interest was imposed upon the petitioner. This order was passed under Sections 147/144/144-B of the Act of 1961. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 12.09.2024 before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

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.