This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 28.06.2024 for A.Y.2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

"1. The Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.15,60,115/- claimed by the appellant u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Alternatively, the interest income earned by the appellant from the investments in a co-operative bank is also eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw all or any one of the above grounds of appeal."

1. By way of the present the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 28/12/2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 25/12/2019, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.

2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.3577/Mum/2024

A.Y.2017-2018 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Officer was not justified in disallowing the bonafide claim of deduction u/s 80P12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NPAC) in dismissing the appeal as infructuous and not deciding the appeal on merit as per the Grounds of Appeal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/02/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, ["learned CIT(A)"], for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

"1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs.54,64,000/- under sec.56(2)(b)(vii).

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the bank statement of the appellant, Ledger copy confirmation of the Builder and letter of allotment issued to the appellant by the builder submitted while disputing the proposed addition during the assessment proceedings.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('State Commission') in FA No. 875/2014 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navsari, ('the District Forum') order dated 28.11.2013 wherein the District Forum had allowed the complaint by the Petitioner.

2.      As per report of the Registry there is a delay of 91 days in filing of the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking Condonation of delay, the same is condoned.

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

1.      The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the Order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh ("State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 83/2022, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is 31 days delay filing the Appeal. For reasons stated in IA/9118/2022, the delay is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

4.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's husband, Dilip Kumar Singh, obtained an insurance policy from OP insurance company on 28.06.2015. On 16.08.2015, while returning from Omkareshwar to Ujjain during Kavad Yatra, he met with an accident near Baigram on the Indore-Khandwa road and died. Following his death, the complainant submitted a claim to OP insurance company. However, the same was rejected on the ground that material facts about previous health conditions of the deceased were not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence, complainant filed C.C. No. 83/2022.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

This appeal by the assessee is against the final order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int.Tax Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai, (the "AO" in short) under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) dated 16.12.2021 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised various grounds pertaining to the following issues -

2 ITA No. 235/Mum/2022

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1. Denial of benefit of exemption under Article 8 of the India-USA Tax Treaty ('Treaty') - Ground No.1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 & 1.5)

18.2 The above facts revealed that the TAL had neither submitted the correct ST-3 returns showing the above taxable amount nor deposited the Service Tax on the taxable amount representing the amount received from the SKOL as License endorsement fees. It appears that TAL had deliberately suppressed their receipts against License endorsement fees and have also sought to mislead the investigation by claiming that the said receipts are not related to renting of the immoveable property while both TAL the service provider and SKOL the recipient of service have accounted for the amount paid as license endorsement fees as Rent in their Balance sheets. It therefore appears from the foregoing that the noticee has resorted to fraud, willful mis-statement, and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. M/s TAL have thus suppressed the taxable value to ST/52898/2018 the tune of Rs. 18,93,66,667/- from the Service Tax department and evaded the Service Tax amounting to Rs 2,02,15,467/-(Service Tax Rs 1,96,26,667 + Ed Cess 3,92,533/- + Ed Cess Rs 1,96,267/-) in respect of taxable services rendered by them for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.01.2013 by contravening the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Thus, the service tax not paid by TAL on the value of taxable services suppressed by them is recoverable from them by invoking the extended period under proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 along with interest at the appropriate rate as per Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994."

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

1.      This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dated 16.12.2020 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressals Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 188 of 2020 holding that the appellants herein are not "consumers" under the purview of the Act and dismissing the complaint filed by them.

2.      The delay of 80 days in the filing of this complaint has been considered in the light of the fact that the impugned order was dated 16. 12.2020 and while the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of order, this period coincided with the COVID-19 Pandemic and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 the period for limitation stood extended.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate impugned orders of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter in short 'the AO') dated 29.03.2021 / 31.03.2021 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short 'the DRP') both dated 05.02.2021 and pertain to Assessment Years (hereinafter in short 'AY') 2016-17 & 2015-16 respectively.

IT(TP)A Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2015-16) M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd.

:: 2 ::

2. Both parties agreed that issues permeating in both the assessment years are similar and identical except that of ground no.3, 5, 9, 12 & 13 for assessment year 2016-17, which will be discussed at the last.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate impugned orders of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter in short 'the AO') dated 29.03.2021 / 31.03.2021 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short 'the DRP') both dated 05.02.2021 and pertain to Assessment Years (hereinafter in short 'AY') 2016-17 & 2015-16 respectively.

IT(TP)A Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2015-16) M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd.

:: 2 ::

2. Both parties agreed that issues permeating in both the assessment years are similar and identical except that of ground no.3, 5, 9, 12 & 13 for assessment year 2016-17, which will be discussed at the last.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 None present on behalf of the petitioner. The present petition is filed in the Year 2021 qua the advertisement No.01/2018 dated 12.04.2018, with the prayers for allotment of home district as per the merit scored by the petitioner, however the same was not allotted and it is alleged that discrimination is caused qua the petitioner.

The matter is on board today after lapse of approximately four years and it appears that with efflux of time the lis in question does not survives.

[2024:RJ-JP:46386] (2 of 2) [CW-1283/2021] Accordingly, present petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

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.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd Shakir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.339/2024, registered at the Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) & 305(a) of BNS.

2. The First Bail Application No.11258/2024 filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.179/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)

(a), 313, 317(5), 303(2) & 318(4) of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. The First Bail Application No.11314/2024 filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the challan.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsels further submit that the Police after completion of investigation has [2024:RJ-JP:46166] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13786/2024] submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Counsels also submit that the petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

1. This third bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.197/2024 registered at Police Station Nagar, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 303(2), 61(2)(a) & 313 of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. The First Bail Application No.11090/2024 filed by the accused- petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2024 and the Second Bail Application No.13130/2024 filed by the accused- petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated [2024:RJ-JP:46162] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13773/2024] 25.10.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk Hkqlkoj] ftyk Hkjriqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 236@2023 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 143] 323] 341] 365 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gS vkSj rnqijkar Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 ds varxZr vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 ds varxZr izdj.k cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA fpfdRld dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vkgr dks dkfjr dksbZ Hkh pksV e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, laHkkfor ugha ikbZ xbZ gS vkSj u gh izk.k?kkrd ikbZ xbZ gS o vkgr dks dkfjr pksVsa fdlh ekfeZd Hkkx ij ugha gS] iSj ij dkfjr gSa] vf/kd ls vf/kd Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 325 ds varxZr vijk/k curk gS] tks fd vius vkiesa tekurh;

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 The matter pertains to the Year 2021. From a perusal of the Court file it is noted that no sincere efforts are taken by the counsel representing the parties, to contest the instant matter.

Even today, when the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.287/2024, registered at the Police Station Adarshnagar Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2) & 142 of BNS.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 25.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Kumawat for Mr. Shailender Balwada For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide an advertisement in the Year 2012, applications were invited for the [2024:RJ-JP:46382] (3 of 3) [CW-2354/2019] post of Constable moreover, total seats intake for the said post were approximately 49898.

It is further submitted that final result was declared and subsequent selection is made. Moreover, a legal notice was filed by the petitioner long ago.

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk [kksg] ftyk Mhx esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 106@2024 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 379] 419] 420] 468] 471] 120ch Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 66Mh vkbZVh ,DV esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 27-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS vkSj izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr gks pqdk gSA izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk,A fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tekur vkosnu dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 7 blh izdkj ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,d vH;Lr vijk/kh gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks ;fn tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds iqu% vijk/k esa lac) gksus dh laHkkouk ls budkj ugha [2024:RJ-JP:46141] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11696/2024] fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k tk,A cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k vuU; :i ls eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 27-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gSA rnqijkar iqfyl }kjk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;|fi ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa Hkh vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSa] ijarq pw¡fd izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gS vkSj izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gS] eSa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr le>rk gw¡A izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkfjQ mQZ ccyw iq= vklw dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr bl ekeys esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks'kizn] muds U;k;ky; esa fu;r frfFk;ksa ij ,oa tc Hkh mls ryc fd;k tkos] mifLFkfr gsrq 50]000@& dk O;fDrxr ca/ki= o 25]000&25]000@& #i;s dh nks lqn`<+ ,oa fo"oluh; izfrHkwfr;ka izLrqr djs rFkk mldh fdlh vU; izdj.k esa vko";drk u gks rks vfoyEc fuEu "krZ ij tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tkosA "krZ%& izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr izR;sd ekg dh 25 rkjh[k dks lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh ds le{k viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djk, rFkk lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr dks fu;ekuqlkj jftLVj esa ntZ djsxk o vfHk;qDr ds vuqifLFkr gksus ij lwpuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsxkA vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr yksd vfHk;kstd vfHk;qDr dh tekur dks fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 439¼2½ lhvkjihlh ds varxZr l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr djus dks Lora= jgsxkA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J MOHIT/Rameshwar/ 20 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk tqjgjk] ftyk Mhx esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 161@2024 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 379] 419] 420] 468] 471] 120ch Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 66Mh vkbZVh ,DV esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 26-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS vkSj izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr gks pqdk gSA izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk,A fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tekur vkosnu dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 7 blh izdkj ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,d vH;Lr vijk/kh gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks ;fn tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds iqu% vijk/k esa lac) gksus dh laHkkouk ls budkj ugha [2024:RJ-JP:46143] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12284/2024] fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k tk,A cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k vuU; :i ls eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 26-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gSA rnqijkar iqfyl }kjk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;|fi ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa Hkh vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSa] ijarq pw¡fd izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gS vkSj izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gS] eSa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr le>rk gw¡A izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkfjQ mQZ ccyw iq= vklw dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr bl ekeys esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks'kizn] muds U;k;ky; esa fu;r frfFk;ksa ij ,oa tc Hkh mls ryc fd;k tkos] mifLFkfr gsrq 50]000@& dk O;fDrxr ca/ki= o 25]000&25]000@& #i;s dh nks lqn`<+ ,oa fo"oluh; izfrHkwfr;ka izLrqr djs rFkk mldh fdlh vU; izdj.k esa vko";drk u gks rks vfoyEc fuEu "krZ ij tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tkosA "krZ%& izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr izR;sd ekg dh 25 rkjh[k dks lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh ds le{k viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djk, rFkk lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr dks fu;ekuqlkj jftLVj esa ntZ djsxk o vfHk;qDr ds vuqifLFkr gksus ij lwpuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsxkA vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr yksd vfHk;kstd vfHk;qDr dh tekur dks fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 439¼2½ lhvkjihlh ds varxZr l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr djus dks Lora= jgsxkA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J MOHIT/Rameshwar/ 29 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

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.

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.

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.

2. Sumit Bhardwaj Tehsildar (L.r), Laxmangarh, District Alwar

3. Shriram Meena S/o Deviram Meena, Principal Government Upper Primary School Kajota Laxmangarh

4. Mukesh Chand Meena, Lr Mauzpur

5. Sanjay Kumar Meena Patwari, Chimrawali Gaur

6. Imtiyaj Mohammed Patwari, Mauzpur A

7. Bhagat Singh Choudhari Patwari, Mauzpur B

----Accused/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/11/2024 Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, an appeal is provided under Section 14-A of the The Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989').

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.437/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46153] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13722/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.438/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46152] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13712/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.263/2024, registered at the Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station, Commissionerate Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 419, 120-B of IPC and 66 (C), 66 (D) of IT Act.

2. Heard.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.179/2024, registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 382, 336, 379, 323 & 143 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused namely; Abhishek S/o Hira Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.71/2024, registered at the Police Station Clock Tower, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341 & 308 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

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. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenging the judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') and order on sentence dated 11.01.2024 (hereafter 'the impugned order on sentence'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 103/2017 (Old SC No. 39/2017) arising out of FIR No.732/2016, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.

2. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), Sections 354/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Section 18 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 511 of the IPC read with Section 376 of the IPC as well as Section 506 of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

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. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

1. The case has been heard through Video Conferencing from Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Vaibhav Kalia (in bail no.1538/2023), Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava (in bail nos.11541/2022, 14110/2022, 14113/2022 & 14164/2022), Sri Manish Mani Sharma (in bail nos.1575/2023, 1640/2023, 1920/2023, 1998/2023, 2066/2023, 2090/2023 & 2316/2023), learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Ajai Kumar, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the informant as well as Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

First Bail Applications Moved On Behalf Of The Applicants:-

3. Applicant- Nandan Singh Bisht went to jail on 19.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 120-B, 34, 427 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. Mr. Khalid Jahangir Qazi, a national of United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India,1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking entry to India. He challenges the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him - order dated 12th May, 2023 issued by the Consulate General of India, New York,2 cancelling his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955,3 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and a subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Foreigners Act, 1946,4 restraining his entry into India. The underlying basis of these actions, as asserted by the Respondents, is the Petitioner's alleged involvement in activities deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of India.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal1 is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 19 February 2013 in terms of which an Award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal2 has come to be upheld. In terms of the Award dated 05 October 2005, the petitioner- appellant was directed to frame a policy of regularisation in respect of the respondent workmen. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned LPA Tribunal Single Judge have essentially held against the appellant on the ground that the engagement of the respondent-workmen through a contractor was merely a ruse to overcome the obligations which would have stood attached in case it were to be recognized to be the principal employer.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant regular first appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as 'CPC') seeking the following reliefs:

Signature Not Verified

RFA 9/2022 Page 1 of 60

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:12.11.2024

18:37:54

"(a) call, summon and peruse the records of the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Jay Thareja, Ld. ADJ-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.7447/2016 titled as "Apama Ashram Vs. Mohan Jha & Ors. ";

ANISH DAYAL, J.

"Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future"

- Justice V.R Krishna Iyer.

These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1485/2024 Page 1 of 58

Signing Date:12.11.2024

12:03:39

1. The petitioner seeks directions for setting aside the Minutes of Meeting of the Sentence Review Board ("SRB") held on 30th June 2023 rejecting the premature release of the petitioner and order dated 21 st November 2023 by which the Minutes of SRB were approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; ("LG"). Petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for premature release in FIR No.48/2001, PS Rajender Nagar for offences under Sections 302/186/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. Additionally, the petitioner prays that this Court frames guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 ("DPR").

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Criminal Appeals under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. have been filed by the appellants impeaching the judgment and order 10.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Shravasti in Sessions Trial No. 6/2006 (State vs. Dharmendra Kumar & another) arising out of Case Crime No. 135/1997, under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Ikauna, District Shravasti thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 25 Arms Act for two and a half years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine five months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. An FIR was lodged on 25.06.1997 at Police Station- Ikauna, District- Shravasti registered as Case Crime No. 135/1997, under Section 307 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25 Arms Act against the accused-appellant and Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu. As per the FIR, the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on provocation of accused Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu, the appellant opened fire with country made pistol, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant, on police party. In this incident, no one sustained firearm injury.

The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred to as 'MVC-III') under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') which are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'EDMC'). EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation').