PwC has today been announced as the first employer partner for a new Pathways in Technology (P-TECH) style pilot at McCarthy Catholic College, Emu Plains.

The world's top 40 mining companies were in a race to the bottom in 2015, with falling market capitalisations and net losses leaving them slower, lower and weaker, according to PwC's Mine 2016 report released today.

A lack of diversity in Australia's media and entertainment workforce in terms of ethnicity, gender, age and thinking is dragging on the industry's growth, according to a PwC report released today.

The European Union will spend €1.4 billion (about $1.5 billion) next year to bolster deep tech research and support scale-ups in strategic areas like AI, low-carbon technologies, agritech and biotech, the European Commission said on Tuesday. The budget for the 2025 Work Program of the European Innovation Council (EIC), part of the bloc’s flagship Horizon Europe […]

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

Alison Roman discusses her growing list of digital projects — and her Upstate New York grocery store, First Bloom.

Adam Cohen, founder and CEO of Stic, shares his roadmap for success for the car-based ad tech startup.

A woman scanned a forgotten lottery ticket in her bag and got the surprise of her life.

Here's how you can build productivity by setting realistic expectations, over-delivering when possible and embracing a positive mindset.

Carlos Ugalde, founder of House of Chingasos, didn't know anything about digital marketing — but he dove in anyway.

About two out of five employees are affected.

Digital PR is often expensive and misleading, with agencies charging high fees for services that offer little value, fake media placements and no guaranteed results.

There have been rumors that Apple is working on a smart ring, but Oura's CEO thinks it's just talk. Here's why.

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

1. Voyager 2's Historic Flyby of Uranus Exposes Rare Magnetic Distortion  Gadgets 360
2. Potential For Life Found On Uranus' Moons, Scientists Reveal  NDTV
3. The anomalous state of Uranus’s magnetosphere during the Voyager 2 flyby  Nature.com
4. New Uranus research suggests what’s known about the planet could be wrong  CNN
5. Voyager-2 visited Uranus in 1986. Something more happened when it arrived  India Today

1. Ricky Ponting Fires Back At Gautam Gambhir After India Coach's Press Conference Remarks  NDTV Sports
2. A fired-up Virat Kohli is Australia's worry after Ricky Ponting's 'bad move'  The Times of India
3. I was not taking a dig at Kohli, Gambhir is a prickly character: Ponting | Border-Gavaskar Trophy to begin on November 22 | Inshorts  Inshorts
4. ‘Hunger’ key for coach Gautam Gambhir, not form as India prepares for Australia Test series  Telegraph India
5. ‘That’s a bad move, Ricky. What are you doing?': Ponting's Virat Kohli jibe questioned amid 'spicy' ball-tampering claim  Hindustan Times

1. 'Duniya bewakoof hai': Basit Ali gives unique solution to India-Pakistan Champions Trophy stand-off  The Times of India
2. ICC in a catch-22 situation amid PCB's steadfast stance on hosting Champions Trophy  Cricbuzz
3. How much money Pakistan can lose if Champions Trophy is moved or postponed  The Times of India
4. Champions Trophy: PCB wants an explanation in writing from India for refusal to travel  ESPNcricinfo
5. "Unless Pakistan Cricket Board Decides To Pull Out...": ICC's New Plan On Champions Trophy Revealed  NDTV Sports

1. Khushi Kapoor reacts to her rumoured relationship with Vedang Raina: 'It’s best to keep your personal lif  TOI Etimes
2. Khushi Kapoor opens up about her dating life amid romance rumours with Vedang Raina: ‘I understand the curiosity…’  Hindustan Times
3. Khushi Kapoor Confirms Dating Vedang Raina By Wearing Bracelet With His Name? See Here  News18
4. Khushi Kapoor’s bracelet spells out rumoured boyfriend Vedang Raina’s name, netizens ask, ‘Official finally?’  The Indian Express
5. Khushi Kapoor on public scrutiny of her dating life: Let work be the priority  India Today

1. Producer Ratan Jain confirms talks with Shah Rukh Khan for Baazigar sequel: 'It will definitely be made'  TOI Etimes
2. Shah Rukh Khan in talks to star in ‘Baazigar’ sequel  The Hindu
3. Producer Ratan Jain finally breaks silence on Baazigar 2 with Shah Rukh Khan, says 'it will definately be made  India TV News
4. Shah Rukh Khan to star in Baazigar 2? Producer Ratan Jain says sequel will ‘definitely be made’  PINKVILLA
5. Shah Rukh Khan To Reprise His Iconic Role In Baazigar 2? Producer Ratan Jain Breaks Silence  Times Now

1. Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 box office collection Day 12: Kartik Aaryan starrer still trailing behind 'Singham Agai  TOI Etimes
2. Singham Again team was being ‘unfair’, says Bhushan Kumar: ‘It got unpleasant, but they assured me…’  The Indian Express
3. Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 vs Singham Again box office collection day 12: Kartik Aaryan-led horror comedy, Ajay Devgn's film in neck-and-neck fight ahead of Kanguva release  Business Today
4. Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 box office collection: Kartik Aaryan film overtakes Singham Again, storms past 300 crore in 10 days  Hindustan Times
5. Hindi video: Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 Ami Je Tomar 3.0 full video goes viral; who won dance dare, Madhuri Dixit or Vidya Balan?  Mint

1. Trump announces Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel: 'He loves...'  The Times of India
2. Trump picks former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to be Ambassador to Israel  The Hindu
3. Trump Picks Pro-Israel 'Hawk' Mike Huckabee As American Ambassador To Israel  The Times of India
4. Video captures Trump's Israel ambassador pick saying in 2016, 'there's really no such thing as a Palestinian'  CNN

1. "Combining Indian Hospitality With Swiss Quality": CEO On New Noida Airport  NDTV
2. First Flight To Land At Noida International Airport In 72 Hours, Full Ops Expected By April 2025  News18
3. Noida International Airport: Preparations for test flights done, operations to begin from THIS date | Details  India TV News
4. Noida or Delhi airport? What’s better for Delhi-NCR residents – Here’s how New Delhi-Mumbai Expressway will shape the choices  The Financial Express
5. Who should opt for Noida or Delhi Airport? How will it cut short travel time? Here’s a breakdown  The Indian Express

1. Delhi air pollution: Smog causes low visibility in NCR; AQI 'very poor' for 15th day | Latest updates  Hindustan Times
2. Thick Smog Blankets Delhi-NCR, Air Quality Index Crosses 400-Mark  NDTV
3. What is AQI? Understanding India's air quality and how to check it  India Today
4. Season's first dense fog hits Delhi, visibility plunges to zero at IGI airport  Moneycontrol
5. Fog, smog, and suffering: From Delhi to Assam, cities engulfed in toxic air - see pics  The Times of India

1. Vivek Ramaswamy’s special message to Elon Musk after Donald Trump's 'DOGE' announcement  Hindustan Times
2. Trump’s 'Manhattan Project' of government reform: Musk and Ramaswamy to lead efficiency crusade  The Times of India
3. Donald Trump picks Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy to lead newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)  The Hindu
4. Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy to lead DOGE to clean up US bureaucracy: Trump  India Today
5. Vivek Ramaswamy trends on Google after Trump nominates him to lead efficiency department  The Indian Express

1. "Legal Process Shouldn't Prejudge Guilt Of Accused": Supreme Court On Bulldozer Justice  NDTV
2. Supreme Court’s Big Ruling On Bulldozer Justice: 'Guilt Of An Accused Can't Be Prejudged'  News18
3. Bulldozer justice: Executive can't become judge, demolish house of accused, SC says  The Times of India
4. Unconstitutional to demolish house without following due process merely because they are involved in a crime: SC  The Indian Express
5. Supreme Court's key verdict on ‘bulldozer justice’ today | What happened in hearings  Hindustan Times

(08.11.2024)

01. Petitioners through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek the following reliefs:-

i. Mandamus commanding the respondents to prematurely release the petitioners who have been languishing behind bars from more than 22 years.

ii. Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce record of Board meeting for pre-release of life convicts which was constituted in year 2019 and also produce record pertains to issuance of S.O. 390 dated 09.08.2024 of Home Department alongwith complete list of recommended convicts who are recommended for remission in the year 2024 and also recommendation of Board for pre-mature release.

(08.11.2024)

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

(i) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly respondent No. 3 to hand over the physical possession of plot No. 288/15 Sector-C measuring 44'x60' at Sainik Colony Jammu to the petitioner by executing all necessary documents.

(ii) The respondent No. 3 be further directed to extend the period of 05 years as stipulated in condition No. 4 of the perpetual lease deed dated 18/07/1994 for raising constructions.

08.11.2024 Land Mesuring 03 kanals 02 marlas falling under khasra No. 2549/2406 Min situated at Phagmula Tehsil Pogal Paristan, District Ramban and land measuring 10 marlas falling under khasra No. 2549/2406 situated in the same village along with residential house constructed thereon is said to have been taken over by the respondents for construction of the road.

In the reply filed by the Collector, it has been submitted that the indent has been placed by Chief Engieer, Jammu vide No. CEJ/PMGSY/6706-09 dated 03.07.2023 for acquisition of land in question along with residential house in question. However, it is not mentioned in the reply as to whether any notification for acquisition of the property in question pursuant to the indent has been issued. It appears that pursuant to the indent dated 03.07.2023, the Collector has not issued the notification for initiating the process for acquisition of the property in question in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

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

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.

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.

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. 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:-

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 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  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.