Average U.S. nuclear capacity outages during the summer of 2024 (June 1 through August 31) decreased to about 2.6 gigawatts (GW) per day from 3.1 GW in 2023, similar to average summer daily outages in 2022. Outages this past summer were highest in mid-July and early August, averaging 3.1 GW per day and peaking at 5.7 GW on the last day of August. More recently, nuclear outages have exceeded the five-year average because of weather-related disruptions and refueling outages.

Hello friends and welcome to Daily Crunch, bringing you the most important startup, tech and venture capital news in a single package.

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Roblox has picked up a key hire to help grow its ecosystem of user-generated content for the metaverse. Nick Tornow is joining the company as VP of Engineering for its developer team, leaving his former post as Twitter Platform Lead. Tornow also spent a decade at Zynga and served as the company’s CTO from 2013 […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

One of the most attention-grabbing aspects of “Roadrunner,” the Morgan Neville-directed documentary about Anthony Bourdain, was Neville’s use of generative AI to replicate Bourdain’s voice. Looking back now, Neville told Wired that he saw this as a “fun” way to “keep [Bourdain’s] voice going in the film.” But his approach drew intense criticism — while […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

OpenAI’s next flagship model might not represent as big a leap forward as its predecessors, according to a new report in The Information. Employees who tested the new model, code-named Orion, reportedly found that even though its performance exceeds OpenAI’s existing models, there was less improvement than they’d seen in the jump from GPT-3 to […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

A multi-year investigation into TechCrunch’s parent entity Yahoo — looking at compliance with key transparency requirements of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including in relation to cookie banners displayed on its media properties — has taken a step forward today after Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced that it has submitted a […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Yahoo’s AI push isn’t over just yet. The company, also TechCrunch’s parent, recently launched AI-powered features for Yahoo Mail, including its own take on Gmail’s Priority Inbox and AI summaries of emails, and today it’s rolling out an AI-powered version of its Yahoo News app, leveraging technology it acquired from its latest acquisition, Artifact. Still, […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Governments must apply renewed focus to achieve fiscal balance and sustainably reduce the cost of delivery.

Australia jumped five places to 15th in OECD rankings for employment of mature age workers.

The PwC network reported total global gross revenues of US$35.4 billion for the fiscal year ended on 30 June 2015.

Australia has slipped four places to 17th in OECD rankings for employment of under 25-year-olds with a focus on STEM skills.

Early is a Tel Aviv-based startup that uses generative AI to generate unit tests, helping programmers catch potential bugs early in the development cycle. The company, which launched in August, today announced that it has raised a $5 million seed funding round led by Zeev Ventures, with participation from Dynamic Loop Capital. In its current […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

AI code assistant company Tabnine is launching a code review agent today that aims to help developers stick to their organization’s best practices and standards. It allows organizations to codify these rules either by providing the agent with documentation or by pointing it at a set of “golden code repos.” The agent will passively review […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Symbiotic Security, which is announcing a $3 million seed round today, watches over developers as they code and points out potential security issues in real time. Other companies do this, but Symbiotic also emphasizes the next step: teaching developers to avoid these bugs in the first place. Ideally, this means developers will fix security bugs […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Dapr, the Microsoft-incubated open source runtime for helping developers build secure and resilient distributed applications, has graduated from the Cloud Native Computing Foundation’s (CNCF) pool of incubating projects to become a top-level project at the same level of projects like Kubernetes, Prometheus, Istio, and Vitess. To graduate to this level, a project has to be […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

A new data bill from the U.K. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) aims to revive several measures that failed to pass under the prior government, while rowing back on some controversial post-Brexit reforms proposed by conservative ministers. The government reckons the “Data (Use and Access) Bill” (DUA) stands to boost the U.K. economy […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

The European Union has tossed a wrench in the works of chipmaker Nvidia’s proposed acquisition of Tel Aviv-based AI workload management startup Run:ai. The deal, which was announced back in April — with a price tag of $700 million per our sources — will be reviewed by the bloc after a request by competition regulators in […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

New CEO Damola Adamolekun is making changes, including adding new (and old) items to the menu.

1. World News Live Today November 13, 2024: Stranded Sunita Williams rubbishes deteriorating health ‘rumours’ amid severe weight loss claims  Hindustan Times
2. Stranded Sunita Williams rubbishes deteriorating health ‘rumours’ amid severe weight loss claims  Hindustan Times
3. NASA Astronaut Sunita Williams debunks health rumors: 'I weigh the same' from the ISS  Moneycontrol
4. Inside Sunita Williams' extended mission: What she’s doing in space  India Today
5. Why is astronaut Sunita Williams losing weight at ISS? NASA worried, here's what the agency is planning to  The Economic Times

1. Study reveals how 3D environments affect bacterial growth and survival  The Hindu
2. 3D environments influence bacterial growth & survival  The Times of India
3. Shape Matters: New Research Reveals Impact of 3D Environments on Bacterial Growth  Research Matters
4. Study reveals role of 3D environments in influencing bacterial survival and growth  Bangalore Mirror

PER OSWAL-J

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2023 passed by the learned writ court, whereby the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 3311/2023, filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has no locus to assail the order of demolition dated 07.01.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2.

2. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is in possession of the property pursuant to the Agreement to Sell as well as the will executed by the original allottee and being the occupier of the building in question, has locus to assail the order dated 07.01.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 7(3) of J&K Control of Building Operations Act (For short 'the Act'). He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Union of India &Anr. Vs. K.C. Sharma and Company & others" (2020) 15 SCC 209 and "Maneklal Mansukhbhai vs. Hormusiji Jamshedji Ginwala"1950 SCC 83.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 and sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 448 and 504 of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioners are said to have entered into the house of the informant and indiscriminately assaulted the informant's side.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, petitioners and other co-accused persons entered in the house of the informant and brutally assaulted the informant's side.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75115 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are of simple nature. Petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have no criminal antecedent and petitioner no.3 has one criminal antecedent.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Appeal is admitted.

3. Call for the Trial Court Records of Registration No. 1621 of 2023 arising out of Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 57 of 2023 from the court of learned Special Judge (Excise)-2, Samastipur.

4. The present matter is taken on board for considering prayer of bail and suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.)/Section 430(1) of BNSS as raised through memo of appeal, itself as preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C./ Section 415 (2) of BNSS.

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.359/2024, registered at the Police Station Bassi Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 352 of BNS.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it is revealed that no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners are both women. The alleged incident has taken place all of a sudden at an agricultural field.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and [2024:RJ-JP:46170] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12586/2024] circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the accused-petitioners both are women and no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners in the First Information Report, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

1. Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the Applicant.

2. Affidavit dated 04.11.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.3, Central Pollution Control Board bringing on record the Joint Committee Report; the same is taken on record.

3. We find that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) has not been impleaded in the present proceedings as Respondent. We, accordingly direct the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) through its Chief Managing Director (CMD) be impleaded in the array of Respondents as Respondent No.5.

4. Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No.5 in the following address, returnable within four weeks: -

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC.

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.

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

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

The undersigned has reserved the judgment in the present case on 19.10.2024 and same was to be pronounced on 04.11.2024. Vide order no. 38/DHC/Gaz-IIBG-7/VI.E.2(a)/2024 dated 25.10.2024 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, undersigned was transferred from Rohini Court (i.e. JMFC-02) to Dwarka Courts as JMFC-01 (NI Act). As per the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court, the judicial officer shall pronounce the judgment in those matters which are reserved for judgement even after the transfer. Hence, the judgement in the present case is being pronounced by the undersigned in the capacity of JMFC-01 (NI Act).

BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. The case of the prosecution shown of unnecessary details is, that on or before 04.12.2014, at Factory No. 103, Swastik Aluminum, Badli Industrial Area II, Delhi, accused persons taped the pipeline of IGL in a way to endanger human line to supply the gas to factory No. 102 (Ideal Udyog) and Factory No. 90 (Tirupati Udyog) and committed offence under section 336/34 of IPC. Accused persons also at the aforesaid factory committed theft of gas of IGL by supplying the same to factory No. 102 (Ideal Udyog) and Factory No. 90 (Tirupati Udyog) by tapping the same and committed offence under section 379/34 of IPC. Accused persons in the alternative on the aforesaid day and factory dishonestly misappropriated or converted for their own use the gas connection entrusted to them by IGL and thereby committed the offence under section 406/34 of IPC. Both the accused persons also tried to disappear the evidence with intend to save themselves and other offenders from legal punishment and thereby committed the offence under section 201/34 of IPC. The accused persons also damaged and destroyed the State Vs. Rajeev Gupta FIR No. 1426//2014 Page no. 2 of 30 pipelines and thereby committed offence under section 15(2) of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Act, 1962.

:

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।

These two appeals are preferred challenging an order of the Execution Court allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.A. No.52 of 2015. Of them, C.M.A. No.460 of 2023 was filed by the purchaser in an auction sale held in E.P. No.168 of 2013, which the appellant/workman in C.M.A.No. 944 of 2023 had laid for executing an award passed under Sec.33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1.2 Broadly the issue is that, in the said E.P. Respondents 1 to 5 have taken out an application in E.A.52 of 2015, staking a claim to about 5.43 acres in SyNo:298 of Kuniyamuthur village, and it came to be allowed by the Execution Court. This block of 5.43 acres was part of a larger extent of 37.0 acres, spread over multiple survey numbers, and it was brought to court-auction-sale and was purchased by the appellant in CMA 460 of 2023. The sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is yet to be confirmed by the Execution Court in terms of Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. The decision of the Execution Court in allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 over 5.43 acres implies that the Execution Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.460 & 944 of 2023 may not now confirm the auction-sale as pertaining to this block of land.

11.11.2024 Order No.

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

2. Heard Senior learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act in C.T. Case No.399 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.11 of 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.

11.11.2024 Ms. Rasheeda Shaheen, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2-Showkat Ali Para has expired and is now representing the respondent No. 1 & 3.

Let requisite application along with death certificate for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Showkat Ali Para be submitted by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of contesting the case of the petitioners.

In the meantime, an application CM 733/2024 has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 3 with respondent No. 2 being no more, as such, cannot be referred for the purpose of being an applicant seeking release of the awarded amount as awarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.A.No.7/2023 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi1.

2. The relevant facts leading to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.11/2023 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalghatagi2 wherein the respondents herein arrayed as defendants. The reliefs sought for in the suit are extracted herein for ready reference.

"14. Prayer: That, the most respectfully and graciously prayed that, this hon'ble Court be please to pass decree in favour of plaintiff as under:-

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

-----

03/12.11.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 assaulted the informant's husband due to which his left leg got fractured. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him. The dispute between the parties arose due to a drainage. Even if the content of the written report is taken to be true, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no intention to kill the informant's husband as admittedly, he sustained fracture injury on his leg. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 13 of the present application. They also undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Reserved on 27.08.2024 Pronounced on 12.11.2024

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) but modified the sentences awarded to the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- for each offence with default sentences. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.02.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.559 of 2003 / Trial No.15 of 2005 (arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.52 of 2003 dated 05.07.2003), the petitioner along with Banamali Singh Choudhary and Ramlal Singh were convicted for offence under Sections 353, 504/34 of IPC and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC for each offence and had directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned trial court had acquitted the petitioner and co- accused persons from the charge under Section 448 of IPC. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

In the trial of Elizabeth Holmes, prosecutors have shown texts, emails and audio clips portraying her in her own words. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday asked Sara Randazzo about key pieces of evidence and what to expect. Photo: Nick Otto/AFP via Getty Images

A growing number of studies indicate Omicron is more resistant to current vaccines than previous Covid variants, though boosters seem to help. WSJ’s Daniela Hernandez gets an exclusive look inside a lab testing how antibodies interact with Omicron. Photo illustration: Tom Grillo

Amateur investors took the stock market by storm a year ago, buying up shares of meme stocks like GameStop and AMC Entertainment. Many remember it as a revolution against Wall Street, but in the end, they largely just lined the pockets of major financial firms. WSJ’s Dion Rabouin explains. Illustration: Sebastian Vega

A Japanese real estate fund, which has Marubeni Corp. and Daiwa House Industry Co. as strategic partners, is reviving its initial public offering plans in Singapore that could raise at least US$300 million, people with knowledge of the deal said Monday.

Lithium prices are rising as demand for the key ingredient in electric car batteries grows, amid a broader push to move away from oil and gas. But extraction of the metal is time consuming and potentially harmful to the environment, and plans to produce more have prompted protests. Photo: STR/Getty Images, Oliver Bunic/AFP/Getty Images