(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 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. 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:-

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

1. Mr. Devansh Mohta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ.

2. Arguments could not be concluded today.

1

3. On the request of the Counsel for the parties, put up this matter for further hearing on 25.11.2024.

4. List on 25.11.2024 for further hearing.

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM November 11, 2024, Original Application No.44/2020/EZ With Miscellaneous Application No.31/2023/EZ In Original Application No.43/2020/EZ SKB

The 'preliminary report' dated 24.07.2020 filed by the Expert Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2020 is taken on record. On the request of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, adjourned to 06.08.2020. Liberty to file further submission, if any, before the next date.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S. P. Wangdi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM July 29, 2020 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) & Original Application No. 44/2020(EZ) DV

1. Though the Respondents No. 5 to 11 are served and affidavit of service has been filed but no one has entered the appearance on their behalf, nor any reply has been received from them.

2. The fresh report of the Joint Committee has been filed by the UPPCB along with the reply dated 08.11.2024.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks one week time to examine the report and file objection, if required.

4. It has also been pointed out that OA No. 269/2024 involving the same issue against the same project proponent is pending.

5. List alongwith OA No. 269/2024 on 21.11.2024.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM November 11, 2024 Original Application No. 121/2024 dv..

1.1 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Hearing concluded. Order reserved. The order will be uploaded on the website, after due consideration, on or before 19.02.2021.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM February 15, 2021 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) with connected matters DV

1. Case taken up by video conference on Vidyo App.

2. These cases are taken up together as identical questions have been raised. The Applicant in O.A. No. 43/2020/EZ, an environmentalist, who has preferred the application alleging failure of the Respondent Authorities in preventing the blowout of Baghjan 5 oil well of the Respondent No. 1, M/s. Oil India Ltd. (OIL in short), resulting in a massive fire causing irreparable loss to the entire biodiversity of the region and loss of lives and property.

3. It is stated that on 27.05.2020 at around 10:30 AM the producing well of Baghjan 5 under the Baghjan Oilfield of OIL in Tinsukia District, Assam, released natural gas in an uncontrolled manner. Baghjan is one of the 23 oil wells set up by OIL to tap the large gas reserves in the Brahmaputra basin located near the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The released gas is stated to be a mix of propane, methane, propylene and other gases that flow with the wind the condensate of which mostly falls on the bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru- Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants, including a wide variety of rare orchids. It harbours the tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill.

1. This order is being passed in continuation of orders dated 24.06.2020 and 02.07.2020 dealing with the issue of providing remedies to the victims and for restoration of environment as a result of incident of oil blowout on 27.05.2020 and other consequential events that followed at Baghjan in Tinsukia District of Assam.

2. The Tribunal noted the case of the applicant that as a result of blowout on 27.5.2020, the Baghjan Oil well set up by the Oil India Limited (OIL) released propane, methane, propylene and other gases causing damage to bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees in the area and also spread into the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park which, according to the Applicant, records over 40 mammals, 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants including a wide variety of rare orchids. The area harbours tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill. The oil also spilled into the Dibru river causing a film of oil in the river that passes through the Maguri- Motapung wetlands, an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, and along the Dibru Saikhowa National Park. The Maguri-Motapung Wetland, located less than 10 km from Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, is a part of the Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve (DSBR) and hosts some of the most vulnerable species of birds such as Swamp Francolin, Marsh Babbler, Greater Adjutant and Pallas's Fish-eagle, Red-headed Vulture and White-bellied Heron, and over 80 species of fish. River Dibru is a tributary of River Lohit which then forms river Brahmaputra in the lower reaches. Brahmaputra river system is also a home to Gangetic dolphins. As a result of the blowout, there was also a fire on 09.06.2020. The applicant has also stated that the blowout has left behind huge volumes of residue as gas condensate which is a mixture of chemical compounds that are toxic for land and vegetation and is a known carcinogen. The blowout is not only hazardous to the health of the people but also severely affect their livelihood whose occupation is mainly agriculture, fishing and animal rearing. 1610 families were displaced as a result of the gas leak.

Order 12/11/2024

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2024, registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 & 120-B of IPC; Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, co-accused Ashish was having love affair with the deceased- Kokila. The co-accused Ashish on turning relations sour with the deceased Kokila hatched a criminal conspiracy with the present petitioner to kill her. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner and co-accused Ashish took the deceased- Kokila to [2024:RJ-JD:45612] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9555/2024] a nearby place on a motorbike which was being driven by the present petitioner. The co-accused Ashish, thereafter, took the deceased- Kokila in a nearby dry river (nala) and cut her throat by a sharp weapon (knife). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a bare perusal of the challan pappers and the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clearly established that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. At the time when the deceased- Kokila was killed by the co-accused Ashish, the petitioner was not present at the place of incident. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was having any knowledge about the intentions of the co-accused Ashish to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the only allegation against the present petitioner is of taking the co-accused Ashish and deceased Kokila to a nearby place on motorbike on request being made by them. Learned counsel further submitted that the sharp weapon (knife) and a motorbike allegedly used in the commission of crime have been recovered at the instance of the co-accused Ashish. Learned counsel submitted that there is no incriminating material available on record indicating the involvement of present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 07/11/2024 This application arises from a jail appeal.

2. This application seeking suspension of sentence has been filed on behalf of Dilip @ Vinod who has been convicted and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment for committing the offences under sections 302, 458, 120-B, 460, 449, 328, 395, 396, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3/25 & 7/25 of the Arms Act.

3. Mr. Moti Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant refers to the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 3 rd Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1291/2022 by which Vijay Kumar @ Khushi son of Darpi @ Khushi has been enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 109/2012.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved with the order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Calcutta, West Bengal in Case No.CS59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC directing the petitioner for his appearance on 11.07.2024 and the order dated 11.07.2024 of the said Court by which it issued Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner for his appearance in said Case No.CS/59941/24.

3. Petitioner has filed this application under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India stating that as per the Business Loan Agreement dated 25.11.2023, with Loan Application ID No. 107024 the agreement was executed at Chennai with the respondent No.1, whereas, the borrower i.e., the petitioner/lonee is from the District of Karimganj, Assam, therefore, the Court at West Bengal does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any such proceeding on the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, Mintifi Finserve Private Limited under Section 200 CrPC with charge under Sections 406/420 IPC against the petitioner before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th at Calcutta being registered as Case No.CS/59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC. According to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th at Calcutta, West Bengal on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A. I. Uddin, Advocate For the respondents :

Dates of hearing : 08.11.2024 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023- 2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4"x5" size polybags.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. By filing this petition u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Sunu Ali @ Md.

Page No.# 2/8 Nur Hussain has prayed for granting regular bail in connection with NDPS case No. 187/2024 u/s 21©/29 of NDPS Act (arising out of STF PS case no. 20/23) pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The instant case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of heroine from the hidden chamber of Tata Yodha vehicle bearing no. AS-25EC-4464 and the present petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with the alleged contraband. Accordingly, the recovered items were seized and the present accused/ petitioner was arrested.

IA No. 23672 of 2024, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Shri Aditya Ghuraiya, learned counsel appearing for complainant along with his associates is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.146 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC.

Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2 W.P. No.10021-2024

The application is filed under Sec.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') by the 4th accused in Crime No.376/2024 of the Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against six accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii) (A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 6(b) r/w Section 24 of the COTPA Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2024

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused 1 to 6 had hatched a conspiracy to procure narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance to make illegal profit. Accordingly, the 1st accused received Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th accused and went in a car BAIL APPL. NO. 6026 OF 2024 2024:KER:83332 bearing registration No.KL-07-CA-4056 to Bangalore and purchased 180 grams of MDMA from the 6 th accused. After the accused 1 to 3 returned back to Kerala with the contraband article, they handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the 4th accused. They also proposed to give 100 grams of MDMA to the 5 th accused for the money he paid the 1st accused. While the 1st accused was traveling in the car with 100 grams of MDMA, 4 grams of ganja and Hans, to hand over the same to the 5th accused, the Detecting Officer intercepted the vehicle at Maradu, Ernakulam and seized 101.09 grams of MDMA from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

KOCHUVEETHIL HOUSE, ERANZHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031 BY ADVS.

MADHAVANUNNI V T LEO LUKOSE(K/001131/2016) T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001) VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN(K/000197/1983) B.G HARINDRANATH(SR.) SRI. RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADV.ALEX JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2024:KER:83495 CRL.MC NO. 3248 OF 2023 CR ORDE R Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time.

2

We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage.

The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of.

The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.

The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.

The Court: Liberty is granted to the advocate-on-record for the claimant to correct the description of the application in the cause title.

By communication dated September 3, 2024, learned sole arbitrator appointed by the court informed the parties that he had resigned from the matter. He thus refused to act as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

2

Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a suit. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) is also pending before the learned Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. As such, this Court must refrain from appointing an arbitrator as the issues involved in the suit are yet to be decided and the application under Section 8 of the said Act has been filed with similar prayers.

The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against an order dated October 26, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.1842/Kol/2017, for the assessment order 2009-10.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additional made by the A.O. towards unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions overlooking the fact that not even a single Director of the share subscribing companies appeared before the Assessing Officer nor provided a valid reason for their non-appearance?

Bivas Pattanayak, J. :-

1. The instant execution case has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-judgment debtor for execution of a decree dated 24th March, 2021 for a sum of Rs.12,54,607.68/-.

2. In its affidavit in support of tabular statement the decree holder contends that the judgement-debtor holds immovable property namely an office at Golpark Co-operative Housing Society, Flat no. 13/B2, 4th Floor, 49C, Govindapur Road, Lake Gardens (near Jodhpur Market), Kolkata-

2

700068 and operates bank account at UCO Bank, Park Circus Branch, Kolkata-700014.

3. The judgement debtor through its partner filed its affidavit of assets who contends that he possesses the above mentioned flat and the bank account.

By way of this order, I intend to dispose off aforesaid-captioned appeals. These appeals involve similar question of law in the background of identical set of facts.

1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145543 other connected cases

2. For brevity, the facts are being culled out from from FAO No.1112 of 1988.

3. Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 26th of August, 2022 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Phagwara exercising powers as ESI Court under ESI Act, 1948 whereby the petition filed under Section 75-78 of the ESI Act, 1948 by the respondent has been allowed.

4. Recovery certificate under Section 45-A was issued and attachment proceedings were initiated against the respondent through Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Phagwara for recovery of Rs.6690-95 paise. Respondent challenged the demand before ESI Court. It was claimed that the demand raised by the ESI Corporation was based on adhoc assessment without any survey. The demand has been raised w.r.t. 132 KV Sub Station, Phagwara. The same does not fall within the purview of ESI Act as the strength of the staff is only three in number. The staff employed for maintenance like Mali, Sweeper at the Sub Station are on the roles of XEN D/S and not on the roles of KV Sub Station. It was thus claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards ESI contribution.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07, dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian, District Kapurthala.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of ASI Nirmal Singh 51/Kpt: Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Stated that I was on duty at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Today I alongwith ASI Parvinder Singh 1517/Kpt, ASI Kanwaljit Singh 1539/Kpt were checking vehicles at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Then from side of Mundi Maur one motorcycle was seen coming and three persons with cut hair were riding the same. They were signaled to stop on seeing the naka of police they threw the 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146061 motorcycle and tried to run back. The driver of the motorcycle from the pocket of his pant, the person sitting in the middle from the pocket of his pyjama and the person sitting at the end from the pocket of his pant took out one transparent polythene bag and threw the same on the side of the road and therein orange colored tablets were clearly visible. They were apprehended and their names and address was inquired. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh @ Deepa son of Swaran Singh R/o village Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting in the middle disclosed his name as Manjit Singh @ Katta son of Vaid Singh Resident of Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting at the last disclosed his name as Gurnam Singh @ Gama son of Sewa Singh R/o Phulra P.S. Bhaini Mian Khan District Gurdaspur. I being local rank ASI cannot carry out proceedings under the NDPS Act. Therefore, I had given information at P.S. Talwandi Chaudhrian through phone to send investigating officer. You alongwith police party have reached at the spot. The polythene bags thrown by Balwinder Singh @ Deepa, Manjit Singh @ Katta and Gurnam Singh ® Gama are lying as it is. I have given my statement to you and same is correct."

1 This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case F.I.R. No.0108 dated 19.09.2021 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

2. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 255 grams of heroin.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years, 1 month and 17 days. Trial is proceedings at snail's pace as by now only 5 out of 11 witnesses could be examined.

1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2- 2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880 Ludhiana on Monday.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for second time seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR no.0608 dated 10.12.2023 under Sections 22(C), 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of trial.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :-

'Respected Sir, To the Station House Officer, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. Today on 10.12.2023, ASI Matlub Hussain No. 207/AMB HSNCB UNIT AMBALA, ASI SANDEEP KUMAR 75/A, EASI SURENDRA SINGH NO.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.09.2022, upon Sessions Case No.74 of 15.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in 1 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145851-DB CRA-D-1106-2022 AND CRA-D-62-2023 (O&M) -2- respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024.

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

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised PPA No.07/2020 M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 of 2015 passed under Section 5(1) of the Act holding the appellant to be in unauthorised occupation of the subject premises w.e.f. 01.03.2015, as well as another order dated 17.01.2010 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 (A) of 2015 passed under Section 7(2) and 7(2A) of the Act holding the appellant liable to pay dues of Rs.6,81,08,996/- as on 31.12.2019.

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

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

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

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 48 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Konark P.S. Case No.118 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.506 of 2021, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Konark, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 506, 34 of I.P.C.