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.

[2024:RJ-JD:45705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13676/2024 Ganpat Singh S/o Misri Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Narsingo Ki Dhani, P.s. Khuhari, Dist. Jaisalmer. Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Jaisalmer)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

[2024:RJ-JD:45604] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11138/2024 Gurvindra Singh @ Gindi S/o Dilawar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kamalewala, Teh. And Dist. Firozpur, Punjab (Lodged In Sub Jail Anupgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, PP JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

2. All the petitioners are accused in FIR No.40/2011 registered with Police Station Kotawali in the District of Jaisalmer for Offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

3. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2023, the charges were ordered to be framed for offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled [2024:RJ-JD:44266] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-2169/2023] Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").

4. The prosecution case is that on 31.01.2011, respondent No.2 along with other officials had gone to identify the area of encroachment on the public land made by Achal Singh, petitioner No.1. When the informant was measuring the site, all the petitioners objected and allegedly committed abuses like Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani to the informant and others and they committed assault as well.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023 (439 of Cr.P.C.). for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 140/2020 registered at Police Station S.T.F, District Bhopal for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 25/07/2024 Prosecution story, in short, is that complaint was lodged by one Bharat Singh, who is the President of Dilip Buildcon Limited stating that cheque bearing No. 235994 amounting to Rs.4,200/- has been made and amount of Rs.8,84,62,302/- has been cloned on the aforesaid cheque. The said cheque was submitted for clearance on 02/03/2020 before Punjab National Bank Branch Bandra Mumbai (Maharashtra), where the aforesaid cheque has already been cleared on 20/08/2020 for the said amount of Rs.4,200/-issued in the name of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55317 2 MCRC-46936-2024 Subbavarapu Satyanarayan. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, case has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.458/2023 registered at Police Station- Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioners is that on account of old enmity, they came together and petitioner Daulat fired a gunshot with pistol on the complainant while he was drinking beer in his car but the bullet hit the back gate of the car.

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

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

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

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

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDEX

1. Challenge in the present Para 1 Page 1-2 appeal

2. Background of the case Paras 2-9 Pages 2-6

3. Arguments on behalf of the Paras 10-13 Pages 6-10 appellants

4. Arguments on behalf of Paras 14-15 Pages 10-12 respondent no.1/plaintiff

5. Analysis and Findings Paras 16-38 Pages 12-25 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL

1. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 11.09.1992 vide which the Ist Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1988 passed by the trial Court and had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1 of 25 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145434 RSA-1920-1992 (O&M) [2] No.1 (presently represented by his LRs) for specific performance. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

CRM-42163-2024 For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the no objection pleaded by the State counsel, the application is allowed and copy of the judgment of acquittal Annexure A-7 dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind is taken on record. CRA-S-2545-2019

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the appellant who stood surety for accused Balwinder @ Binder, is directed to pay penalty of Rs.1 lac with further direction that the same be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector concerned.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Balwinder @ Binder who was accused in a criminal case having FIR No.23 dated 21.02.2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 283, 186, 341, 332, 353, 307, 395, 397, 406, 427, 436 and 120- B IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act, Police Station Pillukhera (Uchana) and he was granted bail and appellant stood as his surety in sum of Rs.1 lac. Subsequently, Balwinder @ Binder jumped bail and absconded. Resultantly, notice under Section 446 1 of 3 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144618 CRA-S-2545-2019 [2] Cr.P.C was served upon the appellant and he was imposed penalty of Rs.1 lac vide impugned order dated 11.04.2019.

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a case arising out of FIR No.140, dated 24.05.2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 511, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the abovesaid FIR (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was not initially named in the FIR and had no knowledge with regard to the pendency of the proceedings against him. Learned counsel further contends that even the summons/warrants were issued against the petitioner on a wrong address and he was never served in the present case. Even, the 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146455 CRM-M-38364-2024 - 2-.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 85, dated 12.09.2023, under Sections 379-B(2), 341, 336, 411, 201, 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shekhwan, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

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

"Statement of Kawaljit Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh R/o House No. 177 Loharka Road, Gali No.9 NRI Colony, Amritsar aged 49 years. M. No. 98884-30028. Stated that I am resident of aforementioned address and is doing work of Fashion Designer at Amritsar. My in-laws are residing in village Talwandi Jangla. My father in law name is Sucha 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145797 Singh son of Mohan Singh. Today I along with my wife Sarabjit Kaur aged 40 years went to meet my in-law's family at village Talwandi Jangla on Bullet Motorcycle No. PB-02-DV-4128 colour black. After meeting them at around 07:00 PM I along with my wife left for our house and at around 07:20 PM when we reach Qullian on Qadian to Batala road then one motorcycle came from back on which three boys were sitting. Two were clean shaved and one was in turban. They park their motorcycle in front of my motorcycle and stopped us. The boys told us that we should give them motorcycle and when I refused then one Hindu clean shaved person took our pistol and fired three shots in air to make us afraid. They took away my bullet motorcycle colour back No. PB02-DV-4128. I informed police by calling at 100 number and you have come at the spot."

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

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

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

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

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No.159, dated 05.07.2017, under Sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149 of IPC (challan presented under sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149, 201 IPC), registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Further prayer has been made for staying all the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR during the pendency of the present petition.

1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145330

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.31-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145123 CRM-M-1189-2017 [2] proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused failed to pay any contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1, which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

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

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

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

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 121, dated 08.08.2023, under Sections 307, 379-B(2), 411, 473 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural.

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

"Statement of Rahul Rathore son of Satpal Rathore son of Kabrika Singh resident of Back side of Rythem Place, Mandi Mullanpur PS Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, aged about 23 years, Mobile no:

82831-59149, it is stated that I am resident of above mentioned 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 address and I started learning the work of denting-painting after passing my 10th class in year 2015-16. Now I have one workshop situated near Mini Holland, Mandi Mullanpur under the name and style of B.R Motors. Yesterday 07.08.2023 at about 4:40 PM I took my car make Swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 whose denting-painting work was pending to Car Bazar, Ayali Chowk, Ludhiana from my workshop and at about 5:20 PM I took my car from said Car Bazaar and was going to Mullanpur and on my way I took some smoking material (Cigarettes-Bidi etc.) from one Khokha Shop) situated on the left side of PTCE Badowal from Railway Crossing Badowal and I along with my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu resident of Mandi Mullanpur in said car make Swift were smoking, meanwhile two young persons dressed as Nihang Sikhs came near our car and they were standing there and they got stopped us and asked that where are you going, on which I told them that we are going to Mullanpur. They told me that our motorcycle is out of fuel and kindly took us along with you. On which I took both the said Nihang Sikhs along in my car and we left from there. Meanwhile when we reached at main GT Road and turned towards Mullanpur City then one of the Nihang Sikh called to some person and told that our motorcycle is out of fuel, kindly refill the fuel and stand near PTCE Badowal and get me communicate with that Khokha (shop) owner and took motorcycle from there. Thereafter when my car reached in front of the Baba Zahir Bali Badhowal then the Nihang Sikh who was sitting on the back seat took out his pistol and pointed it towards the temple of my friends namely Sagar @ Bhalu. I stopped my vehicle, on which my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu ran away towards backside after opening the door of the car and both the Nihang Sikhs present in the car told that get out from the car otherwise we will shoot you. I protested for the same then the Nihang Sikh sitting on the back seat of the car opened a fire shot of his pistol towards me and it hit on the bicep of my left arm and pierced through it and the other Nihang Sikh pulled me out from the car by opening the door and took me out from the car and both the said Nihang Sikh snatched my car make swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 and ran 2 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 away towards Mullanpur Mandi Side. There was flow of blood from my arm, due to which several passers-by got together at the spot and I took lift from some motorcycle rider and reached at my workshop at Mullanpur Dhaka, Where one Birbal took me to Civil Hospital Sudhar in his car make Creta. They referred me further to Civil Hospital Ludhiana and from there I was got admitted to Bhiwan Hospital, Kaccha Malk road, Jagraon by my father namely Satpal Rathore after arranging a vehicle. Here my treatment is going on. Kindly take required legal action against both the said unknown Nihang Sikhs. I have got recorded my statement to you, heard it as correct. SD/- Rahul verified by SD/- Satpal Rathore attested SD/ - Dharminder Singh ASI PS Dhaka dated 08.08.2023"

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.32-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145104 CRM-M-614-2017 [2] 85 (e) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused have failed to submit the return of contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (e) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1 which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(e) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein prays for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, whereby the election(s) for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District Ludhiana, has been cancelled just few hours before the start of polling, thus inter alia on the ground, that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has been condemned unheard, besides is beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner further seeks the making of a mandamus, thus directing the official respondents to immediately hold the elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District 1 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146136-DB Ludhiana, between the candidates (i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.8) whose nomination papers were validly accepted and to whom election symbols were allotted by the Returning Officer.

Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondent concerned to pay the compensation of the land/house of the petitioner which has been acquired for construction of Babura-Doriganj approach road and bridge as per the rate prescribed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 12 decimal land of petitioner bearing Khata No. 2623, Khesra No. 1916 and 1918 was acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No. 01/12-13 for construction of Babura- Patna High Court CWJC No.4465 of 2018 dt.11-11-2024 Doriganj approach road and bridge. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have paid compensation to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the rate fixed in the year 2012 though in the year 2014 new rate has been fixed by the competent authority and hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per rate fixed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings. It is submitted that in spite of several requests made by petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has not paid the enhanced compensation.

and submitted an inspection report on 11.05.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the inspection report dated 11.05.2024, the only allegation, which has been made, is regarding enhancement of charges in respect of hajri form disproportionately and Patna High Court CWJC No.10426 of 2024 dt.12-11-2024 discontinuance of the share of Advocates and Advocate clerks in the same, resulting in resentment in the Bar, apart from some allegations being made in the said report regarding functioning of the Committee during the period 2022 to 2024, for which the petitioner is not responsible, inasmuch as his financial power had been seized vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

, made by the Circle Officer, Baheri, affected families, including the petitioners have though been paid some amount of compensation, however, the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issues by the Principal Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter dated 26.05.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 95,100/- each, in view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and in light of the report submitted by the Revenue Karmchari dated 12.04.2016.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question").

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.

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 Gursharan Singh 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, his wife and his son 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 son of the accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if he fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the son of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused.

30.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd of Rs.1,67,775/-) = (-)Rs. 55,925/-

30.5. Multiplicand ( Rs.1,67,775−Rs.55,925/-) = Rs. 1,11,850/- 30.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:

Rs. 1,11,850/- ( multiplicand) x 14 (multiplier)= Rs.15,65,900/-

Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:

31. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :

''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses..... .

1. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2013 complainant Late Sh. Prithvi Bhatia, r/o B-1/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, gave a complaint at PS Paschim Vihar, stating that he was residing at the above said address with his family. Around 2½ years back, he had got the knees of his wife operated and he required a nurse. He got a nurse/maid named Geeta from one Medicare Agency. She came for night duty to their house for 6-8 months. They also used to give an amount of Rs. 600/- towards tuition fees of her daughter. Thereafter she came to their house on 14.09.2013 and told them that she had to purchase a house and asked for Rs. 3 Lakhs, however, they refused. At this, she started quarreling with them and they sent her away from their house. She threatened them to see them and went away. After some time she came with two police officials and started shouting. The police persons namely ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir came and started threatening them that they would implicate him in a rape case and get him sent to jail for a year like Bapu Aasa Ram, who was lodged in jail or to give Rs. 6 Lakhs to settle the matter. They also told that otherwise they will take him to jail and take remand. The complainant got scared and they obtained Rs. 6 Lakhs from him. The complainant further stated that he was suffering from cancer for the past thirty years and used to remain ill. He was 56 years old and he was even not capable of the allegations made by them. He sought that the complaint must be acted upon and he should be returned his money.

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 6

(i) "Please provide me with the action taken report on my complaint filed on 30th March 2023.

(ii) Please provide me with the present status of the above-mentioned complaint.

(iii) Please provide me with the norms for disposal of complaints, including the number of days within which complaints are expected to be disposed of, as per the citizen charter."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"As far as internal Vigilance Section of DoPT under this CPIO is concerned, it may be informed that your complaint dated 30.03.2023 was received electronically from CVC vide Commission's OM No. 10929/2023/vigilance-9 dated 11.04.2023 and the same was forwarded to PESB and Estt.II Division, DoPT, for further necessary action at their end, as the subject matter of your complaint was pertaining to them, vide this Department's OM No. C-13014/1/2021-Vig. dated 09.05.2023 (copy enclosed)."

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I satyapal Singh was working as a lecturer in Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI) at Computer Engineering Department from Aug 2008 to Aug 2018.

Page 1 of 8

Kindly provide me the following information under the RTI Act 2005

1. Provide me Seniority List of DSGMC employees.

2. Provide me my Personal Account Number as a DSGMC Employee.

3. Provide me my Employee Code as DSGMC employee."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

"Please provide the specific information / clarification on Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. (updated as on 19.09.2022)

(i) Please inform who are 'such Government Servant' referred under Rule 63 (2)(a) above

(ii) Please clarify whether Rule 63(2)(a) is applicable to only to those Government servants refereed 63(1)(a) and (b)

(iii) Whether both the actual amount of leave salary (Rule 63(1)) and study leave conversion to regular leave (Rule 63 (2) (a) are applicable to all government servants referred in 63 (1) and 63 (2)

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

[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;

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.

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?

1. By order dated 3rd July 2024, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing the Second Appeal finally at the admission stage :

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court could have enhanced the quantum of the plaintiff's claim in the absence of any cross-

appeal or cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the quantum regarding the claim of the plaintiff decreed by both the Courts is on correct appreciation of the Surveyor's report at Exhibit-59, relied upon by the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the appellant proved that there was any fraud committed by the plaintiff at the time of submitting the claim ?

(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:

(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.

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.