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.

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.

1. By this judgment, I shall decide present claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, filed by the petitioners/ legal representatives of Mr. Yugal Kishor (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who sustained fatal injury in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition and the documents annexed thereto are that on 06.11.2020 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased as pillion rider on a scooter (make-Activa) bearing registration no. HR51AN-8607, being driven by his colleague Dev Narayan Thakur at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was going to his house from his workplace. When they reached near Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. HR63B-5016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.1 Sunil at a high speed, rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit the scooter with a great force. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and came under the wheel of the offending truck and sustained head injury. The deceased was immediately removed to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared and he was declared 'brought dead' and his postmortem was conducted at Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

Sh. Anoop Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased. None for driver and owner.

Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.

Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization being legal representatives of deceased Sunil Verma (married aged 25 years) on account of death of deceased who died in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 02.09.2018. The petitioners also prayed for compensation MACP No. 754/18; FIR No. 206/18 DOD:12.11.2024 for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased.

11.Date on which Order Announced : 12.11.2024.

SC No. 464/2021 FIR No. 417/2021 U/s. 307 IPC State Vs. Ram @ Himanshu PS : Badarpur Page No.1 of 31 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. The prosecution case against accused Ram @ Himanshu in brief is that on 11/07/2021, at about 08:30 PM, at Main Market, Gautam Puri, near Valmiki Mandir, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, he caused injuries on forehead and occipital region exposing bone calvaria of victim Dinesh Kumar, with chopper (meat cutting knife). The FIR was registered on the basis of PCR call through GD No.90A and accused Ram @ Himanshu was arrested on 12/07/2021 and, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s. 307 IPC.

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

Complainant's Case

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

Brief statement of reasons for the decision

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

Brief Facts:

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

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

Complainant's Case

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

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

CIC/SBIND/A/2023/633692

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

Page 1 of 5

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

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

:

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

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

Page 1 of 7

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

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

:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1 of 4

:

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

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

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

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

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

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

Page 1 of 5

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

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

:

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

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

:

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

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

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

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

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

Page 1 of 6

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

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

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

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

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

:

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

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

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

Page 1 of 5

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

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

:

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

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

1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter

2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

This 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.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

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, 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:-

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5785 of 2022 in C.C.No.224 of 2024 dated 25.03.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirumangalam.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.41 of 2022 against 9 persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 147,148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has filed a final report against 8 persons and also filed a report deleting the petitioner/9th accused from the above case before the jurisdictional Court. The learned Magistrate, after receipt of the charge sheet as well as the deletion report, has issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent has entered into appearance and filed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.5785 of 2022 and the learned Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 by holding that there existed prima facie case against the petitioner and ordered for issuance of summons to all the accused including the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order adding the petitioner as one of the accused and for issuance of summons, the present revision came to be filed.

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

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.

12.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/ 468/471/ 420/ 120-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4/5 of The Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act in 1.C.C. No.1498 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.953 of 2014 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2014.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Aska P.S. Case No.111 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.237 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/149 / 307/323/324/458 of the I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.2898 of 2022 vide order dated 26.04.2022.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

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 petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.35 of 2018 arising out of Berhampur Badabazar P.S. Case No.93 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur for offences punishable under sections 147/148/302/120-B/307/326/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.103 of 2017 arising out of S.T.F. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.3 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 16/17/18/18(B)/20/21/28/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and section 124(A) of the I.P.C.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 03.01.2024.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the petitioner No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/323/325/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

Page 1 of 4

3. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2016. Few days after their marriage, dissention arose in their family for which the petitioner No.2 lodged the F.I.R. being Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 for the above alleged offences.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Ranpur P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No.22 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 294/ 354/ 307/ 506/324/452/427/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Nayagarh.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 10.01.2015, the complainant reported at the P.S. that, on the same day, when he was working with labourers, the petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 removed his stumps and destroyed. When the labourers opposed the same, they left the place. Then in the same evening, while the complainant was coming from his house to pay his labourers, the above accused persons being armed with lathi, katari etc. entered into his house and abused him in obscene languages. The petitioner No.2 attacked him by means of katari to kill him. At that time, one Sunil Samantaray of his village obstructed the same and he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand. Thereafter, his sister-in-law, father and mother also tried to rescue him, but the accused persons pushed them and dragged the saree of his sister- in-law and kicked her. At that time, his brother Harmohan Nayak, Prafulla Nayak, Gagan Nayak, Sanjay Nayak and others reached at the spot and rescued them. All the accused persons threatened to kill them. Hence, the F.I.R.

1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gave necessary instructions to the CriAppeal-704-2005+ complainant and the shadow pancha. On their instructions, both, complainant and shadow pancha, visited court. There, accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification and when informant was paying the same, it was directed to be paid to accused no.2, after which pre- determined signal was relayed by informant, leading to further trap and apprehension of accused persons. Thereafter, PW6 lodged report, carried out investigation, chargesheeted both accused, who were made to face trial before learned Special Judge vide above referred Special Case No. 4 of 2003 and on appreciating prosecution evidence as well as defence witnesses, learned trial Judge, by impugned order dated 29.09.2005, held both accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act, respectively. Said judgment is now subject matter of the appeals before this Court.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

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

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

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

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

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

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

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

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

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

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

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

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

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