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.

Business Wire India

McKay Brothers (“McKay” or “the Company”), a market leader in ultra-low latency market data and wireless networks, today announced that Citadel Securities has made a minority investment in McKay to support the continued growth of its global data and connectivity business.

Under the terms of the transaction, Citadel Securities will receive an equity stake in the Company and McKay’s co-founders, Stéphane Tyč and Bob Meade, will continue to hold the controlling majority of the Company’s equity. Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

McKay will continue to operate independently and under its core business principles, which include offering its subscribers a level playing field and equal access to the lowest latency service.

Bob Meade, McKay co-founder, said: “Citadel Securities’ investment provides ongoing validation of McKay’s vendor model, which offers services on a level playing field to all subscribers. The investment also bolsters our already strong financial position and supports our commitment to innovation and technical excellence.”

Stéphane Tyč, McKay co-founder, added: “Our service vendor model makes our lowest latency available to all subscribers and ensures it cannot be dominated by any market participant, contributing to fair and competitive markets. This agreement with Citadel Securities maintains McKay’s autonomy and supports our continued growth.”

About McKay Brothers:

McKay - through McKay Brothers, LLC, Quincy Data, LLC and other controlled affiliates - are the world’s leading providers of ultra-low latency market data technology and wireless infrastructure. The company has served the financial markets' most demanding trading firms since 2012. McKay services are anchored by faster-than-fiber wireless networks interconnecting major global financial centers with curated market data and time-sensitive trade messages. All services are provided under a Level Playing Field policy, meaning the fastest services are made available to any subscriber.

Learn more at: www.mckay-brothers.com and www.quincy-data.com

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241111274615/en/

which was notified by the Bihar Government vide letter No. 14/DLA-Margdarshal- LA Act (Bharat Sarkar)-238/2013-1342 dated 14.12.2015 in the light of Section 24 (i) (a) of the Provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioners in the light of Market value of the land on 01.01.2014.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the light of fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

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.

1. By this judgment, I shall decide present claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, filed by the petitioners/ legal representatives of Mr. Yugal Kishor (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who sustained fatal injury in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition and the documents annexed thereto are that on 06.11.2020 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased as pillion rider on a scooter (make-Activa) bearing registration no. HR51AN-8607, being driven by his colleague Dev Narayan Thakur at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was going to his house from his workplace. When they reached near Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. HR63B-5016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.1 Sunil at a high speed, rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit the scooter with a great force. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and came under the wheel of the offending truck and sustained head injury. The deceased was immediately removed to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared and he was declared 'brought dead' and his postmortem was conducted at Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Amrinder Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act").

Complainant's Case

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused and his parents approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if the accused fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

Brief statement of reasons for the decision

1. This case has been instituted by the complainant, Mr. Pawan Kumar under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, Mr. Ved Prakash Dhuria for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").

Brief Facts:

2. The substance of the allegations and assertion of the complainant is that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused on 09.10.2018 for four months with interest at the rate of 2% per month, given the needs of the accused and cordial relations between them. It is alleged that a loan agreement and receipt dated 09.10.2018 were also executed between the parties. It is further alleged that the accused issued two post-dated cheques, cheque No. 000029 dated 06.04.2021 and cheque No. 000030 dated 06.04.2021 both for a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- each drawn on Bank, Of India, Pitampura Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2024.11.11 15:18:42 +0530 "impugned cheque"). After an expiry of four months and despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the loan amount, then, a legal notice dated 14.03.2019 was sent to the accused to discharge his liability. Then, on instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the impugned cheques at his bank. However, both were dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide memos dated 07.04.2021. Then, a demand notice dated 13.04.2021 was sent to the accused's address via Speed Post calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts. Despite the service of notice upon the accused, neither the accused paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017

2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017

3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035.

4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.

And Also at:

M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co.

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.

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking the following information:

"1. The name of revenue villages with survey nos of tower line erected for PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

2. The copy of item wise list of cut and removed trees, category, age, analysis and evaluation certificate from Agriculture Department for erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

3. The copy of details of the following a. Land compensation paid.

b. Compensation paid for crops (item wise) c. Compensation paid for trees (item wise) For erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd-800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dt?

Heard both sides.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The Petitioner is the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager at their Zonal Office, Trichirappalli. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the First Respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Chennai made in I.D.No.22 to 25 of 2007 dt. 27.7.2010 these writ petitions were filed by them.

3. The 1st Respondent CGIT by its Common Award granted the following relief to the 2nd Respondent workmen in all the WPs:-

“In the result all the petitioners in ID 22/2007, 23/2007, 24/2007 and ID 25/2007 are entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but they are not entitled to back-wages for the whole period during which they remained out of employment of Respondent. After reinstatement into service the Management may start a process for the regularization of the workmen if and in accordance with the rules in vogue they are entitled to the same.”

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are at the instance of the petitioner / appellant and the respondent respectively. In both the cases, challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 24 CMA NO.3541 OF 2017 & CROSS OBJ. NO.51 OF 2019 2017 passed by the ‘Principal Family Court, Coimbatore’ ['Family Court' for short], in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015. This Common Judgment will govern both of them.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 & 2, thereby rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and ordered for maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month, payable by the third respondent to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is his daughter. The petitioner has one daughter and one son. The petitioner had purchased a house plot comprised in S.F.No.144/2 at Koranampatti, Edappadi Taluk, Salem district, to an extent of 3744½ sq.ft., in which the petitioner also constructed a small hut and living there. It was purchased by him through registered sale deed dated 24.11.2010 vide document No.4313 of 2010. After marriage of the third respondent, due to love and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis affection, the petitioner had executed settlement deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the third respondent on 13.12.2019 vide registered document No.5380 of 2019. However, the third respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner to vacate the hut which is put up in the settled property.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.10.2023, thereby partly allowed the complaint filed by the fifth respondent and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, in favour of the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner is the son of the fifth respondent and the respondents 6 & 7 are the daughters of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent got married one Kala and gave birth to the petitioner and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 6 & 7 herein. The property ad measuring 493 sq.ft., situated at Door No.7/1, 9th lane, Narayan nayakkan Street, Pudupet, Chennai, was settled in favour of the fifth respondent by his father. It consists ground floor plus 2 floors. In the ground floor, there is an yarn company and employees are staying in the said premises. The fifth respondent's wife owned property at Chintadripet, in which the petitioner is receiving the rent of Rs.25,00,000/- per month. The petitioner is doing his business in the Chintadripet house.

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

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

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.

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full;

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.

RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 12th NOVEMBER 2024 _______________________ Judgment (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.)

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 18-WP(L)-17982-2024(J).DOCX

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly, the petition challenges an order dated 30 th March 2024 passed by respondent No.1 ("impugned order" for short). By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner dated 9 th November 2022 seeking waiver of interest charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Income Tax Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 ("A. Y. Year 2021-22" for short) stood rejected. The reliefs/prayers in the petition are set out at pages 52 to 54 in para 12 thereof. The substantive relief/prayer is to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and to grant waiver of interest for an amount of Rs.3,88,59,353/- charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act. Such is the limited issue for consideration before us.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

1. The present petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act'), by the original claimant seeking to quash and set aside the arbitral award dated 4th February 2022, passed by the sole arbitrator. FACTS

2. On 5th May 2016, a tender was published by the Divisional Railway Manager (Mechanical), Central Railway, Mumbai (for short 'Railways') towards the work of Pest and Rodent Control, in railway Diksha Rane 24. ARBP 43-23-FINAL.doc passenger coaches maintained at CSTM, WB, MZN, DRT and LDT, Coaching Depots and Rodent Control in Coaching Depots yard and premises. The petitioner participated in the tender process and on 7 th June 2016, was declared as the successful bidder. Accordingly, the contract work of the said tender was awarded to the petitioner, for an amount of Rs.1,96,32,255/-. The contract period was for three years i.e. from 30th November 2016 to 29th November 2019.

Through: -

CORAM:

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

11.11.2024

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

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

08-11-2024

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

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

11.11.2024 Ms. Rasheeda Shaheen, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2-Showkat Ali Para has expired and is now representing the respondent No. 1 & 3.

Let requisite application along with death certificate for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Showkat Ali Para be submitted by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of contesting the case of the petitioners.

In the meantime, an application CM 733/2024 has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 3 with respondent No. 2 being no more, as such, cannot be referred for the purpose of being an applicant seeking release of the awarded amount as awarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Bentley Motors Ltd. amână planul de a oferi doar vehicule complet electrice (EV – electric vehicles) până în 2030, pentru că vânzările de EV-uri continuă să dezamăgească la nivel de industrie. Compania va extinde termenul pentru strategia de afaceri „Beyond100” – acum denumită „Beyond100+” – cu cinci ani, până în 2035, a declarat președintele și ...

The post Bentley Motors amână planul pentru producția de vehicule electrice appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Operatorul bursei elvețiene, SIX Group AG, a convenit achiziția Aquis Exchange Plc, o bursă de tranzacționare și furnizor de date din Marea Britanie, într-o tranzacție cu o valoare de aproximativ 194 milioane de lire sterline (250 milioane de dolari), potrivit Bloomberg. Conform unui comunicat de presă emis luni, consiliul Aquis a recomandat în unanimitate această ...

The post Bursa elvețiană cumpără Aquis din Marea Britanie în cea mai mare achiziție din 2020 appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Inovația și viziunea din spatele clinicilor Prodent Dr. Gruia: integritate, performanță și tehnologie digitală la standarde internaționale. Dr. Dan Gruia, Medic stomatolog implantolog, antreprenor și fondator Prodent Dr. Gruia Cum vedeți antreprenoriatul în sistemul medical? Antreprenoriatul bun, de succes, în sănătate este important, nu doar pentru a moderniza și eficientiza îngrijirea pacienților, dar și pentru ...

The post Stomatologie, implantologie și antreprenoriat de succes appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Adunarea Generală a creditorilor companiei Angst a aprobat valorificarea a patru spații comerciale din București și unul din Ilfov, cu valoare totală de piață de 3,6 milioane de euro. Infinexa, companie antreprenorială românească specializată în restructurarea și finanțarea firmelor aflate în dificultate, anunță scoaterea la licitație a cinci spații comerciale ce aparțin procesatorului de carne ...

The post Creditorii companiei Angst au aprobat vânzarea unor spații comerciale în valoare de 3,6 milioane de euro appeared first on Forbes Romania.

BASF a primit aprobarea de finanțare din partea Ministerului Federal German pentru Afaceri Economice și Acțiune Climatică pentru construcția celei mai puternice pompe de căldură industriale din lume. Astfel, în următoarele luni, compania va putea începe lucrările de construcție pregătitoare pentru acest proiect la platforma sa din Ludwigshafen. Proiectul își propune să aducă o contribuție ...

The post BASF primește aprobarea de finanțare pentru construcția celei mai mari pompe de căldură industriale din lume appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Ministerul Energiei din Norvegia a anunțat că a ajuns la un acord cu şapte proprietari privaţi pentru ca Guvernul să preia cea mai mare parte a reţelei de gazoducte a ţării începând cu anul 2024. Anul trecut, autorităţile de la Oslo au informat că intenţionează să naţionalizeze cea mai mare parte a vastei reţele de ...

The post Norvegia va prelua, pentru 1,64 miliarde de dolari, rețeaua de gazoducte a țării appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Moneda naţională s-a depreciat, marţi, în raport cu euro, care a fost calculat de Banca Naţională a României (BNR) la 4,9761 lei, în creştere cu 0,12 bani (+0,02%) faţă de cotaţia precedentă, de 4,9749 lei. De asemenea, leul a pierdut teren în faţa dolarului american, care a fost cotat la 4,6867 lei, în creştere cu ...

The post BNR: Leul s-a depreciat marți în raport cu principalele valute appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Heard Sri.Madhavachar M., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Kashyap N. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction passed in C.C.No.52961/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act', for short) and confirmed in Crl.A.No.25159/2021, has filed present revision petition.

3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under;

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against the accused contending that the complainant had entered into a Partnership Agreement dated 10.07.2014 NC: 2024:KHC:44402 with the accused for a period of one year commencing from 14.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 to engage and run the business of sale, marketing of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, etc, in the name of and style of "Quality MRP Shop", which was licenced in the name of Sri.C.M.Kumar, at Madikeri. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was invested by the complainant as capital for running the said business in the partnership and also additional amount was paid by the complainant at the request of the accused.

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.762/2014 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the appellant -accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 years offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 to 9.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court dated 05.10.2024 in O.S.No.7166/2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court also sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing or acting upon the invocation notice dated 28.09.2024 and from taking any further action regarding transfer or encumbrance of the pledged shares of Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (100%), Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (51%) or Agara Techzone Pvt. Ltd. (12%) or from enforcing any security under the Bond Trust Deed and Pledge Agreements, until final adjudication of the rights of the parties by the Trial Court and inter alia sought for the relief on I.A.No.2 to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from enforcing or acting upon invocation notice dated 28.09.2024. The respondents also filed applications and order is passed only on I.A.Nos.2 to 4. It is also borne out from the records that caveat was also filed and learned counsel for both the parties were heard and suit was filed before the Vacation Court and I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 11(3) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act to take up the matter before the Vacation Court and the same was allowed.

4. In brief, the present appeal arises out of the dismissal of the appellant's suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the event the divorce suit subsequently initiated by the wife is decided, the same may prejudice the outcome of the present appeal.

6. That apart, the divorce suit was initiated by the wife subsequent to the initiation of the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. Accordingly, apart from the husband otherwise being entitled to an order of stay in lieu of the circumstances as indicated above, the principle of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be deemed to be applicable in the present case.

Petitioner is in custody for 11 months. He submits there was a romantic relationship between the parties. Victim has already been examined. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

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

3. Inspite of notice nobody appears for the victim.

4. We have considered the deposition of the victim. Though she is a minor, she admitted there was friendly relationship between the parties. Her deposition is complete. There is little possibility of trial concluding in the near future.

1. Petitioner/defendant challenged herein order no. 91 dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd court Ranaghat, Nadia in Title Suit No. 78 of 2010. By the order impugned learned court below accepted local investigation Commission report provisionally and fixed the next date for hearing argument of the suit.

2. The brief background of the present case is that one Kumar Krishan Mondal since deceased, father of the petitioner and the original opposite party no. 1 (predecessor of present opposite parties) was the absolute owner of the land measuring about 8.25 decimal in plot no. 452 by way of deed of conveyance dated 24th August, 1955. The said opposite party no. 1, since deceased purchased 5 decimal of the land of the suit property out of said 8.25 decimal of the land from his father aforesaid Kumar Krishna Mondal by a registered deed dated 10.07.1969. Thereafter the said Kumar Krishna died intestate leaving behind legal heirs i.e. the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein, defendant/petitioner herein and another son Bimal Mondal and his widow and two daughters who jointly inherited the remaining 3.25 decimal of land of their father in the suit plot.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013.

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.