(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.

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

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occasion, the respondent had filed a similar petition against the petitioners herein and her husband and the same was withdrawn by her in terms of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate.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

Sanjay Dhar, J

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

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

CM(M) 84/2024

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

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heard the parties.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Permission is granted.

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

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

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

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.359/2024, registered at the Police Station Bassi Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 352 of BNS.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it is revealed that no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners are both women. The alleged incident has taken place all of a sudden at an agricultural field.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and [2024:RJ-JP:46170] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12586/2024] circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the accused-petitioners both are women and no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners in the First Information Report, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

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

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

4. Mukesh Chand Meena, Lr Mauzpur

5. Sanjay Kumar Meena Patwari, Chimrawali Gaur

6. Imtiyaj Mohammed Patwari, Mauzpur A

7. Bhagat Singh Choudhari Patwari, Mauzpur B

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

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

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

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

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

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

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

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

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

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

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

2. Heard.

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

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

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

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

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

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

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

First Bail Applications Moved On Behalf Of The Applicants:-

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

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

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

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

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

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

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

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

ANISH DAYAL, J.

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

- Justice V.R Krishna Iyer.

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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

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

Signing Date:12.11.2024

12:03:39

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

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

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. In this original application, registered suo motu, the Tribunal is considering the issue of delay in filing the reports by the State Expert Committees and its effect on the unclassed forests.

2. By order dated 31.07.2024, 38 respondents were impleaded and notices have been served upon them.

3. Replies on behalf of only UT of Ladakh and State of Andhra Pradesh have been received.

4. The previous order also indicates that there are 7 States, i.e., Goa, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, who do not appear to have constituted the Expert Committees till now.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC submits that the Ministry is in touch with the authorities of all the States and the last meeting was held on 03.10.2024 and that after collecting the relevant information, the MoEF&CC will file the reply within four weeks.

1. The Miscellaneous application has been moved for clarification in respect of directions issued by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 194/2024 dated 30.09.2024.

2. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks. Respondents are directed to submit their reply within six weeks through E-filing portal, preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.

3. Applicant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondents by both ways and also on available email.

M A No. 19/2024(CZ) Dr. Brijmohan Sapoot Kala Sanskriti Sewa Sansthan vs. State of Rajasthan

4. Applicant is directed to supply the copy of the application and relevant documents to the Respondent(s) within a week and after compliance of service, the applicant has to submit an affidavit that the notice and copy of the application have been served upon the respondent(s).

1. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Singh, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant on admission.

2. The learned Counsel is referring to document at page 42 of the Original Application which is in Hindi vernacular. The Applicant should have filed the English translation of the said document since the Hon'ble Expert Member sitting at Chennai Bench cannot be expected to read this document.

3. Even otherwise, Rule 33 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules 2011 provides in clear and candid terms that the language of the Tribunal shall be English provided that the parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal may file documents drawn up in Hindi, if they so desire. Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion permit the use of Hindi in the proceedings, and the Tribunal hearing any matter in its discretion direct English translation of pleadings and documents to be filed.

1. Vide order dated 29.08.2024 Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit was directed to file the reply. Learned counsel representing respondent/ Prakash Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit has submitted that due to technical reasons reply has not been uploaded. The same may be filed within two weeks with copy to the opposite parties.

2. In the meantime, learned counsels for the State and BMC are directed to trace the map, revenue record with regard to allotment/allocation of green belt in the Map as approved.

3. Applicant present in person has submitted that the present matter relates only to the cutting of trees. MPPCB has issued notice to the Prakash Grih OA No. 139/2023(CZ) Krishnarani Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Nirman Sehkari Samiti Maryadit with assessment of environmental compensation but the same has not been replied till date. State PCB is directed to finalise the matter and report within two weeks.

1. Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the Applicant.

2. Affidavit dated 04.11.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.3, Central Pollution Control Board bringing on record the Joint Committee Report; the same is taken on record.

3. We find that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) has not been impleaded in the present proceedings as Respondent. We, accordingly direct the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) through its Chief Managing Director (CMD) be impleaded in the array of Respondents as Respondent No.5.

4. Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No.5 in the following address, returnable within four weeks: -

1. Heard Mr. Supriyo Dutta, representing the Applicant is present in person.

2. This Original Application has been registered on the basis of a letter petition submitted in the office of the Tribunal through email dated 18.07.2024 alleging that industrial factories and workshops around the village of the Applicant at Purbannapara located at Makardah Mouza under Domjur Block, District, Howrah has been causing severe environmental problems to the lives of the local people due to obnoxious gaseous effluents.

3. It is also alleged that the Saraswati Canal has been blocked due to it being used for dumping of waste water and other industrial waste material3 by several industries present in the area that continue unregulated dumping of the industrial wastes also resulting in deterioration of the environment in the locale.