Ms Nandy has raised the case with the UK ambassador to the US, Karen Pierce. Harry, 19, was killed when his motorbike crashed into a car outside a US military base in Northamptonshire.

Equalities Minister Liz Truss ordered EqualiTeach to stop using the logo of the Government Equalities Office on its controversial guidelines stating teachers must allow trans pupils to use toilets of their choice.

President Trump accused Democrats in California of attempting to 'steal another election' on Saturday

Sir Reginald Sheffield, Samantha Cameron's father, was targeted in the grounds of Normanby Hall near Flixborough outside Scunthorpe, in an alleged tussle with a man accused of stealing his iPhone 8.

Polar Vortex has blasted into the northeast with record low temperatures, winds and snow. Mt. Washington has a low of just 10 degrees, while Death Valley, California, is could reach 110 degrees.

Cecile Rol Tanguy (pictured) died yesterday at her home in Monteaux, central France, as Europe commemorated the 75th anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany to Allied forces.

Wanda Cooper spoke out over her son's brutal slaying on what would have been his 26th birthday and slammed law enforcement for failing to bring his killers to justice for months.

The 15 crew members have not eaten since Thursday afternoon, out of desperation and after waiting close to two months out at sea stranded because of COVID-19.

Daily coronavirus tests fell the below 100,000 target for a seventh day in a row. Health Secretary Matt Hancock urged Boris Johnson to 'give me a break' in a furious bust-up over the coronavirus crisis.

Several dozen gathered at the intersection of 62nd Street and Michigan Road in Indianapolis on Saturday, where a police officer fatally shot Dreasjon 'Sean' Reed, 21, on Wednesday.

Mary Pratt (pictured), who played for the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League teams, The Rockford Peaches and Kenosha Comets in the 1940s, died Wednesday.

A surfer has been killed in a shark attack off a Northern California beach, state park officials said Saturday.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (left), CDC head Robert Redfield (bottom right), and FDA chief Stephen Hahn (top right) will self-quarantine after coming into contact with an infected White House staffer.

Boris Johnson is expected to drop the 'stay at home' slogan during a televised address to Britain on Sunday at 7pm in an effort to reopen parts of the economy damaged during the coronavirus crisis.

The petitioner is an accused in Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 269 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19079 of 2020(2) dt.09-04-2020 2/6 Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

My attention has been drawn by Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to page 34 of the present application which is the written statement of the informant and the basis for registration of the First Information Report. It is alleged in the written statement that the informant runs a business in the name and style of Maa Vaishnav Galla Bhandar at Samastipur and deals in supply of mustard oil and other edible oils. The petitioner is the Director of S.B.O. Exports Private Limited, New Delhi. Certain supply was made by the informant to the Company for a sum of Rs.4,96,897/-. The petitioner, in his capacity as Director of the Company, had allegedly issued and delivered, at Samastipur, a cheque on 18.06.2018 in favour of the informant of the said amount of Rs.4,96,897/- for having delivered edible oils to the petitioner. The petitioner had requested the informant to present the cheque for encashment in July, 2018. Allegedly, when he presented the cheque, the same stood dishonoured because of insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. There is statement made by the informant that on the petitioner's request, he had again deposited the cheque for encashment, which again Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19079 of 2020(2) dt.09-04-2020 3/6 stood dishonoured for the same reason. Requisite statutory notice was issued to the petitioner for payment of the amount in question. The petitioner, however, did not pay the amount, which compelled the informant to lodge the First Information Report, the informant alleges.

No one appears on behalf of State as copy of the petition has not been served in the Office of Advocate General.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the regular bail petition in the Office of Advocate General through email i.e. advocategeneralbihar@gmail.com.

List this case on 15.04.2020 at 11:00 am.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is 62 years old and is hypertensive, diabetic and cardiac patient having blockage of 85 to 100 per cent and has been advised by- pass surgery.

It is submitted that due to outbreak of COVID-19 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3391 of 2019(12) dt.10-04-2020 2/3 Pandemic, risk of petitioner being infected by the Corona virus is very high in view of his ill health and congested conditions of jail at present, as such he may be released on provisional bail for a period of 8 weeks, so, that he may live in isolation for said period and get proper treatment. Petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2017.

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Father of the alleged victim is the informant and it appears from the First Information Report that the contents of the written statement of the informant are based on the information, which he had allegedly gathered from the victim on mobile-phone on 16.01.2020. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the informant's daughter had gone to attend her school on 09.01.2020, where she was studying in Class XII, but she did not return home, thereafter. According to the informant, a co-accused Vidyo Kumar Rai had kidnapped in the informant's daughter and the petitioner and another co- accused had accompanied the main accused.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66603 of 2019, the petitioner was granted bail in connection with Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 282 of 2018 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 194/2019 to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Siwan but inadvertently in the last paragraph of order dated 04.03.2020, in place of Sessions Trial No. 194/2019, the same had been typed as Sessions Trial No. 194/2009.

Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel, assisted the Court on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted the Court on behalf of the State.

In this application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- XVI, Patna, in Cr. Appeal No.4 of 1999, whereby the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of conviction and punishment dated 10.12.1998 passed in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.770 of 1988.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the Bank.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bank are directed to file paragraph wise counter affidavit within a period of eight weeks.

In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner shall take all necessary steps to remove the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter vide Office notes dated 21.04.2020 within a period of six weeks.

Heard Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on suspicion, from out side his house, and thereafter house of the petitioner was searched and two litres of country made liquor was recovered.

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State along with Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel of the Board.

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for modification in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67419 of 2019 whereby a Bench of this Court had granted provisional bail to the petitioner in connection with Sastri Nagar P.S.Case No.733 of 2019 on fulfilling certain conditions and the provisional bail was to be confirmed only after fulfillment of the remaining part of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19089 of 2020(2) dt.27-04-2020 2/4 terms.

List this case on 11.05.2020, in order to enable learned counsel for the State to file counter affidavit.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for filing of Interlocutory Application to amend the relief/s as sought for in the writ application, whereby he wants to challenge the order dated 24.04.2020 issued vide Memo No. 1237/D by which the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have rejected the representation of the petitioner made vide Annexure-5 to the writ application.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2019 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10317 of 2020(3) dt.29-04-2020 2/3 is no allegation of tampering of witnesses against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of disclosure made by the co-villagers. The names of the co-villagers have not been disclosed by the prosecution. It is alleged that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln. The brick kiln in question belongs to the joint family of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence. There is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the mother of the petitioner has expired on 13.04.2020. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. Other similarly situated co- accused, namely, Babban Ray has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.78312 of 2019 dated 29.01.2020.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned A.A.G.-4 for the State.

Following reliefs have been sought for in paragraph 1 of the writ application:

1(i) To set aside/grant an order of stay of the order of settlement of Shairat of "Suhiya Bhagar Jalker", Shahpur, Bhojpur for the financial year 2020-21 contained in Memo No. 994/Ra, dated 07.04.2020 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no. 4, Additional Collector, Bhojpur as the same has been passed without following the procedure of open tender/Bid/Dak as per the Advertisement dated 27th February 2020 (Annexure-1) published in the local Daily Newspaper.

Mr. N. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel-27 appeared for the State respondents.

The Office has pointed out some defects. The petitioner shall ensure removal of the defects within two weeks of the start of normal functioning of the Court, failing which this application would stand dismissed.

In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashment of order contained in Annexure-1 vide Memo No. 683 dated 06.04.2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna High Court CWJC No.5626 of 2020(2) dt.01-05-2020 2/3 Ara (respondent no.2), whereby the PDS License No. 13/2016 of the petitioner was cancelled.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA.

The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment in the relief portion i.e. paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition and consequently in paragraph no. 2 and the prayer portion thereof. The amendment sought for in paragraph 2 of the I.A. is as follows:

"1(iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 24.04.2020 as contained in memo no. 1237/D dated 24.04.2020 whereby and whereunder the Respondent BIADA has rejected the application dated 22.04.2020 (Anx.-5 )filed by the petitioner Company for issue of lockdown pass;

Learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA are present.

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that the arguing counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore is engaged before D.B.-II, hence the matter be taken up tomorrow at 10.30 A.M.

As prayed for, list this matter tomorrow i.e. on 06.05.2020 at 10.30 A.M. under the same heading.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

Learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA are present.

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that there is a bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore, hence the matter may be passed over for the day.

As prayed for, list this matter tomorrow i.e. on 07.05.2020 at 2.15. P.M. under the same heading.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

2. Naturally, filing of the writ application has been found to be defective being inconsistent with the filing procedure prescribed under the High Court Rules, on many counts.

3. The petitioner is a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS) registered under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and is, therefore, a body corporate. The PACS has been given licence to run a fair price shop. There is no averment in the writ application as to when such licence was granted to the PACS, though it is stated in paragraph-5 of the application that for last one decade various similar cooperative societies of the State are successfully conducting the business of fair price shops in addition to discharge of their other duties including procurement of food grains under the procurement schemes of the Government.

Heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General No.9, appearing for the State- respondents.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2020(2) dt.06-05-2020 2/6 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of government contract registered as Class-I Contractor. Since the petitioner was lowest bidder its bids were accepted by the respondent No.8, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Saharsa, Bihar. Consequent upon the petitioner and respondent No.8 entered into 118 agreements separately for the purpose of different works as mentioned in different agreements, a copy at Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. The petitioner had deposited certificate of different deposits as security money for separate contracts. The certificates of deposits of money either in the fixed deposit or term deposit scheme were issued by the post office of Mithapur Branch. Later on those certificates were found to be forged document. Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated about by respondent No.8 and petitioner supplied fresh documents in the nature of certificate of deposit in the IDBI Bank as security for the referred contract. A copy of the fresh documents dated 13.12.2019 are at Annexure-5 series. The respondent No.8 verified the genuineness of the subsequent documents from the IDBI Bank vide letter at Annexure-10 series dated 26.12.2019. The Bank reported that the documents are genuine one. Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2020(2) dt.06-05-2020 3/6 The petitioner has stated on oath that respondent No.8 accepted the subsequent documents of deposit in the IDBI Bank as security money and the said documents are still in possession of respondent No.8. The acceptance of the subsequent security document was by necessary implication as respondent No.8 verified the genuineness of those documents from the bank authorities and the bank authorities reported the same as genuine documents. The act of verification was for some purpose and not for fun.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Counsel and Mr. Yashraj Bardhan for the BIADA and Mr. Vikas Kumar, S.C.-11, for the State.

Order is reserved.

Learned counsels for the parties seek permission to file a written note of argument by tomorrow.

Permission is accorded.

Put up this matter on 12.05.2020 at 10.30. A.M. under the heading 'For Orders'.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

>. Learned counsel for the appellants has also filed written notes of arguments and in reply a further written note of arguments has been filed by learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent, as an account holder in the State Bank of India (SBI), suffered a loss of Rs. 18,35 lakh through 20 internet transactions and the money was transferred to 20 accounts, all with the SBI. The account holder/complainant filed Petition No. 1 of 2013 before the leamed A.O./Secretary to Government, Information Technology, Electronics and Communications Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. After hearing the parties in detail and taking into consideration the defence of the Bank, which is the appellants herein, and all the relevant documents, learned A.O. by the impugned order dated 12,3.2014 has allowed claim of the complainant who is respondent herein and directed SBI to pay the entire amount of Rs. 18.35 lakh with interest from the date of loss ie. 13.5.2012 till the date of payment along with the costs of Rs. 39,750.00. The rate of interest is 18% per annum. Admittedly, nothing has been paid by SBI so far.

Mr, Saniay Govind Dhande & Ors. .. Respondents BERPORE:

HON BLE MR.FUSTICE SHIVA BIRTI SINGH, CHAIRPERSON For Petitioner (in C.A. No.l of 2014) =: Mr, Thyagrajan, Advocate Ms. Akanksha Banerjee, Advocate For Petitioner (in C.A. No.4 of 2014) : Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate For Respondents > Mr. Arpun Natrajan, Advocate QRDER By S.K. Singh, Chairperson -- At the outset, it ig recorded that learned counsel for Vodafone Cellular Ltd, appellant in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has informed that the name of the above corporate entity now stands changed to Vodafone Idea Lid. He prays that this change may be recorded and the changed name should appear in the judgment. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the other side and hence the change in the name of Vodatone Cellular Ltd. to that of Vodafone Idea Lid. is recorded and the cause title of this judgment and order is accordingly modified so as to teflect the name of Vodafone Idea Lid. Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has been taken as the lead matter. The appellant in the other appeal (Cyber Appeal No.4 of 2014) Le. ICICT Bank Lid. is one of the respondents in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014,

1. Goa Foundation Through Dinesh George Dias G-8, St. Britto's Apts. Feira Alta, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa - 403507.

2. Peaceful Society Through Kumar Kalanand Mani R/o Peaceful Society Campus Honsowado-Madkai, Post: Kundai 403115, Goa .....Appellants Versus

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003

2. State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400023

3. State of Karnataka Through the Chief Secretary, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore - 560001

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

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

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

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

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts and allegations in the present case are summarised as under:

a. The Informants i.e., Mr. Meet Shah and Mr. Anand Ranpara are individuals residing in Ahmedabad and Rajkot, respectively.

b. OP-1 is the Ministry of Railways, which controls Indian Railways, a departmental undertaking of the Government of India which is administered by the Railway Board. The Ministry of Railways through Railway Board also owns and administratively controls a large number of Public Sector Undertakings including IRCTC.

c. OP-2, IRCTC is a public sector enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be an extended arm of Indian Railways. OP-2 is, inter-alia, engaged in online ticketing operations of Indian Railways.

2. The Informant is stated to be a company engaged in manufacture of high performance and highly sophisticated machines for track maintenance, track laying and track renewal. OP-1 is a private limited company incorporated in India and OP-2 is a partnership firm established in India. OP-3, OP-4 and OP- 6 are Chinese companies engaged in developing railway track maintenance machinery. OP-5 is the Indian Railways, a Department of the Government of India.

Case No. 45 of 2019 2

3. The Informant states that OP-5 periodically invites tenders for the supply of track maintenance machinery. In this connection, it is averred that OP-5 invited electronic bids for supply of Dynamic Track Stabilizing Machine vide Tender No. 'TM 1709' which inter alia required that 'Manufacturer or their agents may note that an agent can represent or quote on behalf of only one firm in a tender' [Clause 1.4.1 of 'Instructions to Tenderers]. Further, Check List-II of tender document also reiterates the same by stating that 'Manufacturer or their sole selling agents may note that an agent can represent only one firm in a tender and any manufacturer cannot submit more than one offer against a tender through different sole selling agents, or one directly and others through sole selling agents. In such a situation all the offers will be rejected.'

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is a pharmaceutical wholesaler who had placed an order for purchase of drugs from USV on 31.07.2019. Kundan vide its letter dated 06.08.2019, confirmed receipt of the said order of the Informant along with documents and demand draft.

3. The Informant alleged that USV imposed the following unfair conditions on the Informant:

 Collection of goods from Pune C&F agent (Kundan), which is 360 km away from the Informant's location.  The Informant is not entitled to return any product purchased from USV for any reason whatsoever including those on account of expiry or damage.  Advance payment to be paid every time.  The Informant cannot purchase the products of USV from any other C&F agent.

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Tender No. A/59919/Shirt Khakhi/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec, dated 19.06.2017 for procurement of 1,38,251 Shirt Man's Cellular Cotton 1973 Pattern (Modified) Khaki ("Item"). The Informant has stated that out of 14 firms which participated, only 09 qualified for the opening of their commercial bids.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said four firms (Opposite Parties). As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

Table 1: Details of Bidders S. No Firm Name Rate (in Rs) Status

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.239 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.62,866/- for the expenses incurred towards medicines and treatment of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident, alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

3. The claimant aged 45 years filed MAC No.239 of 2008 against the driver & owner of the vehicle and the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 12% interest in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident alleged to have occurred on 17.2.2008 around 12.30 p.m.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The registration of the first information report is the process in terms of which the criminal law is set in a cognizable case. True, the first information report and all further proceedings thereto can be quashed by this court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any cognizable offence, or where the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to Crl.M.C.No.4440 of 2018 5 private and personal grudge. It is, however, settled that the power to quash the first information report is a power that must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases. It is also settled that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry in such cases as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report. The court cannot also enquire whether the allegations in the first information report are likely to be established [See M.Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, (2003)11 SCC 251].

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this petition are that in the above dispute raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court was called upon to adjudicate a reference wherein the issue was "whether the denial of employment of Smt.Ramani Amma, Smt.Geetha.G. and Geetha.R, who were employees of Western India Cashew Company, was justifiable and if it was found otherwise, the relief for which they were entitled to."

3. The case of the Union, which espoused the cause of the workers, was that the delinquent workers were employed by the management in their packing centre at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappally. Since 26.10.2012 was a public holiday owing to Bakrid, the factory was closed. On 27.10.2012, when the workers reached the factory, they were denied employment by the Management. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the matter reached the District Labour Officer, who convened a conference. In the meantime, a WP(C) No.12490/2018 3 show cause notice was issued to the workers and consequently on 2.11.2012, the workers were suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the workers were guilty of all charges. Banking on the said report, the workers were dismissed from service with retrospective effect. According to the Union, the enquiry which was conducted was a farce and is therefore vitiated. The principles of natural justice were violated and the management failed to bring home the charge. They also contended that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the workers.

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed against the properties of the petitioners which is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent bank for the debts due from the third respondent.

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thriruvananthapuram, finding that the property sought to be taken possession is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent.