Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1900/2024 & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1905/2024 These applications under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicants/accused persons in S.C.No.1313 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kollam. The accused persons11 in number have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. They have been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore the maximum period of imprisonment they will have to undergo is five years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl. Appeal Nos.1900 & 1905 of 2024

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the first accused in Crime No. 690/2024 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354 A, 354 B and 506(1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(a), 4(1), 6, 5(1), 11(ii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, 'the POCSO Act'), 2012. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2024.

Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023('BNSS', for the sake of brevity), by the third accused in Crime No.1231/2024 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against four accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 29 & 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 01.08.2024.

2. The concise case of the prosecution, is that: on 22.07.2024, at around 04:20 hours, the first accused was found in conscious possession of 45 grams of MDMA. He was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. During the course of the investigation and interrogation of the first accused, it 2024:KER:83250 was revealed that it was the fourth accused who had given financial assistance to the first accused. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are also involved in the case. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

KOCHUVEETHIL HOUSE, ERANZHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031 BY ADVS.

MADHAVANUNNI V T LEO LUKOSE(K/001131/2016) T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001) VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN(K/000197/1983) B.G HARINDRANATH(SR.) SRI. RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADV.ALEX JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2024:KER:83495 CRL.MC NO. 3248 OF 2023 CR ORDE R Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case.

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

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.

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

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

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

learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar

The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14.

We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

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:- 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.

By way of this order, I intend to dispose off aforesaid-captioned appeals. These appeals involve similar question of law in the background of identical set of facts.

1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145543 other connected cases

2. For brevity, the facts are being culled out from from FAO No.1112 of 1988.

3. Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 26th of August, 2022 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Phagwara exercising powers as ESI Court under ESI Act, 1948 whereby the petition filed under Section 75-78 of the ESI Act, 1948 by the respondent has been allowed.

4. Recovery certificate under Section 45-A was issued and attachment proceedings were initiated against the respondent through Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Phagwara for recovery of Rs.6690-95 paise. Respondent challenged the demand before ESI Court. It was claimed that the demand raised by the ESI Corporation was based on adhoc assessment without any survey. The demand has been raised w.r.t. 132 KV Sub Station, Phagwara. The same does not fall within the purview of ESI Act as the strength of the staff is only three in number. The staff employed for maintenance like Mali, Sweeper at the Sub Station are on the roles of XEN D/S and not on the roles of KV Sub Station. It was thus claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards ESI contribution.

Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No.2 as the plaintiff.

1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144672

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07, dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian, District Kapurthala.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of ASI Nirmal Singh 51/Kpt: Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Stated that I was on duty at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Today I alongwith ASI Parvinder Singh 1517/Kpt, ASI Kanwaljit Singh 1539/Kpt were checking vehicles at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Then from side of Mundi Maur one motorcycle was seen coming and three persons with cut hair were riding the same. They were signaled to stop on seeing the naka of police they threw the 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146061 motorcycle and tried to run back. The driver of the motorcycle from the pocket of his pant, the person sitting in the middle from the pocket of his pyjama and the person sitting at the end from the pocket of his pant took out one transparent polythene bag and threw the same on the side of the road and therein orange colored tablets were clearly visible. They were apprehended and their names and address was inquired. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh @ Deepa son of Swaran Singh R/o village Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting in the middle disclosed his name as Manjit Singh @ Katta son of Vaid Singh Resident of Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting at the last disclosed his name as Gurnam Singh @ Gama son of Sewa Singh R/o Phulra P.S. Bhaini Mian Khan District Gurdaspur. I being local rank ASI cannot carry out proceedings under the NDPS Act. Therefore, I had given information at P.S. Talwandi Chaudhrian through phone to send investigating officer. You alongwith police party have reached at the spot. The polythene bags thrown by Balwinder Singh @ Deepa, Manjit Singh @ Katta and Gurnam Singh ® Gama are lying as it is. I have given my statement to you and same is correct."

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a case arising out of FIR No.140, dated 24.05.2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 511, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the abovesaid FIR (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was not initially named in the FIR and had no knowledge with regard to the pendency of the proceedings against him. Learned counsel further contends that even the summons/warrants were issued against the petitioner on a wrong address and he was never served in the present case. Even, the 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146455 CRM-M-38364-2024 - 2-.

1 This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case F.I.R. No.0108 dated 19.09.2021 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

2. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 255 grams of heroin.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years, 1 month and 17 days. Trial is proceedings at snail's pace as by now only 5 out of 11 witnesses could be examined.

1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2- 2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880 Ludhiana on Monday.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for second time seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR no.0608 dated 10.12.2023 under Sections 22(C), 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of trial.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :-

'Respected Sir, To the Station House Officer, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. Today on 10.12.2023, ASI Matlub Hussain No. 207/AMB HSNCB UNIT AMBALA, ASI SANDEEP KUMAR 75/A, EASI SURENDRA SINGH NO.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.09.2022, upon Sessions Case No.74 of 15.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in 1 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145851-DB CRA-D-1106-2022 AND CRA-D-62-2023 (O&M) -2- respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:

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.

, 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.

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

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

The case of the prosecution:

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

:

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/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

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

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

Page 1 of 8

Kindly provide me the following information under the RTI Act 2005

1. Provide me Seniority List of DSGMC employees.

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

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

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

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04/08/2021 passed in AS No.12 of 2020 by the Subordinate Judge, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31/01/2020 passed in OS No.47 of 2012 by the District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur.

2.Plaint averments in brief:-

The plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Mariammal. The suit property belonged to Mariammal absolutely. In the suit property, a shop is situated at Kamarajar Bazar, which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs are the power agent of the above said Mariammal, by a power of attorney, dated 25/02/1997. Mariammal mortgaged the property to the defendant through a registered mortgage deed, dated 16/07/1982 for a consideration sum of Rs.30,000/-. The mortgage period was five years. The rate of interest was fixed at 12% per annum. On 19/07/1982, another agreement was entered into between the parties, by which it was agreed that the payment of interest for simple mortgage should be adjusted by giving possession of the mortgaged property to the defendant, which is mentioned in the schedule. It is also agreed that the defendant must enjoy the property for five years. The house tax assessment agreed to be paid by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mortgagee. But the plaintiffs paid the taxes for the mortgaged property. On 19/07/1982, another sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Another mortgage deed was also executed on 19/07/1982. On 20/07/1982, another agreement was entered into. In the earlier mortgage deed, dated 19/07/1982 after the expiry of five years, the plaintiffs approached the defendant for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs.60,000/-. But the defendant was evading and delaying. So, the suit is laid for delivery of possession after receiving the mortgage amount and for costs.

Heard both sides.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The Petitioner is the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager at their Zonal Office, Trichirappalli. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the First Respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Chennai made in I.D.No.22 to 25 of 2007 dt. 27.7.2010 these writ petitions were filed by them.

3. The 1st Respondent CGIT by its Common Award granted the following relief to the 2nd Respondent workmen in all the WPs:-

“In the result all the petitioners in ID 22/2007, 23/2007, 24/2007 and ID 25/2007 are entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but they are not entitled to back-wages for the whole period during which they remained out of employment of Respondent. After reinstatement into service the Management may start a process for the regularization of the workmen if and in accordance with the rules in vogue they are entitled to the same.”

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are at the instance of the petitioner / appellant and the respondent respectively. In both the cases, challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 24 CMA NO.3541 OF 2017 & CROSS OBJ. NO.51 OF 2019 2017 passed by the ‘Principal Family Court, Coimbatore’ ['Family Court' for short], in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015. This Common Judgment will govern both of them.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the ‘Award dated October 31, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.7252 of 2016’ ['impugned Award' for short] by the 'Special Sub Judge – II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short]. The petitioner in the aforesaid Original Petition has filed C.M.A. No.1406 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The second respondent / Insurance Company has filed C.M.A. No.855 of 2022 praying to set aside the impugned Award. This Common Judgment will now dispose of both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.10.2023, thereby partly allowed the complaint filed by the fifth respondent and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, in favour of the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner is the son of the fifth respondent and the respondents 6 & 7 are the daughters of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent got married one Kala and gave birth to the petitioner and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 6 & 7 herein. The property ad measuring 493 sq.ft., situated at Door No.7/1, 9th lane, Narayan nayakkan Street, Pudupet, Chennai, was settled in favour of the fifth respondent by his father. It consists ground floor plus 2 floors. In the ground floor, there is an yarn company and employees are staying in the said premises. The fifth respondent's wife owned property at Chintadripet, in which the petitioner is receiving the rent of Rs.25,00,000/- per month. The petitioner is doing his business in the Chintadripet house.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2000 passed by the Respondent No.2, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Respondent No.1 on an appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the punishment of dismissal from service in the year 2013 and seeking a consequential relief to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:-

2.1. The petitioner herein, while working as a 'Peon' in Rasipuram Branch of the respondent Bank, Salem Division, he was subjected to departmental proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet dated 21.06.1997 containing two charges. The said charges reads as under:-

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to recompute the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, who are all retired from service under the 2nd respondent management on the basis of average salary drawn by them for the last 10 months prior to their retirement and also direct the second respondent to pay arrears of pension.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with ICICI Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein by the Scheme of amalgamation with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees of Bank of Madura are protected.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the ‘learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Villupuram’ ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.69 of 2011 modifying the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the ‘Principal Sub Court, Villupuram’ ['Trial Court' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. Case of the Plaintiffs:

3. The Suit Properties along with some other properties belonged to one Adhimoolam. The said Adhimoolam died intestate 40 years before the date of Plaint. Govindasamy and Krishnan were the sons of said Adhimoolam.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 48 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Konark P.S. Case No.118 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.506 of 2021, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Konark, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Marine P.S. Case No.13 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.245 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chhatrapur for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/ 353/341/323/324/291/336/307/427/506/ 149 of the I.P.C. and section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.11824 of 2020 as per order dated 05.11.2020 and at that time, the investigation was under progress but in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted and in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal -Vrs.- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 831, the petitioners may be permitted to surrender in the Court below and move an application for bail and provisions laid down therein may be considered by the learned Court below while adjudicating the bail application.