11.11.2024

1. In this case, the appellant was granted bail on 30.12.2019 by this Court, however, till date, he has not been released because no one is there to stand surety for him.

2. This Court takes note of the fact that even after five years of passing of the bail order in his favour, the appellant continues to languish in prison, as nobody has come forward to stand surety for him. The facts disclose that there is prima facie violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Under the circumstances, the appellant shall be released on his personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. In addition thereto, as nobody is there to stand surety for him, the appellant shall appear before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch once in every month, commencing from 18.11.2024 and thereafter, on such dates as set by the learned CJM, Poonch.

08.11.2024

01. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order of Central Administrative Tribunal ["The Tribunal'] dated 04.11.2024 in OA No. 61/1175/2024 titled 'Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.T. of J&K and Ors.', whereby the Tribunal has declined to grant ad-interim ex-parte stay, staying the communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua dated 15.10.2024 addressed to the Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau, J&K and Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu.

02. The application for interim relief is still pending and the same will come up for consideration before the Tribunal after the respondents appear and file their objections. Ordinarily, such ad-interim ex-parte orders are not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, having regard to the fact that the registration of FIR either by the Crime Branch or by the ACB in terms of communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua in OA will seriously prejudice the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the application for interim relief pending before the Tribunal by providing as under:-

08.11.2024

1. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.

2. The respondents submit that the petitioners' claim will be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of law relevant to the subject matter.

3. The petitioners' case is that they have been in possession of Government land and had applied for regularization and conferment of ownership under the repealed Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001. Ownership rights were initially conferred under this Act; however, by an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled 'Prof. S.K. Bhalla vs. State of J&K and others', PIL No. 19/2011, the Act was declared unconstitutional, resulting in the setting aside of ownership rights conferred under it.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks for the following reliefs:-

i) Commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Lambardar in view of his appointment vide order No. 145-47/TBG Auth dated 07.07.2022 and also in view of the J&K Lambardari Act, 1972 and J&K Lambardari Rules, 1980 till general elections are held.

ii) Commanding upon the respondents to confirm the appointment of the petitioner in accordance with the J&K Lambardari Act and Lambardari Rules.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioners have sought a direction upon respondent No. 3 to issue passports in their favour.

2. According to the petitioners, they had applied for passports after depositing the requisite fee. The application of the petitioner was allotted file number JM1066761201422 whereas, application of petitioner No. 2 was allotted file number JM1066765476422, whereafter, the said applications were forwarded to respondent No. 2 for verification. The applications were submitted by the petitioners on 11.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 but despite lapse of so many years, the respondents have not taken any action in the matter which has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court.

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.

1 The petitioner has challenged order No. 214/NRHM of 2008 dated 10.03.2008 issued by respondent No.2 to the extent of engagement of respondent No.4 as Laboratory Assistant under NRHM. A direction has also been sought by the petitioner upon the official respondents seeking his engagement as Laboratory Assistant in CHC, Marwah.

2 Form a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that a Notification No.02 dated 16.10.2007 was issued by respondent No.2 whereby applications were invited for contractual appointments in various categories at different levels in the erstwhile District Doda. Six posts of Laboratory Assistants were also advertised vide the said notification which was published in a Newspaper on 17.10.2007. A corrigendum to the said notification, was issued vide No.NRHM/DDC/9954 dated 24.10.2007 whereby, besides increasing the number of posts advertised, it was provided that the advertisement of the posts should be read for Districts Doda, Kishtwar and Ramban instead of the erstwhile District Doda. It was further provided that the candidates should be the residents of the erstwhile J&K State and that preference will be given to local candidates. It was also provided that number of posts advertised for the position of Laboratory Assistant would be six (two each) and as per the corrigendum, number of such posts was increased to (12).

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Mohd Musharaf and Sofia Kouser, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Muslim rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from official respondents.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

1 By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2 It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3 It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioner claiming to be owner of land measuring 3 Kanals comprising of Khasra Nos. 210 (02-00) & 216 (01-

00) situated at Phalyana, Tehsil & District Rajouri, which on requisition has been under the occupation of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ever since the year 1961/62 and that the petitioner as owner of the land, had been receiving the settled rent for use of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, from the Collectorate.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the coming into effect of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 on 31.08.2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was organized into two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and in terms of Section 95(2) of the aforesaid Act, all the laws mentioned in the 5th Schedule applicable to the existing State of Jammu & Kashmir, immediately before the appointed day were made applicable in the manner provided in the 5th Schedule; that the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (State Act), was mentioned at serial no. 133 in TABLE-3 of 5th Schedule which contained the enactments which stood repealed correspondingly Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act) was made applicable. He further submits that the Central Act provides for a limitation of 17 years for holding the property on requisition and on expiry of 17 years from the date of occupying the property under occupation is either to be acquired in view of the law applicable or its possession is to be handed over to the owner.

08.11.2024

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail with effect from 07.11.2024 to 14.11.2024 so as to enable him to attend the wedding ceremonies of his niece, namely, Simerjeet Kour. The petitioner has placed on record the wedding invitation card.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case, titled "U. T of J&K vs Sarita Devi and others" pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba arising out of FIR No. 224/2021 of Police Station, Samba. The said FIR was initially registered for commission of offences under section 363 IPC, however, subsequently after the investigation, charge sheet for commission of offences under sections 363-A, 370, 120 and 34 IPC was filed against the petitioner.

(12.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Ankush Kumar and Isha Devi, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Hindu rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from respondent No.1.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

08.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought temporary bail for the purpose of attending marriage ceremony of his younger brother which is stated to be scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2024.

2. Heard and considered.

3. The petitioner has been arrested in a case arising out of the Crime No. 15/2024 for the commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act. As per case of the prosecution, commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 27.08.2024 when he along with co-accused was travelling in a bus. The investigation is stated to be still in progress.

1 The petitioners have challenged order dated 23.11. 2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu ('the Appellate Court' for short) whereby the appeal of the petitioners against order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity Magistrate), Jammu ('the trial Magistrate' for short) in a petition filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short) has been dismissed.

2 It appears that a petition under Section 12 of DV Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioners and others including her husband Gurinder Singh before the learned trial Magistrate. It also appears that the marriage between the respondent and her husband, who happens to be the son of the petitioners herein, had taken place on 29.01.2015, whereafter, the relation between the respondent and her husband and in-laws including the petitioners herein did not remain cordial. In the petition under section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent leveled several allegations of domestic violence against the petitioners and her husband. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioners and other family members of her husband including her husband abused and taunted her for bringing less dowry and she was even beaten up by them. She has given instances with regard to the incidents of alleged acts of domestic violence perpetrated upon her by the petitioners sand her husband. It has been alleged by her in the aforesaid petition that the petitioners and other family members of her husband were forcing her to bring dowry in the shape of different articles 3 It seems that on an earlier occasion, the respondent had filed a similar petition against the petitioners herein and her husband and the same was withdrawn by her in terms of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. After withdrawal of the earlier petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent filed another petition under the same provision against the petitioners as well as her husband and her sister-in-law. During pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners herein as also the sister-in-law of the respondent, namely Smt. Rani Kour filed an application for dropping of the proceedings against them. The trial Magistrate, after inviting objections from the respondent and after hearing the parties, partly allowed the said application in terms of order dated 10.07.2023 thereby accepting the application for dropping of proceedings to the extent of Smt. Rani Kour, sister-in-law of the respondent, but declining the said application to the extent of petitioners herein.

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) The appellant/State has challenged judgment dated 07.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") whereby, in a case arising out of FIR No. 116/2000 for offences under Sections 307/324/326/336/337 RPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e- Bahu, Jammu, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges.

2) The facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are that on 05.04.2000, PW Mohd Ashraf while undergoing treatment in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu for the injury received by him, made a statement before the police that on the aforesaid date at about 10.30 am when he reached his in-laws‟ house at Raika, he saw a number of people having gathered over there. He further stated that his father-in-law Siraj Din and respondent No.1/accused were having a long standing land dispute going on between them. On account of this, the respondents/accused along with 8/10 more persons had come on spot. It was further stated that the respondent No.1/accused Showkat Ali with an intention to commit murder of PW Mohd Ashraf launched a murderous attack on him with a Pathi on left side of his head which resulted in grievous injury to him. It was also alleged that the other respondents/accused were carrying clubs and axes in their hands, but they did not launch any attack upon him. When some people came on spot, the respondents/accused fled away from the spot and PW Mohd Ashraf fell down unconscious.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No. 101/2021 titled Satish Kumar Jain vs. Jugal Kishore & Anr.

2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 07.03.2020 and order on sentence dated 28.08.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

1. The present Petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C Act') have been filed by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties from work order dated 03.09.2014.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that:-

a. It is stated that the work order bearing No.JMD/SUBURIO- 67/FW/JKR/LOI/01, dated 03.09.2014 was issued by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner herein for design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing, commissioning and handing over of Fire-Fighting system at JMD SUBURIO, Sector- 67, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, for total consideration of Rs.1,69,51,000/-.

1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 476576/2016 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

2. The complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner and other co-accused persons, acting on behalf of the accused company namely M/s Fresco Foods Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement dated 12.03.2009 with the complainant whereby the respondent disbursed a sum of ₹1,60,00,000/- as a venture capital amount to the accused. This venture capital assistance was refundable upon the full repayment of the term loan. It is the case of the respondent that the accused undertook that in the event of the venture capital amount not being refunded on the same date as that of the repayment of the term loan from the bank, the same would attract interest at the same rate as that being charged by the bank for the term loan.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the judgement dated 10th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 12165/2024 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant also seeks quashing of the NEET Disability Certificate issued by respondent no.2 as well as the Medical Report of the AIIMS, New Delhi dated 6th September, 15:01:10 2024; and prays for declaring the appellant eligible to pursue medical courses and allowing him to take part in the ongoing counselling process. Alternatively, the appellant seeks re-evaluation and re-assessment of his suitability to pursue MBBS course notwithstanding the impugned Regulations. A challenge is also made to Footnote 3 to Appendix H-1 to the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Regulations, 2023 being ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with directions to the respondent no.1 to issue fresh Regulations/Guidelines in this respect.

CM(M) 84/2024

1. The Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, to challenge the Order dated 06.12.2023 of the learned Tribunal, dismissing the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ hereinafter), of the M/s Shiv Probuild Pvt. Ltd./Registered Owner of the offending vehicle, to implead M/S. Kundu Nirman as a party.

2. The offending vehicle i.e. APOLLO make HIDROSTATIC PAVER FINISHER MODE of which the petitioner is the registered owner bearing No. 6H 3301/1200001, was handed over to the Respondent, M/s Kundu Nirman, pursuant to a Work Order dated 01.06.2022, on the specified terms and conditions. The Respondent being the contractor of Pubic Works Department („PWD‟ hereinafter), was carrying out the assigned work of strengthening and construction of the road, when the accident occurred involving this vehicle on 25.06.2022 at about 12:30 a.m., resulting in death of Mr. Rajesh. FIR No. 172/2022 under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter) read with Sections 3/181, 146/196, 39/192, 134/187, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 („M.V. Act‟ hereinafter) was registered at Police Station, Roop Nagar, Delhi.

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.

1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2024 ('impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and order on sentence dated 08.05.2024 ('impugned order on sentence') in case arising out of FIR No. 302/2011 registered at Police Station Seema Puri for offences under Sections 302/308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The appellants, by the impugned judgment, were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/304(II)/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A tabular statement of the conviction rendered and the sentence imposed by the learned ASJ on the appellants is reproduced below from the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2024 ('impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and order on sentence dated 08.05.2024 ('impugned order on sentence') in case arising out of FIR No. 302/2011 registered at Police Station Seema Puri for offences under Sections 302/308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The appellants, by the impugned judgment, were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/304(II)/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A tabular statement of the conviction rendered and the sentence imposed by the learned ASJ on the appellants is reproduced below from the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Simri PS case no. 79 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354(D), 509, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that petitioner was teasing and stalking the informant for the last two years and when the informant protested, the petitioner threatened to make her photograph viral on the social media. On 17.04.2024, while the informant was going towards the house of her friend, petitioner and his friend followed her and made vulgar comments and upon protest, they assaulted her brutally. It has further been alleged that on 21.04.2024 in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70435 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 morning, the petitioner along with other accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sharp cutting weapon came at the door of the informant and assaulted her family members.

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

2. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bihpur P.S. Case No.47 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 447, 385, 387, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act.

3. Allegedly, petitioner along with some known and unknown co-accused persons came to the informant's house and started abusing for demand of extortion. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with one another co-accused started firing with the intention to create fear.

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 323, 307, 341, 379, 504, 506/34 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, petitioner along with other co-accused persons have abused and assaulted the informant and other persons with rod, brick and stones. It is further alleged that co-accused Maya Kumari took away locket and jiuitia of Rekha Kumari.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. It is also submitted that occurrence took place on 04.11.2024 but FIR has been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76808 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 lodged on 17.11.2023 i.e after the delay of 13 days. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sahebpur Kamal Police Station Case No. 129 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 385, 338, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report, is that on 04.05.2024, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, armed with lathi, danda, iron-rod and pistol, arrived at the house of the informant and the co- accused persons caught hold her father and assaulted him by means of iron-rod on his head. Co-accused persons Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71179 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 also assaulted the aunt of the informant, looted the house hold article. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with co-accused Md. Ezaj resorted to firing.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Konch Police Station Case No. 245 of 2024, dated 10.06.2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 10.06.2024, the informant, along with his cousin brother, was sitting at his door, in the mean while, his neighbour, Shiv Kumar Prasad, along with other accused persons, including the petitioner, arrived there with lathi, danda, iron-rod, surrounded the cousin brother of the informant, abused him and assaulted him with lathi, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73971 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 danda and iron-rod.

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, registered Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75612 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/325/307/435/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against fourteen named accused persons including the present petitioners with allegation that they have reached at the land of the informant and made the hut. Scuffling took place and the petitioners had attacked on the informant and others, due to which some persons were injured. Names were specifically mentioned in the FIR.

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 341/ 323/ 307/ 385/ 504/ 506/34 of the IPC and added Section 302 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner entered the house of informant and started assaulting the informant and others with lathi, danda and iron rods due to which informant and others got injured and four months later, the informant died.

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners alongwith other co-accused persons came at the informant's shop and started assaulting him. When the informant's son came to save him then the co-accused, Madan Prasad, hit him with iron pipe which resulted into head injury. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 2 has stolen Rs.35,000/- from the informant's shop.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Dewaria P.S. Case no. 18 of 2024 registered under sections 376, 342, 323, 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information and Technology Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner who happens to be the husband of her cousin sister took her to a room in a hotel, made her to drink an intoxicated tea and on her falling unconscious established physical relations with her. It is further stated that he took objectionable photographs and threatened that he would make Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74140 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 the same viral. It is further stated that he also sent the photographs to some persons from his mobile phone, details of which has been mentioned in the F.I.R.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Buxar (Muffassil) Police Station Case No. 195 of 2024, disclosing offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant and his sister-in-law Rani Devi purchased a piece of land by way of two registered sale deeds from Raghvendra Kishore Srivastava, situated at Mauza Hukaha, Thana No. 281, bearing Khata No. 185, Plot No. 46, having an area of 198 decimals. Thereafter, the informant got the information that accused Dhananjay Singh has executed a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71947 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 forged sale deed, dated 24.01.2024, and in that sale deed some fictious person has been impersonated as seller Raghvendra Kishore Srivastava. The petitioner is one of the identifier and witness in the forged sale deed. After execution of the sale deed, the accused persons, armed with rifle, pistol, katta, lathi and bhala, came on 05.03.2024 and threatened to kill the informant and his family members.

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 452, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. All the F.I.R. named accused persons including these petitioners in furtherance of their common intention armed with deadly weapons are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members with intention to kill them due to which they sustained injuries on vital part also.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 318 of 2024 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 307, 195A, 120B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 01.04.2024 by the informant, Binod Rai.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that as he was sleeping in his office, Rahul Kumar alongwith other accused came and Rahul Kumar opened fire causing injury. Rahul Kumar was again loading another cartridge when an alarm was raised whereafter, they escaped. This led to the FIR.

Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Forest Case No.78-F of 2021, registered u/s 2, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1990) and 2, 27, 29, 31, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended by Amending Act, 2006).

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

4. Permission is granted.

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioners is that after receiving the consideration money of Rs. 17,90,000 from the informant they executed the sale deed in favour of other persons and did not return the aforesaid amount to the informant.

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.

1. Since both these anticipatory bail applications arise out of Bihiya Police Station Case No. 191 of 2024, with the consent of the parties, both these applications are heard together.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. These applications, for grant of anticipatory bail, arise out of Bihiya Police Station Case No. 191 of 2024, dated Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71118 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 26.06.2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341/323/504/307/337/34of the Indian Penal Code.

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.

We have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, the learned Spl. PP for the State.

2. Ms. Usha Kumari has informed this Court that she had telephonic conversation with the informant, who has been communicated about this case. However, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.672 of 2024(6) dt.11-11-2024 there is no separate representation of the informant in this case.

3. The written objection is on record.

4. The appellant along with another has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 25(1-B)a and 27 of the Arms Act; and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 vide judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act, Nawada in Exclusive Special (SC/ST) Case No. 16 of 2019, arising out of Pakri Barawan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2019. By order dated 06.04.2024, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months under Section 302 of the IPC; R.I. for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for two months under Section 201 of the IPC; R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.672 of 2024(6) dt.11-11-2024 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for one month under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act; R.I. for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for two months under Section 27 of the Arms Act; and imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 332, 354(B), 436, 427, 379, 353, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, in relation to the Tarabari P.S. Case No.67 of 2024, police recovered kidnapped Chandni Kumari and arrested the accused Mintu Singh and kept them under the supervision of the police officials in the police station. Both Mintu Singh and Chandni Kumari committed suicide by hanging themselves. When the relatives of the deceased persons got the information about the incident, several persons including Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74950 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 the petitioners gathered along with deadly weapons and brutally assaulted the police official and also damaged their vehicles by setting them on fire.

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

Name of Party Before District Forum Before State Commission Before National Commission ( Original Memo of Parties) Before National Commission ( Amended memo of parties) Public College Samana Complainant Respondent No.1 Petitioner Petitioner State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall OP No.1 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana OP No.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 State Bank of India, Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.3 Appellant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commission OP No.4 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.2   For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis  

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short "NFAC"), for the Assessment Years ITA Nos. 521 to 524 /Ahd/2023 Inox India Limited Asst.Years 2000-01 & 2002-03 to 2004-05)

- 2- 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2004-2005. Since common issues are involved in all the year under consideration of appeals before us, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)"), Delhi, dated 19.02.2024/20.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY") 2017-18.

2. First, will take up ITA No 701/Chny/2024 against Ld CIT(A) order dated 19.02.2024; and note that the main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the following actions of the AO (i) making an addition of Rs.19,28,069/- as unexplained money on ITA Nos.701, 743 to 745/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) M/s. Covai Marketing :: 2 ::

1.     This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dated 16.02.2018 in complaint no. CC/26 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.50 lakh to the complainant as compensation for medical negligence for the death of his son with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (23.04.2012) till the date of payment within 2 months of the order.

2.     I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully.