:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis.

S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations

:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis.

S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations

:

The Appellant filed an (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

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,

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 passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2024, thereby confirming the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to provide all amenities to the petitioner including food and shelter and also restrain the third respondent from torturing the petitioner and his wife.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is the son. The petitioner got married one Girija and gave birth to the third respondent and one daughter. While he was in service in the police department, he had purchased a property ad measuring 4½ cents comprised in Survey No.665/1B and 665/2 part situated at Echanari, Near Ammal Temple, Kurichi Village, Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010, bearing document No.446/2010. Thereafter, he constructed a house and was residing there.

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:-

These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner based on the same fact situation and as such, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2751 and 9303 of 2020

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as 'Grade-II, Police Constable' in TSP-I Battalion, Trichy and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Armed Reserve Perambalur District and in the year 2004, he was transferred to District Armed Reserve Nagapattinam District and thereafter, he was transferred to Taluk Police Establishment in the year 2010 and then he was upgraded as ‘Grade I, Police Constable’ in the year 2006 and further upgraded as 'Head Constable' in the year 2011. The petitioner also claimed to have received 16 rewards for his performance and there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner through out his service.

The accused No.2 in C.C.No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

Conviction for the Offence under Sentence of Imprisonment Section 8(c) r/w 21(C) of the NDPS Act 12 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- in default to undergo 6 months S.I

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with G.R. Case No.104 of 2020 arising out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.58 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aul for alleged commission of offences under sections 341/294/323/324/354- B/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Perused the first information report annexed to the anticipatory bail application.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Date of Hearing :08.11.2024 :: Date of Order :11.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack is taken up into consideration.

{{ 2 }}

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 remaining in the jail custody since 29.01.2024 as an under trial prisoner having been charged under Section 292-A, 212, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 66-E, 67-A & 67-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 along with his other co-accused persons on the allegations alleged against him that, due to the frequent talking between the petitioner and the victim since the month of May, 2022, they loved each other and the petitioner proposed the victim for marriage. Thereafter, in the months of August and November, 2023, the petitioner took the victim by his motorcycle to the OYO Hotel on three different dates and made sexual intercourse with her in a room of that hotel in each occasion and took the naked/nude photographs of the victim inside the room of that hotel through his mobile phone and sent the said nude/naked photographs to the mobile phone of the victim through whatsapp and the said nude photographs of the victim were in her mobile phone, to which, she (victim) had not disclosed before {{ 3 }} any of her family members including her parents. Thereafter, there was disturbance between the victim and the petitioner, for which, the victim stopped her talking with the petitioner. So, the petitioner made the nude photographs of the victim viral. Thereafter, on dated 07.01.2024, she (victim) lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner at Sadar police station, Cuttack, alleging the aforesaid allegations.

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.

(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:

(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:

(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:

(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:

Through: -

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The short grievance projected by the petitioner, who is present person in the Court, is that he has e-mailed various complaints to the respondents with respect to outcome of the investigation, pertaining to FIR No. 114/2022, however, the same has not evoked any response till date. The petitioner submits that he will be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to accord consideration and dispose of the said complaints as per law and report in this respect is furnished to him.

12.11.2024 The petitioners, through the medium of instant petition, has called in question Order No. 233 PDA of 2024 dated 6th November, 2024, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority-respondent no. 3, by virtue of which, all the adventure activities in Pahalgam permitted by the Director Tourism Kashmir vide No. DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/2747 dated 18th May, 2022, TDK/Rec/3/2022-06/2856 dated 29th June, 2022 and DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/3030 dated 6th February, 2023 have been suspended till formalities are fulfilled by the adventure agencies. The order further reveals that all concerned site incharges of Pahalgam Development Authority shall ensure suspension of the adventure activities with immediate effect.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the recommendations made by the State Level Evaluation Committee (SLEC) in its 4th meeting held on 09.10.2024, whereby the petitioner's technical bid was marked as "non-responsive." This decision was based solely on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria specified under Clause 2.2.2.5(iv), "...iv. In case of project executed by applicant under category 3 and 4 as a member of Joint Venture, the project cost should be restricted to the share of the applicant in the joint venture for determining eligibility as per provision under Clause 2.2.2.2. In case statutory auditor certifies that the work of other member(s) is also executed by the applicant, then the total share executed by applicant can be considered for determining eligibility as per provision under clause 2.2.2.2"

Through: -

None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 This is an application filed by the petitioners to place on record the documents.

For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner being a consolidated worker engaged by the Municipal Committee, Handwara came to be terminated/disengaged from service with immediate effect in terms of impugned order No. MC/Hand/Estt/2022-23/32-36 dated 06.04.2023 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Handwara. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

2. In terms of an order dated 12.04.2023, this Court came to keep on hold the operation of the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, with a further interim direction unto the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a consolidated worker in terms of his original engagement order dated 30.12.2006.

12.11.2024 The instant application has been preferred by the applicants for seeking a direction to summon the copy of challan from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chadoosa. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the applicants that they have already moved an application way back on 6th October, 2023 before the competent court for providing certified copy of the challan as also the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. besides copy of the proceedings, but till date needful has not been done.

The CM is, accordingly, disposed of and Registry is directed to seek report of the particular court as to why till date in spite of filing of the application, the needful has not been done.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The subject matter of this petition falls within the definition of 'service matters' as contained in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has become applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, after coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-

08-11-2024

1. The petitioner-unit through its proprietor by the medium of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged order no. 187 JK PCC of 2024 dated 15th October, 2024, whereby respondent no. 5 has directed to close down the stone crusher of the petitioner-unit under the name and style of M/s Goodluck Stone Crusher, Lasjan Chadoora B.K. Pora, District Budgam. In terms of the said order, respondent no. 5, has also directed the other respondents to take further action against the unit of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, places reliance on an order dated 13th July, 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an identical matter being WP(C) No. 1418/2024 and submits that the case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case and accordingly prayed that the same order be passed in the present writ petition as well with a view to maintain parity.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 Vide common Judgment dated 26.05.2022, passed by this Court in SWP No. 1002/2018 titled Tasleema Jan Vs. State and Ors., and SWP No. 876/2015, titled Roomi Akhter Vs. State and Ors., following directions were passed against the resondents.

"i) The respondents shall consider the claim of both the candidates, Roomi Akhter and Tasleema Jan, in respect of their engagement as Angan Wari Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. Both the petitioners shall be associated with the consideration process by allowing them to put forward their stand effectively.

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.

08.11.2024 None appears for the respondent despite service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, in the complaint filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for commission of offences under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2. Perusal of the impugned order ex facie tends to show that the trial court has passed the impugned order in a casual and cursory manner, overlooking the mandate of the Apex court laid down in case titled as "Pepsi Food Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein at para 28 following has been laid down:

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 195-JKPCC of 2024 dated 16.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 212-JKPCC of 2024 dated 18.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Evenimentul viitor al Propstore va include costume, recuzită și alte obiecte din franciza britanică de spionaj. Propstore organizează o licitație spectaculoasă dedicată universului James Bond, oferind fanilor șansa de a deține obiecte iconice din filmele celebre. La sfârșitul acestei luni, Propstore va oferi o colecție de artefacte din universul 007, în timpul licitației live de ...

The post Propstore licitează obiecte din recuzita James Bond appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Petitioners who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6 in CC No.15405/2005 as per the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are NC: 2024:KHC:44458 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No.3599/2004 against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(2) R/w Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 was working as village accountant. He was having real- estate dealings in the name of his wife, sons, son-in-law and daughter. Accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and he induced the complainant and his colleagues to invest in the land in Sy.No.152 of Yelahanka village. He executed General Power of Attorney in favour of his son- accused No.4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 took the complainant and his wife to the land in Yelahanka and induced the complainant to purchase a site. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to purchase the site and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to accused No.1 during May 1998. Later, the accused have shown a brochure pertaining to the land situated at Ramanagara, near Mysore road and promised to develop the same as a resort under the name of Aradhya Scientific Farms and Resorts International.

1. This First Appeal is filed by defendants No.2 to 4 in O.S.No.145/2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The suit for declaration and injunction is decreed with cost.

2. The declaration granted by the Court reads as under:

i. Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. ii. It is declared that, the decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008 is partially canceled to the extent of suit property.

iii. Defendants No.2 to 4 are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from entering their names in record of rights of suit property on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008.

IN RE: B.K.NAGARAJAPPA

6. The petitioner Sri B.K.Nagarajappa had served the Corporation between 05.04.2021 to 30.06.2022 as General Manager. Previous approval has been granted for the purpose of investigation as regards the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:45706 PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå 1 PÀ®§ÄVð f¯Éè, PÁ¼ÀV ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.79/2022 gÀ PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 409, 420, gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ 2 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.56/2023, PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 420 ¸ÀºÀ 149 L¦¹ 3 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.07/2023, PÀ®A-

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about 170 days. It is further submitted no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused viz. Jinarul Sk. @ Bucha and Sujauddin Sk. @ Md. Sujauddin have been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for bail on parity.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statements of witnesses show petitioner was present at the spot. However, allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus and no specific overt act has been attributed to him. He stands on the same footing with co- accused viz. Jinarul Sk. @ Bucha and Sujauddin Sk. @ Md. Sujauddin who have been enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances and in view of the period of detention suffered by the petitioner, we are of the opinion further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary.

12.11.2024 jb.

jdt.

Allowed C.R.M. (SB) 150 of 2024 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 31/2022 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 380 with added Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Prasanta Jana ... Petitioner.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about two years and seven months. It is further submitted there is inordinate delay in trial. Accordingly, he renews his prayer for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Though narcotics above commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner, we find petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2½ years. His bail prayer was rejected in December, 2023. Thereafter only two out of nine witnesses have been examined till date. There is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner has been able to make out a case of breach of his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score. Bail prayer on the ground of inordinate delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard may be made to Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Nobody appears for the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits there was an intimate relationship between two young persons. They had eloped and married voluntarily. He prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim is a minor.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of the minor supports the contention of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion no worthwhile purpose would be served in committing the petitioner to custody. Accordingly, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Sayani Ahmed Hearing concluded on : 07.11.2024 Judgment on : 12.11.2024 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the grant of probate of the Will of one Late Shanti Shaw. The appellant is the son of the testatrix whereas, by virtue of the Will, the testatrix bequeathed her properties to her daughter Smt. Sabitri Shaw (the respondent's wife).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the inordinate delay in filing the probate application is itself to be construed as a suspicious circumstance vitiating the application. It is contended that the Will was purportedly executed on January 6, 1997, and the testatrix died on July 16, 1997. A previous probate application was filed on January 6, 1999 but the same was dismissed on April 17, 2002 due to non-

1. Challenging the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 1238 of 2021, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 263 of 2021, petitioners have preferred the present Application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding, qua the petitioners herein.

2. Petitioner contended in the Application that complainant stated in the FIR (First Information Report) that the opposite party no.2/FIR maker was introduced to Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal by one Subhash Kumar Roy and one Samaresh Das and relying upon the representation that the said Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal is a developer, the petitioner expressed his desire to join Mr. Agarwal as partner in his firm and thereafter Mr. Agarwal took the opposite party as a partner with him in his partnership firm namely "Shree Krishna Realtors". It is alleged that relying upon said representation the opposite party no.2 along with aforesaid person entered into a registered development agreement dated 18.12.2016 and it is further alleged that when the construction work commenced, said Sanjay Kumar Agarwal took control of the project and also taking advantage of the same took custody and control of the bank account, cheque books, vouchers papers etc. It has been further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 from time to time deposited money in the accounts of his said partner Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal but he did not cooperate with the opposite party no.2 herein /FIR maker and not only that said Sanjay had made huge withdrawal of funds and also misappropriated the funds of the firm amounting to Rs. 40 lacs in between August 2016 to March 2020 on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereafter retired from the said firm on 17th November, 2020. The allegation against the present petitioners is that said Sanjay and the petitioners are jointly fraudulently took advance money from different buyers pertaining to the said project but neither executed deed nor refunded refundable money.