Datasets:

openlegalai

/

poil-paper-samples

like 0

Follow

Open Legal AI 2

65c446fc11849500389847aa

blog

MiscellaneousCoal Block Allocations and the 2015 BillPrachee Mishra- March 7, 2015Earlier this week, Lok Sabha passed the Bill that provides for the allocation of coal mines that were cancelled by the Supreme Court last year.  In light of this development, this post looks at the issues surrounding coal block allocations and what the 2015 Bill seeks to achieve.In September 2014, the Supreme Court cancelled the allocations of 204 coal blocks.  Following the Supreme Court judgement, in October 2014, the government promulgated the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 for the allocation of the cancelled coal mines.  The Ordinance, which was replaced by the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Bill, 2014, could not be passed by Parliament in the last winter session, and lapsed. The government then promulgated the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Second Ordinance, 2014 on December 26, 2014.  The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Bill, 2015 replaces the second Ordinance and was passed by Lok Sabha on March 4, 2015.Why is coal considered relevant?Coal mining in India has primarily been driven by the need for energy domestically.  About 55% of the current commercial energy use is met by coal.  The power sector is the major consumer of coal, using about 80% of domestically produced coal. As of April 1, 2014, India is estimated to have a cumulative total of 301.56 billion tonnes of coal reserves up to a depth of 1200 meters.  Coal deposits are mainly located in Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.How is coal regulated?The Ministry of Coal has the overall responsibility of managing coal reserves in the country.  Coal India Limited, established in 1975, is a public sector undertaking, which looks at the production and marketing of coal in India.  Currently, the sector is regulated by the ministry’s Coal Controller’s Organization. The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (CMN Act) is the primary legislation determining the eligibility for coal mining in India.  The CMN Act allows private Indian companies to mine coal only for captive use.  Captive mining is the coal mined for a specific end-use by the mine owner, but not for open sale in the market.  End-uses currently allowed under the CMN Act include iron and steel production, generation of power, cement production and coal washing.  The central government may notify additional end-uses.How were coal blocks allocated so far?Till 1993, there were no specific criteria for the allocation of captive coal blocks.  Captive mining for coal was allowed in 1993 by amendments to the CMN Act.  In 1993, a Screening Committee was set up by the Ministry of Coal to provide recommendations on allocations for captive coal mines.  All allocations to private companies were made through the Screening Committee.  For government companies, allocations for captive mining were made directly by the ministry.  Certain coal blocks were allocated by the Ministry of Power for Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPP) through tariff based competitive bidding (bidding for coal based on the tariff at which power is sold).  Between 1993 and 2011, 218 coal blocks were allocated to both public and private companies under the CMN Act.What did the 2014 Supreme Court judgement do?In August 2012, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India released a report on the coal block allocations. CAG recommended that the allocation process should be made more transparent and objective, and done through competitive bidding. Following this report, in September 2012, a Public Interest Litigation matter was filed in the Supreme Court against the coal block allocations.  The petition sought to cancel the allotment of the coal blocks in public interest on grounds that it was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. In September 2014, the Supreme Court declared all allocations of coal blocks, made through the Screening Committee and through Government Dispensation route since 1993, as illegal.  It cancelled the allocation of 204 out of 218 coal blocks.  The allocations were deemed illegal on the grounds that: (i) the allocation procedure followed by the Screening Committee was arbitrary, and (ii) no objective criterion was used to determine the selection of companies.  Further, the allocation procedure was held to be impermissible under the CMN Act. Among the 218 coal blocks, 40 were under production and six were ready to start production.  Of the 40 blocks under production, 37 were cancelled and of the six ready to produce blocks, five were cancelled.  However, the allocation to Ultra Mega Power Projects, which was done via competitive bidding for lowest tariffs, was not declared illegal.What does the 2015 Bill seek to do?Following the cancellation of the coal blocks, concerns were raised about further shortage in the supply of coal, resulting in more power supply disruptions.  The 2015 Bill primarily seeks to allocate the coal mines that were declared illegal by the Supreme Court.  It provides details for the auction process, compensation for the prior allottees, the process for transfer of mines and details of authorities that would conduct the auction.  In December 2014, the ministry notified the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014.  The Rules provide further guidelines in relation to the eligibility and compensation for prior allottees.How is theallocation of coal blocks to be carried out through the 2015 Bill?The Bill creates three categories of mines, Schedule I, II and III.  Schedule I consists of all the 204 mines that were cancelled by the Supreme Court.  Of these mines, Schedule II consists of all the 42 mines that are under production and Schedule III consists of 32 mines that have a specified end-use such as power, iron and steel, cement and coal washing. Schedule I mines can be allocated by way of either public auction or allocation.  For the public auction route any government, private or joint venture company can bid for the coal blocks.  They can use the coal mined from these blocks for their own consumption, sale or for any other purpose as specified in their mining lease.  The government may also choose to allot Schedule I mines to any government company or any company that was awarded a power plant project through competitive bidding.  In such a case, a government company can use the coal mined for own consumption or sale.  However, the Bill does not provide clarity on the purpose for which private companies can use the coal. Schedule II and III mines are to be allocated by way of public auction, and the auctions have to be completed by March 31, 2015.  Any government company, private company or a joint venture with a specified end-use is eligible to bid for these mines. In addition, the Bill also provides details on authorities that would conduct the auction and allotment and the compensation for prior allottees.  Prior allottees are not eligible to participate in the auction process if: (i) they have not paid the additional levy imposed by the Supreme Court; or (ii) if they are convicted of an offence related to coal block allocation and sentenced to imprisonment of more than three years.What are some of the issues to consider in the 2015 Bill?One of the major policy shifts the 2015 Bill seeks to achieve is to enable private companies to mine coal in the future, in order to improve the supply of coal in the market.  Currently, the coal sector is regulated by the Coal Controller’s Organization, which is under the Ministry of Coal.  The Bill does not establish an independent regulator to ensure a level playing field for both private and government companies bidding for auction of mines to conduct coal mining operations.   In the past, when other sectors have opened up to the private sector, an independent regulatory body has been established beforehand.  For example, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, an independent regulatory body, was established when the telecom sector was opened up for private service providers.  The Bill also does not specify any guidelines on the monitoring of mining activities by the new allottees. While the Bill provides broad details of the process of auction and allotment, the actual results with regards to money coming in to the states, will depend more on specific details, such as the tender documents and floor price.  It is also to be seen whether the new allotment process ensures equitable distribution of coal blocks among the companies and creates a fair, level-playing field for them.  In the past, the functioning of coal mines has been delayed due to delays in land acquisition and environmental clearances.  This Bill does not address these issues.  The auctioning of coal blocks resulting in improving the supply of coal, and in turn addressing the problem of power shortage in the country, will also depend on the efficient functioning of the mines,  in addition to factors such as transparent allocations.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c446b61184950038984765

blog

ParliamentExplaining the difference between the government finances reported in the Economic Survey and the Union Budget 2019-20Suyash Tiwari- July 10, 2019The Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, presented the Union Budget for the financial year 2019-20 in Parliament on July 5, 2019.  In the 2019-20 budget, the government presented the estimates of its expenditure and receipts for the year 2019-20.  The budget also gave an account of how much money the government raised or spent in 2017-18.  In addition, the budget also presented therevised estimatesmade by the government for the year 2018-19 in comparison to the estimates it had given to Parliament in the previous year’s budget.What are revised estimates?Some of the estimates made by the government might change during the course of the year.  For instance, once the year gets underway, some ministries may need more funds than what was actually allocated to them in the budget, or the receipts expected from certain sources might change.  Such deviations from the budget estimates get reflected in the figures released by the government at later stages as part of the subsequent budgets.  Once the year ends, the actual numbers are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), post which they are presented to Parliament with the upcoming budget, i.e. two years after the estimates are made.For instance, estimates for the year 2018-19 were presented as part of the 2018-19 budget in February 2018.  In the 2019-20 interim budget presented in February 2019 (10 months after the financial year 2018-19 got underway), the government revised these estimates based on the actual receipts and expenditure accounted so far during the year and incorporated estimates for the remaining two months.The actual receipts and expenditure accounts of the central government are maintained by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance on a monthly basis.  In addition to the monthly accounts, the CGA also publishes the provisional unaudited figures for the financial year by the end of the month of May.  Once these provisional figures are audited by the CAG, they are presented as actuals in next year’s budget.  The CGA reported the figures for 2018-19 on May 31, 2019.[1]The Economic Survey 2018-19 presented on July 4, 2019 uses these figures.[2]The budget presented on July 5 replicates the revised estimates reported as part of the interim budget (February 1, 2019).  Thus, it did not take into account the updated figures for the year 2018-19 from the CGA.Table 1 gives a comparison of the 2018-19 revised estimates presented by the central government in the budget with the provisional unaudited figures maintained by the CGA for the year 2018-19.[3]Table 1:  Budget at a Glance: Comparison of 2018-19 revised estimates with CGA figures (unaudited) (Rs crore)Actuals2017-18Budgeted2018-19Revised2018-19Provisional2018-19Difference(RE 2018-19 to Provisional 2018-19)Revenue Expenditure18,78,83321,41,77221,40,61220,08,463-1,32,149Capital Expenditure2,63,1403,00,4413,16,6233,02,959-13,664Total Expenditure21,41,97324,42,21324,57,23523,11,422-1,45,813Revenue Receipts14,35,23317,25,73817,29,68215,63,170-1,66,512Capital Receipts1,15,67892,19993,1551,02,8859,730of which:Recoveries of Loans15,63312,19913,15517,8404,685Other receipts (including disinvestments)1,00,04580,00080,00085,0455,045Total Receipts (without borrowings)15,50,91118,17,93718,22,83716,66,055-1,56,782Revenue Deficit4,43,6004,16,0344,10,9304,45,29334,363% of GDP2.62.22.22.4Fiscal Deficit5,91,0626,24,2766,34,3986,45,36710,969% of GDP3.53.33.43.4Primary Deficit62,11048,48146,82862,69215,864% of GDP0.40.30.20.3Sources:  Budget at a Glance, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.The 2018-19 provisional figures for revenue receipts is Rs 15,63,170 crore, which is Rs 1,66,512 crore less than the revised estimates.  This is largely due to Rs 1,67,455 crore shortfall in centre’s net tax revenue between the revised estimates and the provisional estimates (Table 2).Major taxes which see a shortfall between the gross tax revenue presented in the revised estimates vis-à-vis the provisional figures are income tax (Rs 67,346 crore) and GST (Rs 59,930 crore).  Non-tax revenue and disinvestment receipts as per the provisional figures are higher than the revised estimates.Table 2:  Break up of central government receipts: Comparison of 2018-19 RE with CGA figures (unaudited) (Rs crore)Actuals2017-18Budgeted2018-19Revised2018-19Provisional2018-19Difference(RE 2018-19 to Provisional 2018-19)Gross Tax Revenue19,19,00922,71,24222,48,17520,80,203-1,67,972of which:Corporation Tax5,71,2026,21,0006,71,0006,63,572-7,428Taxes on Income4,30,7725,29,0005,29,0004,61,654-67,346Goods and Services Tax4,42,5627,43,9006,43,9005,83,970-59,930Customs1,29,0301,12,5001,30,0381,17,930-12,108Union Excise Duties2,59,4312,59,6002,59,6122,30,998-28,614A. Centre's Net Tax Revenue12,42,48814,80,64914,84,40613,16,951-1,67,455B. Non Tax Revenue1,92,7452,45,0892,45,2762,46,219943of which:Interest Receipts13,57415,16212,04712,815768Dividend and Profits91,3611,07,3121,19,2641,13,424-5,840Other Non-Tax Revenue87,8101,22,6151,13,9651,19,9806,015C. Capital Receipts (without borrowings)1,15,67892,19993,1551,02,8859,730of which:Disinvestment1,00,04580,00080,00085,0455,045Receipts (without borrowings) (A+B+C)15,50,91118,17,93718,22,83716,66,055-1,56,782Borrowings5,91,0626,24,2766,34,3986,45,36710,969Total Receipts (including borrowings)21,41,97324,42,21324,57,23523,11,422-1,45,813Note:  Centre’s net tax revenue is gross tax revenue less share of states in central taxes.  Figures for GST include receipts from the GST compensation cess.  Note that GST was levied for a nine-month period during the year 2017-18, starting July 2017.Sources:  Receipts Budget, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.While the provisional figures show a considerable decrease in receipts (Rs 1,56,782 crore) as compared to the revised estimates, fiscal deficit has not shown a comparable increase.  Fiscal deficit is estimated to be Rs 10,969 crore higher than the revised estimates as per the provisional accounts.On the expenditure side, the total expenditure as per the provisional figures show a decrease of Rs 1,45,813 crore as compared to the revised estimates.  Certain Ministries and expenditure items have seen a decrease in expenditure as compared to the revised estimates made by the government.  As per the provisional accounts, the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution are Rs 22,133 crore and Rs 70,712 crore lower than the revised estimates, respectively.  The decrease in the Ministries’ expenditure as a percentage of the revised estimates are 29% and 39%, respectively.  The food subsidy according to CGA was Rs 1,01,904 crore, which was Rs 69,394 crore lower than the revised estimates for the year 2018-19 given in the budget documents.[1]“Accounts of the Union Government of India (Provisional/Unaudited) for the Financial Year 2018-19”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Finance, May 31, 2019.[2]Fiscal Developments, Economic Survey 2018-19,https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap02_vol2.pdf.[3]Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, March 2018-19,http://www.cga.nic.in/MonthlyReport/Published/3/2018-2019.aspx.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447571184950038984804

blog

ParliamentThe Budget - What's in store for the Railways this year?Rohit- March 15, 2012The Minister of Railways, Dinesh Trivedi, presented the Railways Budget 2012 to Parliament on 14th March.  While commenting on the financial position of Railways, the Minister said that 'the Indian Railways are passing through a difficult phase'. The Operating Ratio for the closing year is now estimated to equal 95%. This is significantly higher than the 91.1% figure budgeted last year. Operating Ratio is a metric that compares operating expenses to revenues. A higher ratio indicates lower ability to generate surplus. Surplus is used for capital investments such as laying of new lines, deploying more coaches etc. Therefore, a smaller surplus affects the Railway’s capability to make such investments.Budget v/s Revised estimates 2011-12Budget 2011-12 had estimated the performance of Railways for the financial year. Revised estimates have now been submitted. Taken together, these two figures help in comparing actual performance against targets. Some observations are enumerated below:Total receipts decreased by Rs 2,746 crore.Total expenditure increased by Rs 2,102 crore.Operating Ratio increased from 91.1% to 95%. This implies a decrease in surplus.Appropriations to the ‘Development Fund’ and the ‘Capital Fund’ decreased from Rs 5,258 crore to Rs 1,492 crore (a decrease of 72%). The ‘Development Fund’ finances expenditure such as passenger amenities; the ‘Capital Fund’ is used for capital augmentation such as laying of new lines.Budget estimates 2012-13In 2012-13, Railways plan to improve Operating Ratio to 84.9% and to increase surplus to Rs 15,557 crore. This is more than 10 times the surplus generated in 2011-12 (Revised Estimates). The effective increase in freight rates is estimated to average 23%. During this time, passenger fares are also estimated to increase by an effective average rate of 19%.[1]InfrastructurePerformance during the 11th PlanUnder the 11th Five Year Plan, the total plan expenditure for Railways had been approved at Rs 2,33,289 crore. The Outcome Budget shows that the actual expenditure is only likely to be Rs 1,92,291 crore. Thus, expenditure will fall short by Rs 40,998 crore. This gaps exists despite a significant increase in the Gross Budgetary Support approved by Parliament. Plan expenditure during 2007-12(In Rs Crore)Approved ExpenditureActual ExpenditureGross Budgetary Support63,63575,979Internal Resources90,00067,763Extra Budgetary Support79,65448,549Total2,33,2891,92,291The Standing Committee on Railways, in its 11threport presented in August 2011, had sought an explanation from the Ministry. According to the Ministry, lower mobilization of internal resources and lack of extra budgetary support are the main reasons for the shortfall.  Internal resource mobilization has been low because of (i) impact of the 6thPay Commission; and (ii) slow growth in freight earnings due to the economic slowdown. Extra budgetary resources have been low due to non-materialization of funds through the Public-Private Partnership route.Proposals for the 12th PlanTwo recent committees –Kakodkar Committee on Railway Safetyand thePitroda Committee on Railway Modernization– have called for large investments in the next five years. The Kakodkar Committee has recommended an investment of Rs 1,00,000 crore in the next five years to improve safety; the Pitroda Committee has recommended an expenditure of Rs 3,96,000 crore in the next five years on modernization. The Railway sub-group of the 12th Five Year Plan has also estimated a requirement of Rs 4,42,744 crore for various other investments proposed to be undertaken during the Plan period.[2]All three groups have called for significant investments in infrastructure augmentation in the next five years.Budget proposals 2012-13According to the Minister’s speech, the Annual Plan outlay for the year 2012-13 has been set at Rs 60,100 crore. The plan would be financed through:Gross Budgetary Support of Rs 24,000 croreRailway Safety Fund of Rs 2,000 croreInternal Resources of Rs 18,050 croreExtra Budgetary Resources of Rs 16,050 crore. Of this, Rs 15,000 crore would be borrowed from the market through IRFC (Indian Railway Finance Corporation).What happens now?The Budget is likely to be discussed in the two Houses within the next few days.  Post the discussion, the Ministry's proposals will be put to vote.  Once passed, the Ministry can put its proposals into action.For more details on the Railway Budget, including the projects proposed this year and the status of proposals made last year, please see our analysishere.To understand some of the challenges faced by the Indian Railways, see ourblog postfrom last year.Notes:[1] The ‘effective average fare’ has been calculated by dividing the total income from the segment (freight/ passenger) by the total traffic (in NTKM/ PKM).  This would vary with changes in fares as well as the usage by different categories of users (including the proportion of tickets booked through Tatkal). [2] Source: Report of the Expert Group on Railway Modernization (Chairman: Sam Pitroda)ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c446821184950038984734

blog

PolicyCentral government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic (May 11 – May 22, 2020)Aditya Kumar- May 22, 2020As of May 22, 2020, there are 1,18,447 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in India, which is 76% higher than the cases on May 11, 2020 (67,152). Out of total confirmed cases, there are 66,330 active cases, 48,354 patients have been cured/discharged and 3,583 have died (Figure 1). As the spread of COVID-19 has increased across India, the central government has continued to announce several policy decisions to contain the spread, and support citizens and businesses who are being affected by the pandemic.  In this blog post, we summarise some of the key measures taken by the central government in this regard between May 11 and May 22, 2020.Figure1: Number of day wise COVID 19 cases as on May 22, 2020Aatma Nirbhar Bharat AbhiyaanOn May 12, the Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi,announceda special economic package of Rs 20 lakh crore (equivalent to 10% of India’s GDP) aimed towards making the country ready for the tough competition in the global supply chain and empowering the poor, labourers, migrants who have been adversely affected by COVID-19.   Following this announcement, the Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, in five press conferences, announced the detailed measures under the economic package.  The economic package includes earlier measures taken by the government to support the citizens and businesses of India.  A break-up of the package is presented in Table 1.Table1: Break-up of stimulus from Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan packageItemKey Topics coveredAmount (in Rs crore)Stimulus from earlier measuresPradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, Tax Concessions, and the Prime Minister's announcement for health sector1,92,800Part 1Business including Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)5,94,550Part 2Poor people including migrants and farmers.3,10,000Part 3Agriculture and allied sectors.1,50,000Part 4 and Part 5Part 4: Coal and mineral sectors, defence sector, civil Aviation, airports and aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO), power sector, social infrastructures, space, atomic energy.Part 5: Government reforms and other provisions including public health and education, additional allocation to MGNREGS48,100Sub Total1,295,400RBI Measures (Actual)Reduction in Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR), Special Liquidity Facility (SLF) for mutual funds, Special refinance facilities for NABARD, SIDBI and NHB at policy repo rate8,01,603Grand Total20,97,053Note: Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the table above represents the five press conferences conducted by the Finance Minister to announce the details of the economic package.Source:   Presentation made by Union Finance & Corporate Affairs Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman under Aatmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan to support Indian economy in fight against COVID-19, Ministry of Finance, May 13, 2020, PRS.For more information on the details of the announcements made under Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan, please seehere.FinanceFollowing the Prime Minister’s and Finance Minister’s announcements, further announcements were also made.Cabinetapprovedthe additional funding of Rs three lakh crore to eligible MSMEs and interested MUDRA borrowers under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme.  The funding will be covered under 100% guarantee coverage by the National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Limited in the form of a Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line facility.Cabinet alsoapprovedthe special liquidity scheme for Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs)/Housing Finance Companies (HFCs).  The details of the scheme were shared by the Finance Minister in May 2020 under the Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan.Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) revised the post-default curing period for credit rating agencies (CRAs) in theircirculardated May 21, 2020.  Now, once the default is cured and payments are regularised, CRAs will upgrade the rating from default to non-investment grade after a period of 90 days based on the satisfactory performance by the company during the period.  As of now, after the entity corrects the default, the CRAs upgrade the rating from default to speculative grade in 90 days and from default to investment grade in 365 days.On May 22, the Monetary Policy Committee of Reserve Bank of India (RBI),reducedthe policy repo rate under the liquidity adjustment facility (LAF) by 40 bps to 4% from 4.4%.  The marginal standing facility (MSF) and the bank rate have been reduced to 4.25% from 4.65%.  The reverse repo rate has been also reduced from 3.75% to 3.35%.The Reserve bank of India (RBI) issued astatementwith various development and regulatory policies.  The policies specify details on measures (i) to improve the functioning of market; (ii) to support exports and imports; (iii) to ease financial stress; (iv) for debt management.  The cash reserve ratio (CRR) of all banks will be reduced by 100 basis points to 3%, which will provide a liquidity support of Rs 1,37,000 crore across the banking system. The policy extends the moratorium on payment of instalments of all type of loans as on March 1, 2020 by another three months (up to August 2020).   This is applicable to loans from all commercial banks including Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs) and co-operative banks.Lockdown 4.0The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) passed anorderextending the lockdown till May 31, 2020. This lockdown will have more relaxations compared to earlier lockdowns.Zoning of areasThe new guidelines have authorised states/union territories (UTs) to define the red, green and orange zones based on the parameters prescribed by the Health Ministry.  The states/UTs can define a district, or a municipal corporation/ municipality or even smaller administrative units such as sub-divisions, etc. as a red or green or orange zone.Red and Orange Zones:Within red and orange zones, the local authorities will identify containment and buffer zones based on the guidelines from the Health Ministry.  Buffer zones are areas adjacent to containment zones which have a high probability of cases.Containment Zones:Movement of individuals will not be allowed in containment zones to ensure strict perimeter control except for medical emergencies and supply of essential goods and services.The prohibition of certain activities or restrictions in various zones within a state will be at the discretion of the state/union territory as deemed necessary.Prohibited ActivitiesSome activities will continue to remain prohibited throughout the country.  These include:all international air travel of passengers, except for domestic medical services, domestic air ambulance and for security purposes or purposes as permitted by MHA;metro rail services;running of schools, colleges, educational and training/coaching institutions;hotels, restaurants and other hospitality services, except for the running of canteens in bus depots, railway stations and airports;places of large public gatherings such as cinemas, shopping malls, and gymnasiums entertainment parks;social, political, cultural, and similar gatherings and other large congregations; and access to religious places/places of worship for the public.Online/ distance learning is encouraged and permitted; and, restaurants will be allowed to operate kitchens for home delivery of food items.National Directives for COVID ManagementThe Ministry of Home Affairs issued theNational Directives for COVID Management, which apply to public places and work places. As per these guidelines:wearing of face covers is compulsory;spitting will be punishable with fine as may be prescribed in accordance with its laws, rules or regulations by the State/ UT local authority;social distancing is to be followed by all persons in public places and in transport;marriage related gathering has been limited to 50 guests;for funerals/ last rites, the maximum number of persons allowed is 20;consumption of liquor, paan, gutkha and tobacco etc., is not allowed in public places.Guidelines for workplaces include:employers will encourage practice of work from home to the extent possible;staggering of work hours will be adopted in respect of all offices and other establishments.there will be provision for thermal scanning, hand wash and sanitizers at all entry and exit points and common areas;all work places and other sensitive locations are to be sanitized regularly.social distancing will have to be ensured through adequate distance between workers, adequate gaps between shifts, staggering the lunch break of staff and so on.Aarogya SetuThe District authorities will ensure installation of the Aarogya Setu application on compatible mobile phones of all individuals and will have to regularly update their health status on the app.Aarogya Setu Data access and knowledge sharing protocol, 2020The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India issued anotificationon the data access and knowledge sharing protocol, 2020 in reference to the Aarogya Setu mobile application.  The protocol will: (i) ensure secure collection of data by the mobile application, (ii) protect the personal data of individuals, and (iii) ensure efficient use and sharing of personal or non-personal data of the application users.  The protocol provides principles for: (i) collection and processing of response data, (ii) sharing of response data, (iii) obligations of entities with whom the data will be shared, and (iv) sharing of data for research purpose.  A sunset clause is applicable to the protocol subjecting it to a review after 6 months unless there is any extension of sunset clause in wake of the pandemic.Travel and MovementThe Ministry of Railwaysannouncedto run Shramik special trains from all districts connected by railways in the country.  The ministry is awaiting details on migrants from each district to operationalise the trains.The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) haswrittento Chief Secretaries of all states allowing them to arrange special buses to carry people from railway stations to their home.  This provision is applicable, with condition of maintaining proper social distancing norms, only at places where public or personal transport is not available.On May 11, 2020, MHA passed anorderpermitting movement of individuals by trains.   Following the order,15 pair of trains are being runconnecting New Delhi to Dibrugarh, Agartala, Howrah, Patna, Bilaspur, Ranchi, Bhubaneswar, Secunderabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Thiruvananthapuram, Madgaon, Mumbai Central, Ahmedabad and Jammu Tawi.The Ministry of Railways in consultation with the MHA and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, issuedguidelineson partial restoration of train services (other than the Shramik trains) from June 1, 2020.  200 passenger trains with AC, Non-AC and general classes will be operationalised.   Booking for these trains commenced on May 21, 2020.  The guidelines contain detailed information on (i) booking of tickets and charting, (ii) quota permitted, (iii) catering, and (iv) linen and blankets.  All passengers will have to download and use the Aarogya Setu mobile application.On May 19, 2020, MHA issued aStandard operating Procedure (SOP)for movement of stranded workers by trains.   As per the SOP, the Ministry of Railways will permit the movement of stranded workers by trains in consultation with MHA.  The Ministry of Railways will finalise the schedules for trains including the stoppages and destinations and will communicated it to state/UTs.  On arrival at the destination, the travelling passengers will have to adhere to the health protocols as prescribed by the destination state/UT.  The inter-state movement of stranded persons by bus and vehicles will be allowed subject to mutual consent of the concerned States/UTs.  The intra-state movement of vehicles will be at the discretion of the states/UTs.The MHAamendedthe order on Lockdown 4.0 to facilitate domestic air travel for stranded persons.  Following the amendment, the Ministry of Civil Aviation issued theorderfor commencement of domestic air travel of passengers from May 25, 2020.  The passengers will have to show a self-declaration, using the Aarogya Setu mobile application, that they are free of COVID-19 symptoms and those with Red status will not be allowed to travel.  The order contains three annexures with (i) general instructions for commencement of domestic air travel, (ii) the detailed guidelines to be followed by air passengers, and (iii) specific operating guidelines for major stakeholders.HealthThe Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued: (i)updated containment plan on COVID-19, and (ii)updated containment plan for large outbreaks of COVID 19.   These plans provide information on various scenarios of COVID-19 and strategies to control the spread of the disease including definitions, action plans and specific details on (i) identification of containment zones and buffer zones; (ii) perimeter control; (iii) support from various stakeholders such as testing laboratories and hospitals; (iv) pharamaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and (v) risk communication.For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please seehere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4468b118495003898473d

blog

States and State LegislaturesTamil Nadu Government’s Response to COVID-19Anoop Ramakrishnan- April 29, 2020On January 17, 2020, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfareacknowledgedthe emergence of COVID-19 pandemic that was spreading across China.  Tamil Nadureportedits first confirmed case of COVID-19 on March 7, 2020.   As of April 28, the state has 1,937confirmed casesof COVID-19 (seventh highest in the country).  Of these, 1,101 have recovered (third highest rate of recovery in the country among states with 100 or more cases) and 24 have died.  The state government has taken several actions to contain the spread and impact of COVID-19.  In this blog, we look at the key measures taken by the Tamil Nadu government between January 19 and April 28, 2020.Initial phaseThe Tamil Nadu government came out with aseries of responsesbetween January 19 and February 1.  These included: (i) readying Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) at state and district levels, (ii) setting up of a 24/7 control room, (iii) thermal scanning of air travellers from China, (iv) creating isolation wards in the General Hospitals of four major cities, and (v) running appropriate awareness campaigns.Some of the other early measures are summarised below:Health measuresOn March 13, the Governor declared COVID-19 to be anotified diseasein the state of Tamil Nadu, under theTamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939.  Notifying a disease allows for incidences of the disease to be mandatorily reported to the government and in turn, helps authorities to respond with appropriate measures to prevent the spread of the disease.On March 15, the government prescribed theTamil Nadu COVID-19 Regulations, 2020.  These regulations detail the responsibilities of hospitals and individuals, and the powers of officials in relation to the diagnosis, treatment, and containment of COVID-19. These include (i) creation of isolation wards in hospitals, (ii) containment measures in an area once positive cases are detected, and (iii) mandatory 14-day home isolation for asymptomatic air travellers from COVID-19 affected countries.On March 15, the government also mandated a 14-day institutional isolation for all air travellers toprevent import of infectionsfrom other states.  The state also initiated setting up of testing camps and conducting disinfectation drives in the border districts.Travel and MovementOn March 15, the government notified aseries of instructionsthat restricted the movement of people in the state.  These include (i) shutting down of establishments, such as, educational institutions (up to Class 5), theatres, malls etc, and (ii) banning of inter-state travel for 15 days.On March 16, the government announced additionalrestrictionstill Mar 31, such as, closure of: (i) anganwadis and making alternate provision of dry ration for children at their homes, (ii) swimming pools, amusement parks, gyms, zoos, museums, bars, clubs etc, and (iii) all educational institutions, except the conduct of practical exams for class 10 and 12, and various entrance exams.State borders were sealed offfor road traffic, except for movement of essential commodities, from March 20 to March 31.Public transportation services, such as metro rail and inter-state private buses, were also suspended till March 31.The Prime Minister asked the country to observe aJanta Curfewfrom 7 am to 9 pm on March 22,. The state government furtherextended this curfewto 5 am on March 23.  Following this, the government immediately announced astate-wide lockdownfrom March 24 up to April 1.On April 5, the government issued anadvisoryfor the quarantine of migrant workers and the conduct of health camps for them.Welfare MeasuresOn March 15, the government announced financial assistance of a total ofRs 60 croreto various departments, such as, health, transport etc, to take precautionary measures to combat COVID-19.On March 24, the government announced the distribution ofcash support of Rs 1,000to all entitled family cardholders.  Further, they were also eligible for free supply of essential commodities such as rice, dal, sugar, etc, during the month of April, through the Public Distribution System (PDS).During the lockdownA state-wide lockdown was announced from March 24 to April 1, followed by anation-wide lockdownbetween March 25 and April 14.  On April 13, the state-wide lockdown wasextendedup to April 30. This was followed by theextensionof the nation-wide lockdown from April 15 to May 3. Under this, certain activities could be resumed after April 20.Some of the key measures undertaken during the lockdown period are:Travel and movementAmidst the lockdown, on March 25, the governmentnotifiedthat establishments providing essential goods and services, which were allowed to operate.  These included establishments such as  (i) police forces, (ii) treasury, (iii) public utilities, (iv) banks, (v) media, (vi) telecommunications, and (vii) shops dealing with food, groceries etc.  Further, on March 28, the government permitted a fewagriculture-related establishmentsto operate, such as, Mandis, fertiliser shops, and agencies involved in procurement of agriculture products.AnExpert Committeeformed by the state government to formulate guidelines for phased exit from lockdown after April 20, recommended the extension of the lockdown till May 3.  Certainselect activitieswere, however, permitted to resume operations from April 20 onwards. These include (i) MNREGA works related to irrigation and water conservation, (ii) rural construction projects on irrigation, dam safety, hospital buildings, roads and bridges, and (iii) state and central government offices at one-third capacity.In view of rising number of cases, on April 24, stringent curfew orders were passed in the districts of (i)Chengalpattu, (ii)Kancheepuram, and (iii)Thiruvallur. The curfew will be imposed between April 26 and April 29, from 6 am to 9 pm, and with more stringent restrictions than under the ongoing nation-wide lockdown, such as, (i) petrol bunks to operate only between 8 am and 12 noon, and (ii) supermarkets and shops to remain shut.Curfew orders were passed in5 more districts.  In Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai, curfew is imposed between 6 am and 9 pm from April 26 to April 29.  In Salem and Tiruppur, curfew was imposed from April 26 to April 28.Welfare MeasuresOn March 30,   the government announced a cash assistance ofRs 1,500 per monthto be credited into the bank accounts of differently-abled persons.  It also announced thattransgenders without ration cards, were eligible to receive 12kg of rice, 1kg of dal, and 1 litre of cooking oil, from fair price shops (FPS).Further, a cash assistance of Rs 1,000 was announced for (i)all ration card holdersthrough FPS, (ii)registered auto drivers and construction workers, (iii) members ofTN Cine Welfare Board,  and (iv)match factory workers.On April 2, the government announced aconcession packageto manufacturers of COVID-19 related medical equipment, who will commence production before July 31, 2020. The package applied to both MSMEs and large manufacturers of equipment, such as, ventilators, Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) kits and medicines.  Some of the concessions include: (i) 30% capital subsidy, upto Rs 20 crore, (ii) 100% stamp duty waiver, (iii) 6% interest subvention for capital loans for two quarters, (iv) commencement of manufacturing without prior approval, and (v) provision of necessary land on priority basis for short-term/long-term leases, etc.Rs 50 lakh grant wasannouncedto the families of frontline workers in the event of their unfortunate demise.  If infected by COVID-19, they are eligible for Rs 2 lakh assistance towards treatment costs.  In certain cases, if eligible, their kin would also receive a government job offer.On April 7, the government announced thatMLALAD fundscould be utilised for COVID-19 prevention and containment activities. A total of Rs 1.25 crore can be utilised towards prevention, containment, treatment, and purchase of medical equipment, PPEs etc.Health MeasuresOn April 2, the government released a list ofdesignated COVID-19 hospitalsin the state. Instructions were issued to refer all COVID-19 positive cases exclusively to these designated hospitals. However, willing citizens were alsopermittedto approach private hospitals, at their own cost. Private hospitals were further instructed to establish dedicatedfever clinicsto cope with the increasing load of flu and fever cases.Amidst a rise in the number of cases, on April 4, the government issued instructions to: (i) avoid all kinds of religious gatherings, (ii) hospitals to not show religious bias in treating patients, and (iii) doctors to coordinate with the government and check in on the mental health of quarantined patients via video conferencing facilities such as Skype.On April 5, the government issuedcluster containment measuresto stop the transmission, morbidity, and mortality associated with the further spread of COVID-19. This was in response to the large number of imported infections from the attendees of the Nizamuddin conference in Delhi.Various guidelines were issued towards (i)treatment protocolof COVID-19 positive patients, (ii) appropriate management ofsuspect casesof COVID-19, (iii)dead body management, (iv) criteria for classification ofhotspots, and (v) protocol for use ofRapid Antibody Testsin hotspot areas.Resource Management:On March 27, the Chief Ministerannouncedan additional COVID-19 related recruitment of doctors and lab technicians. The recruited members were to join within three days of the notification. On April 25, an additional 1,323nurseswere also recruited.A two-month extension was announced to the tenures of medical professionals retiring onMarch 31andApril 30.The government also instructed District Authorities to ensure theprotectionof doctors and other hospital staff who are being forcefully evicted from their houses by landlords. As a measure to develop immunity against COVID-19, the government, on April 25, alsorecommendedproviding Zinc and Vitamin tablets, and herbal powder to all personnel on frontline duty in containment areas.Other MeasuresAdministrative:Eleven committeeshave been formed to coordinate implementation of various welfare programmes. In all districts, Crisis Management Committees have been formed under the district collector.Education: The conduct ofsemester examinationsin universities and colleges is postponed to the beginning of the next academic year, as and when the institutions reopen. Private colleges and schools were alsoinstructedto not compel students/parents to pay pending dues for 2019-20 or advance fees for 2020-21.Industry:On April 22, the government released a list of industries classified ascontinuous process industries. These are companies where the production lines are functioning 24/7. The list includes (i) refineries, (ii) large steel plants, (iii) large cement plants, (iv) sugar mills, (v) large paper mills, (vi) tyre manufacturers etc.Technology:The government launched aWhatsapp Chat Botfor providing latest information and guidance related to COVID-19 in both Tamil & English.For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please seehere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c446ed118495003898479c

blog

LegislationDebt recovery in India : The 2016 Bill and what it seeks to doVatsal Khullar- August 4, 2016The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016 is listed for discussion in Rajya Sabha today.[i]The Bill aims to expeditiously resolve cases of debt recovery by making amendments to four laws, including the (i) Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and (ii) the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993The 1993 Act created Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTS) to adjudicated debt recovery cases.  This was done to move cases out of civil courts, with the idea of reducing time taken for debt recovery, and for providing technical expertise.  This was aimed at assisting banks and financial institutions in recovering outstanding debt from defaulters. Over the years, it has been observed that the DRTs do not comply with the stipulated time frame of resolving disputes within six months. This has resulted in delays in disposal, and a high pendency of cases before the DRTs. Between March 2013 and December 2015, the number of pending cases before the DRTs increased from 43,000 to 70,000.  With an average disposal rate of 10,000 cases per year, it is estimated that these DRTs will take about six to seven years to clear the existing backlog of cases.[ii]Experts have also observed that the DRT officers, responsible for debt recovery, lack experience in dealing with such cases.  Further, these officers are not adequately trained to adjudicate debt-related matters.[iii]The 2016 Bill proposes to increase the retirement age of Presiding Officers of DRTs, and allows for their reappointment.  This will allow the existing DRT officers to serve for longer periods of time.  However, such a move may have limited impact in expanding the pool of officers in the DRTs. The 2016 Bill also has a provision which allows Presiding Officers of tribunals, established under other laws, to head DRTs.  Currently, there are various specialised tribunals functioning in the country, like the Securities Appellate Tribunal, the National Company Law Tribunal, and theNational Green Tribunal.  It remains to be seen if the skills brought in by officers of these tribunals will mirror the specialisation required for adjudicating debt-related matters. Further, the 1993 Act provides that banks and financial institutions must file cases in those DRTs that have jurisdiction over the defendant’s area of residence or business.  In addition, the Bill allows cases to be filed in DRTs having jurisdiction over the bank branch where the debt is due. The Bill also provides that certain procedures, such as presentation of claims by parties and issue of summons by DRTs, can now be undertaken in electronic form (such as filing them on the DRT website).Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002The 2002 Act allows secured creditors (lenders whose loans are backed by a security) to take possession over a collateral security if the debtor defaults in repayment.  This allows creditors to sell the collateral security and recover the outstanding debt without the intervention of a court or a tribunal. This takeover of collateral security is done with the assistance of the District Magistrate (DM), having jurisdiction over the security.  Experts have noted that the absence of a time-limit for the DM to dispose such applications has resulted in delays.[iv]The 2016 Bill proposes to introduce a 30-day time limit within which the DM must pass an order for the takeover of a security.  Under certain circumstances, this time-limit may be extended to 60 days. The 2002 Act also regulates the establishment and functioning of Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs).  ARCs purchase Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) from banks at a discount.  This allows banks to recover partial payment for an outstanding loan account, thereby helping them maintain cash flow and liquidity.  The functioning of ARCs has been explained in Figure 1.It has been observed that the setting up of ARCs, along with the use out-of-court systems to take possession of the collateral security, has created an environment conducive to lending.[iii]However, a few concerns related to the functioning of ARCs have been expressed over the years.  These concerns include a limited number of buyers and capital entering the ARC business, and high transaction costs involved in the transfer of assets in favour of these companies due to the levy of stamp duty.[iii]In this regard, the Bill proposes to exempt the payment of stamp duty on transfer of financial assets in favour of ARCs.  This benefit will not be applicable if the asset has been transferred for purposes other than securitisation or reconstruction (such as for the ARCs own use or investment).  Consequently, the Bill amends the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Bill also provides greater powers to the Reserve Bank of India to regulate ARCs.  This includes the power to carry out audits and inspections either on its own, or through specialised agencies. With the passage of the Bankruptcy Code in May 2016, a complete overhaul of the debt recovery proceedings was envisaged.  The Code allows creditors to collectively take action against a defaulting debtor, and complete this process within a period of 180 days.  During the process, the creditors may choose to revive a company by changing the repayment schedule of outstanding loans, or decide to sell it off for recovering their dues. While the Bankruptcy Code provides for collective action of creditors, the proposed amendments to the SARFAESI and DRT Acts seek to streamline the processes of creditors individually taking action against the defaulting debtor.  The impact of these changes on debt recovery scenario in the country, and the issue of rising NPAs will only become clear in due course of time.[i]Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016,http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/media/Enforcement%20of%20Security/Enforcement%20of%20Security%20Bill,%202016.pdf.[ii]Unstarred Question No. 1570, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Finance, Answered on March 4, 2016.[iii]‘A Hundred Small Steps’, Report of the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms, Planning Commission, September 2008,http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_fr/cfsr_all.pdf.[iv]Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission, March 2013,http://finmin.nic.in/fslrc/fslrc_report_vol1.pdf.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447761184950038984826

blog

LegislationFAQ: Why is land acquisition so controversial?M R Madhavan- June 1, 2011The government's acquisition of land for projects has been facing protests across the country, the violence in Uttar Pradesh being only the latest.What is Land Acquisition?Land acquisition is the process by which the government forcibly acquires private property for public purpose without the consent of the land-owner. It is thus different from a land purchase, in which the sale is made by a willing seller.How is this process governed?Land Acquisition is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  The government has to follow a process of declaring the land to be acquired, notify the interested persons, and acquire the land after paying due compensation. Various state legislatures have also passed Acts that detail various aspects of the acquisition process.Land is a state subject.  Why is Parliament passing a law?Though land is a state subject, "acquisition and requisitioning of property" is in the concurrent list. Both Parliament and state legislatures can make laws on this subject.Is there a new Act being proposed?The government had introduced a Bill to amend this Act in 2007. That Bill lapsed in 2009 at the time of the general elections. The government has stated its intent to re-introduce a similar Bill, but has not yet done so.What are the major changes being proposed?There are significant changes proposed in the 2007 Bill with regard to (a) the purpose for which land may be acquired; (b) the amount of compensation to be paid; (c) the process of acquisition; (d) use of the land acquired; and (e) dispute settlement mechanisms. We explain these briefly below.Purpose:Currently, land may be acquired for a range of uses such as village sites, town or rural planning, residential purposes for poor or displaced persons, planned development (education, housing, health, slum clearance), and for state corporations. Land may also be acquired for use by private companies for the above purposes or if the work "is likely to prove useful to the public". The 2007 Bill had a narrower list: (a) for strategic naval, military or air force purposes; (b) for public infrastructure projects; and (c) for any purpose useful to the general public if 70% of the land has been purchased from willing sellers through the free market.Compensation:The current Act requires market value to be paid for the land and any other property on it (buildings, trees, irrigation work etc) as well as expenses for compelling the person change place of residence or business. It explicitly prohibits taking into account the intended use of land while computing market value. The 2007 Bill requires payment of the highest of three items: the minimum value specified for stamp duty, the average of the top 50 per cent by price of land sale in the vicinity, and the average of the top 50 pc of the land purchased for the project from willing sellers. For computing recent land sale, the intended land use is to be used. Thus, agricultural land being acquired for an industrial project will be paid the price of industrial land.Process of acquisition:Several changes are proposed, including the requirement of a social impact assessment. Any project that displaces more than 400 families (200 in hilly, tribal and desert areas) will require an SIA before the acquisition is approved.Use of land acquired:The 2007 Bill requires the land acquired to be used for that purpose within five years. If this condition is not met, the land reverts to the government (it is not returned to the original land owners). If any acquired land is transferred to another entity, 80 pc of the capital gains has to be shared with the original land-owners and their legal heirs.Dispute Settlement:Currently, all disputes are resolved by civil courts, which results in delays. The 2007 Bill sets up Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute Resolution Authority at the state and national levels. These authorities will have the power of civil courts, and will adjudicate disputes related to compensation claims.Does the proposed Bill address the major issues?The Bill narrows the uses for which land may be acquired. It also changes the compensation due and links that to the market price for which land is to be used. There could be significant changes in acquisition for use by private industry. Firstly, they would have to purchase at least 70 pc of the required land from willing sellers (presumably, at fair market price). Second, the compensation amount for the remaining (upto 30 pc of land) could be significantly higher than the current method. This would be at a premium to the average paid to the willing sellers, and it would be based on intended industrial or commercial use which usually commands a higher price than agricultural land. However, the effect on acquisition for projects such as highways and railways will not be significant, as there is no benchmark for price determination for such use. This article appeared inRediff Newson May 12, 2011 and can be accessedhere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447831184950038984835

blog

States and State LegislaturesTelangana - Recommendations of a previous CommissionRohit- December 30, 2010The Justice  Srikrishna Committee, which is looking into the feasibility of a separate Telangana State, is expected to submit its report by tomorrow.  It might be useful at this point in time to revisit the recommendations of the 1953 States Reorganization Commission (SRC) – the Commission that had first examined the Telangana issue in detail. However, it must be kept in mind that some of those arguments and recommendations may not be applicable today.BackgroundBefore independence, Telangana was a part of the Nizam's Hyderabad State and Andhra a part of the erstwhile Madras Province of British India. In 1953, owing to agitation by leaders like Potti Sreeramulu, Telugu-speaking areas were carved out of the Madras Province. This lead to the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the first State formed on the basis of language. Immediately afterward, in 1953, the States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was appointed. SRC was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telangana with Andhra and proposed that a separate State be constituted with a provision for unification after the 1961/ 62 general elections, if a resolution could be passed in the Telangana assembly by 2/3rd majority. However, a 'Gentlemen's agreement' was subsequently signed between the leaders of the two regions and this lead to a merger. The agreement provided for some safeguards for Telangana - for instance, a 'Regional Council' for all round development of Telangana. Thus, a unified Andhra Pradesh was created in 1956. In the years that followed, Telangana continued to see on-and-off protests; major instances of unrest were recorded in 1969 and in the 2000s.The SRC 1953 reportThe full SRC report can be accessedhere. Summarized below are its main arguments and recommendations related to Telangana.Arguments in favour of 'Vishalandhra'The merger would bring into existence a large State with ample agricultural land, large water and power potential, and adequate mineral wealth.Fewer independent political jurisdictions would help accelerate important projects related to the development of Krishna and Godavari rivers.The two regions would complement each other in resources - Telangana was not self-sufficient in food supplies but Andhra was; Andhra did not have coal mines but Telangana did.Substantial savings could be realized through elimination of redundant expenditure on general administration.Hyderabad could serve as a suitable capital for the entire region.Arguments in favour of a separate Telangana StateAndhra had been facing financial problems and had lower per capita revenue than Telangana. Resources raised through land and excise revenues in Telangana were higher.Telangana claimed to be progressive in administration and hence did not foresee any benefits from a merger. In addition, people feared that the region might not receive adequate development focus in a large 'Vishalandhra'.Telangana did not wish to lose its independent rights - for instance, the rights to utilization of waters of Krishna and Godavari.The educationally backward people of Telangana feared losing out to people from the more developed coastal regions, especially in matters of employment.SRC recommendationsThe Commission agreed that there were significant advantages in the formation of 'Vishalandhra'. However, it noted that while opinion in Andhra was overwhelmingly in favour of a larger unit, public opinion in Telangana had still to crystallize. Even though Andhra leaders were willing to provide guarantees ensuring development focus on Telangana, the SRC felt that any guarantee, short of Central Government supervision, could not be effective. In addition, it noted that Andhra, being a relatively new State, was still in the midst of developing policies related to issues like land reform. Thus, a hurried merger could likely create administrative difficulties both for both units. The SRC thus recommended the creation of a separate Telangana State with provision for unification after the 1961/62 general elections.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447ee118495003898488b

blog

LegislationAre there enough regulatory safeguards against nuclear power?Simran- October 30, 2012The protests against the nuclear power plant at Kudankulam have intensified over therecent weeks.  The Kudankulam plant is expected to provide2 GW of electricityannually.  However, activists concerned about the risks of nuclear energy are demanding that the plant be shut down.  The safety of nuclear power plants is a technical matter.  In this blog post we discuss the present mechanism to regulate nuclear energy and the legislative proposals to amend this mechanism. Atomic materials and atomic energy are governed by the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.  The Act empowers the central government to produce, develop and use atomic energy.  At present, nuclear safety is regulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).  Some of the drawbacks of the present mechanism are discussed below.Key issues under the present nuclear safety regulatory mechanismThe AERB is not empowered to operate as an independent operator.  The AERB was established by the government through anotificationand not through an Act of Parliament.  Its powers and functions are therefore amendable by the Department of Atomic Energy through executive orders.  The parliamentary oversight exercised upon such executive action is lower than the parliamentary oversight over statutes. [1. The executive action or the Rules are in force from the date of their notification.  They are to be tabled before Parliament mandatorily.  However, an executive action is discussed and put to vote in Parliament only if an objection is raised by a Member of Parliament.  The executive orders may be reviewed by the committee on sub-ordinate legislation.  However, this committee has to oversee a large volume of rules and regulations.  For instance, there were 1264 statutory notifications that were tabled before theRajya Sabhain 2011-12.] Furthermore, the Atomic Energy Commission that sets out the atomic energy policy, and oversees the functioning of the AERB, is headed by the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy.  This raises a conflict of interest, as the Department exercises administrative control over NPCIL that operates nuclear power plants. It is pertinent to note that various committee reports, including aCAG Reportin 2011, had highlighted the drawbacks in the present regulatory mechanisms and recommended the establishment of a statutory regulator.  A summary of the Report may be accessedhere.Proposed mechanismFollowing the Fukushima nuclear incident in 2011, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011 was introduced in Parliament to replace the AERB. The Bill establishes the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) to regulate nuclear safety, and a Nuclear Safety Council to oversee nuclear safety policies that the NSRA issues.  Under the Bill, all activities related to nuclear power and nuclear materials may only be carried out under a licence issued by the NSRA.Extent of powers and independence of the NSRAThe Bill establishes the NSRA as a statutory authority that is empowered to issue nuclear safety policies and regulations.  The Nuclear Safety Council established under the Bill to oversee these policies includes the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy.  The conflict of interest that exists under the present mechanism may thus continue under the proposed regulatory system. The Bill provides that members of the NSRA can be removed by an order of the central government without a judicial inquiry.  This may affect the independence of the members of the NSRA.  This process is at variance with enactments that establish other regulatory authorities such as TRAI and the Competition Commission of India.  These enactments require a judicial inquiry prior to the removal of a member if it is alleged that he has acquired interest that is prejudicial to the functions of the authority. The proposed legislation also empowers the government to exclude strategic facilities from the ambit of the NSRA.  The government can decide whether these facilities should be brought under the jurisdiction of another regulatory authority. These and other issues arising from the Bill are discussedhere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4470a11849500389847b7

blog

ConstitutionOrdinance making powers of the Executive in IndiaJoyita- September 27, 2013In light of the decision of the union cabinet to promulgate an Ordinance toupholdprovisionsof the Representation of People Act, 1951, this blog examines the Ordinance making power of the Executive in India.  The Ordinance allows legislators (Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies) to retain membership of the legislature even after conviction, if (a)     an appeal against the conviction is filed before a court within 90 days and (b)     the appeal is stayed by the court. However, the Ordinance will only be promulgated after it receives the assent of the President.I. Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and JudiciaryIn India, the central and state legislatures are responsible for law making, the central and state governments are responsible for the implementation of laws and the judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts and lower courts) interprets these laws. However, there are several overlaps in the functions and powers of the three institutions.  For example, the President has certain legislative and judicial functions and the legislature can delegate some of its functions to the executive in the form of subordinate legislation.II. Ordinance making powers of the PresidentArticle 123 of the Constitution grants the President certain law making powers to promulgate Ordinances when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session and hence it is not possible to enact laws in the Parliament.[i]An Ordinance may relate to any subject that the Parliament has the power to legislate on. Conversely, it has the same limitations as the Parliament to legislate, given the distribution of powers between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists. Thus, the following limitations exist with regard to the Ordinance making power of the executive: i.Legislature is not in session: The President can only promulgate an Ordinance when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session. ii.Immediate action is required: The President cannot promulgate an Ordinance unless he is satisfied that there are circumstances that require taking ‘immediate action’[ii]. iii.Parliamentary approval during session: Ordinances must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to operate.  They will also cease to operate in case resolutions disapproving the Ordinance are passed by both the Houses.   Figure 1 shows the number of Ordinances that have been promulgated in India since 1990.  The largest number of Ordinances was promulgated in 1993, and there has been a decline in the number of Ordinance promulgated since then.  However, the past year has seen a rise in the number of Ordinances promulgated.Figure 1: Number of national Ordinances promulgated in India since 1990Source: Ministry of Law and Justice; Agnihotri, VK (2009) ‘The Ordinance: Legislation by the Executive in India when the Parliament is not in Session’; PRS Legislative ResearchIII. Ordinance making powers of the GovernorJust as the President of India is constitutionally mandated to issue Ordinances under Article 123, the Governor of a state can issue Ordinances under Article 213, when the state legislative assembly (or either of the two Houses in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session.  The powers of the President and the Governor are broadly comparable with respect to Ordinance making.  However, the Governor cannot issue an Ordinance without instructions from the President in three cases where the assent of the President would have been required to pass a similar Bill.[iii]IV. Key debates relating to the Ordinance making powers of the ExecutiveThere has been significant debate surrounding the Ordinance making power of the President (and Governor).  Constitutionally, important issues that have been raised include judicial review of the Ordinance making powers of the executive; the necessity for ‘immediate action’ while promulgating an Ordinance; and the granting of Ordinance making powers to the executive, given the principle of separation of powers. Table 1 provides a brief historical overview of the manner in which the debate on the Ordinance making powers of the executive has evolved in India post independence.Table 1: Key debates on the President's Ordinance making powerYearLegislative developmentKey arguments1970RC Coopervs.Union of IndiaIn RC Coopervs.Union of India (1970) the Supreme Court, while examining the constitutionality of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 which sought to nationalise 14 of India’s largest commercial banks, held that the President’s decision could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required; and the Ordinance had been passed primarily to by-pass debate and discussion in the legislature.197538thConstitutional Amendment ActInserted a new clause (4) in Article 123 stating that the President’s satisfaction while promulgating an Ordinance was final and could not be questioned in any court on any ground.197844thConstitutional Amendment ActDeleted clause (4) inserted by the 38thCAA and therefore reopened the possibility for the judicial review of the President’s decision to promulgate an Ordinance.1980AK Royvs.Union of IndiaIn AK Royvs.Union of India (1982) while examining the constitutionality of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, which sought to provide for preventive detention in certain cases, the Court argued that the President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of judicial review. However, it did not explore the issue further as there was insufficient evidence before it and the Ordinance was replaced by an Act. It also pointed out the need to exercise judicial review over the President’s decision only when there were substantial grounds to challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and passing challenge”.1985T Venkata Reddyvs.State of Andhra PradeshIn T Venkata Reddyvs.State of Andhra Pradesh (1985), while deliberating on the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 which abolished certain village level posts, the Court reiterated that the Ordinance making power of the President and the Governor was a legislative power, comparable to the legislative power of the Parliament and state legislatures respectively. This implies that the motives behind the exercise of this power cannot be questioned, just as is the case with legislation by the Parliament and state legislatures.1987DC Wadhwavs.State of BiharIt was argued in DC Wadhwavs.State of Bihar (1987) the legislative power of the executive to promulgate Ordinances is to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law making power of the legislature.  Here, the court was examining a case where a state government (under the authority of the Governor) continued to re-promulgate ordinances, that is, it repeatedly issued new Ordinances to replace the old ones, instead of laying them before the state legislature.  A total of 259 Ordinances were re-promulgated, some of them for as long as 14 years.  The Supreme Court argued that if Ordinance making was made a usual practice, creating an ‘Ordinance raj’ the courts could strike down re-promulgated Ordinances.Source: Basu, DD (2010) Introduction to the Constitution of India; Singh, Mahendra P. (2008) VN Shukla's Constitution of India; PRS Legislative ResearchThis year, the following 9 Ordinances have been promulgated:The Securities Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Second Ordinance, 2013The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013The National Food Security Ordinance, 2013The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Ordinance, 2013The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013The Securities Laws (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013Three of these Ordinances have been re-promulgated, i.e., a second Ordinance has been promulgated to replace an existing one.  This seems to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC Wadhwavs.State of Bihar.Notes:[i]With regard to issuing Ordinances as with other matters, the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. While the Ordinance is promulgated in the name of the President and constitutionally to his satisfaction, in fact, it is promulgated on the advice of the Council of Ministers.[ii]Article 123, Clause (1)[iii](a) if a Bill containing the same provisions would have required the previous sanction of the President for introduction into the legislature; (b) if the Governor would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions for the consideration of the President; and (c) if an Act of the legislature containing the same provisions would have been invalid unless it received the assent of the President.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4470111849500389847af

blog

ParliamentRajya Sabha extends sitting hours, changes timing of Question HourTrina Roy- November 14, 2014Recently the Chairman of Rajya Sabha issued adirectionto extend the sitting hours and change the timing of Question Hour in the Upper House. Beginning with the Winter Session, which starts on November 24, Rajya Sabha will meet from 11 am to 6 pm, an hour more than its typical sitting hours. Question Hour will be scheduled from 12 pm to 1 pm, which was earlier held in the first hour of meeting. Members of Parliament (MPs), in addition to their legislative capacity, play an important role to keep the government accountable. One mechanism for them to hold the government responsible for its policies and actions is Question Hour in Parliament. During Question Hour, MPs raise questions to Ministers on various policy matters and decisions. Currently, all MPs can submit up to ten questions for every day that Parliament is in Session. Of these, 250 Questions are picked up by a random ballot to be answered each day that Parliament meets. While 230 Questions are answered in writing by Ministries, 20 Questions are scheduled to be answered orally by Ministers on the floor of the House. When a Question is answered orally by a Minister, MPs are also able to ask him/her two Supplementary Questions as a follow up to the response given. Therefore the proper functioning of Question Hour allows Parliament to be effective in its accountability function. Over the years Question Hour has become a major casualty to disruptions in Parliament. The last decade has seen a decline in the number of questions answered orally on the floor of the House. Rajya Sabha had tried to address this problem in 2011, when Question Hour was shifted to be held from 2 pm to 3 pm, but this was discontinued within a few days.The 2014 Budget Session saw both Houses of Parliament work for over hundred percent of their scheduled sitting time. However, while Question Hour functioned for 87% of its scheduled time in Lok Sabha, it functioned for only 40% of its scheduled time in Rajya Sabha. In 13 of the 27 sittings of the 2014 Budget Session, Question Hour in Rajya Sabha was adjourned within a few minutes due to disruptions. It was as a result of these increasing disruptions in the Upper House that the change in timing of the Question Hour and extension of its hours of sitting were proposed. While the Rules of Procedures of Rajya Sabha designate the first hour of sitting for Question Hour, they also allow the Chairman of the House to direct otherwise. It is using this Rule that the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Hamid Ansari, issued directions for the Question Hour to be shifted to noon. It now remains to be seen whether this change in timing of Question Hour in the Upper House will be sufficient to allow for its smoother functioning. Sources: M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 6thEdition, 2009 Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, 2010ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447c6118495003898486e

blog

LegislationSummary: Civil Liability for Nuclear damage Bill, 2010Anirudh- May 25, 2010The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on may 7, 2010.  The following is PRS’s summary of the Bill (The Bill summary and the Bill along with related media articles can also be accessed on thePRS Website):The main features of the Bill are:a. It defines nuclear incidents and nuclear damage, nuclear fuel, material and nuclear installations, and also operators of nuclear installations.b. It lays down who will be liable for nuclear damage, and the financial limit of the liability for a nuclear incident.c. It creates authorities who will assess claims and distribute compensation in cases of nuclear damage. It also specifies who can claim compensation for nuclear damage, and how compensation can be claimed and distributed.d. It specifies penalties for not complying with the provisions of the Bill, or any directions issued under it.Nuclear damage means (a) loss of life or injury to a person, or loss of, or damage to property caused by a nuclear incident (b) economic loss arising out of such damage to person or property, (c) costs of measures to repair the damage caused to the environment, and (d) costs of preventive measures.The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has to notify a nuclear incident within 15 days from the date of a nuclear incident occurring.The operator of a nuclear installation will be liable for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident in that installation or if he is in charge of nuclear material. If more than one operator is liable for nuclear damage, all operators shall be jointly, and also individually liable to pay compensation for the damage. The Bill also provides certain exceptions to an operator’s liability.The operator has a right of recourse against the supplier and other individuals responsible for the damage under certain conditions.The Bill states that the total liability for a nuclear incident shall not exceed 300 million Special Drawing Rights (Approximately Rs 2100 crore at current exchange rates).Within this amount, the liability of the operator shall be Rs 500 crore. If the liability exceeds Rs 500 crore, the central government shall be liable for the amount exceeding Rs 500 crore (up to SDR 300 million). If damage is caused in a nuclear installation owned by the central government, the government will be solely liable.The Bill allows the central government to create two authorities by notification:a. Claims Commissioner: The Claims Commissioner will have certain powers of a civil court. Once a nuclear incident is notified, the Commissioner will invite applications for claiming compensation.b. Nuclear Damage Claims Commission: If the central government thinks that with regard to a nuclear incident (a) the amount of compensation may exceed Rs 500 crore, or (b) it is necessary that claims will be heard by the Commission and not the Claims Commissioner, or (c) that it is in public interest, it can establish a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission. The Commission shall have the same powers as that of a Claims Commissioner.An application for claiming compensation can be made by (a) person sustaining the injury, (b) owner of the damaged property, (c) legal representative of a deceased person, or (d) an authorised agent. An application can be made within three years from the date of the person having knowledge of nuclear damage. This right to make an application is however exhausted after a period of ten years from the date of the notification of the nuclear incident.he Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2010. The main features of the Bill are:a. It defines nuclear incidents and nuclear damage, nuclear fuel, material and nuclear installations, and also operators of nuclear installations.b. It lays down who will be liable for nuclear damage, and the financial limit of the liability for a nuclear incident.c. It creates authorities who will assess claims and distribute compensation in cases of nuclear damage. It also specifies who can claim compensation for nuclear damage, and how compensation can be claimed and distributed.d. It specifies penalties for not complying with the provisions of the Bill, or any directions issued under it.§ Nuclear damage means (a) loss of life or injury to a person, or loss of, or damage to property caused by a nuclear incident (b) economic loss arising out of such damage to person or property, (c) costs of measures to repair the damage caused to the environment, and (d) costs of preventive measures.§ The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has to notify a nuclear incident within 15 days from the date of a nuclear incident occurring.§ The operator of a nuclear installation will be liable for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident in that installation or if he is in charge of nuclear material. If more than one operator is liable for nuclear damage, all operators shall be jointly, and also individually liable to pay compensation for the damage. The Bill also provides certain exceptions to an operator’s liability.§ The operator has a right of recourse against the supplier and other individuals responsible for the damage under certain conditions.§ The Bill states that the total liability for a nuclear incident shall not exceed 300 million Special Drawing Rights (Approximately Rs 2100 crore at current exchange rates).§ Within this amount, the liability of the operator shall be Rs 500 crore. If the liability exceeds Rs 500 crore, the central government shall be liable for the amount exceeding Rs 500 crore (up to SDR 300 million). If damage is caused in a nuclear installation owned by the central government, the government will be solely liable.§ The Bill allows the central government to create two authorities by notification:a.Claims Commissioner: The Claims Commissioner will have certain powers of a civil court. Once a nuclear incident is notified, the Commissioner will invite applications for claiming compensation.b.Nuclear Damage Claims Commission: If the central government thinks that with regard to a nuclear incident (a) the amount of compensation may exceed Rs 500 crore, or (b) it is necessary that claims will be heard by the Commission and not the Claims Commissioner, or (c) that it is in public interest, it can establish a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission. The Commission shall have the same powers as that of a Claims Commissioner.An application for claiming compensation can be made by (a) person sustaining the injury, (b) owner of the damaged property, (c) legal representative of a deceased person, or (d) an authorised agent. An application can be made within three years from the date of the person having knowledge of nuclear damage. This right to make an application is however exhausted after a period of ten years from the date of the notification of the nuclear incident.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

90fe8910-71e3-5ea1-a157-e2491ef3ee1f

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nKarnataka High Court\nThe Malnad Progressive vs The Deputy Commissioner on 1 March, 2021Author: Hemant Chandangoudar\n 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n DHARWAD BENCH\n\n DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2021\n\n BEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR\n\n Writ Petition No.100690/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)\n\nBetween\n\nThe Malnad Progressive\nEducation Society, (R)\nHonnavar, Dist: Uttarakannada\nRepresented by its General\nSecretary. ...Petitioner\n\n(By Sri Dinesh M Kulkarni, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd\n\n1. The Deputy Commissioner\n Uttara Kannada District\n Karwar - 403728.\n\n2. The Assistant Commissioner\n Karwar - 403728.\n\n3. The Tahashildar\n Honnavar Taluka\n Honnavar - 581334\n Dist: Uttarakannada. ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri Vinayak S Kulkarni, AGA)\n 2\n\n\n\n\n This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the\nConstitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of\nmandamus directing respondent No.1 to 3 to consider\nrepresentation dated 4.8.2020 application bearing No.MPES/71/\n2020-21 vide Annexure-N and pass appropriate orders regarding\nrevenue entries in favour of petitioner lands are concerned.\n\n This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this\nday, the Court made the following:\n\n ORDER\n\n Sri Vinayak S Kulkarni, learned AGA accepts notice for\n\nrespondents.\n\n\n 2. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under\n\nArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a\n\ndirection to respondents to consider representation dated\n\n4.8.2020.\n\n\n 3. Petitioner states that it was granted 40 acres and 10\n\nacres of land respectively in Sy.Nos.236-A1 of Honavar village\n\nand 38 of Kulkod village. Thereafter, the possession of land was\n\nhanded over to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted an\n\napplication to respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide\n\nAnnexure-N to effect sub-division the land in question. The 1st\n\nrespondent in turn forwarded the said representation to\n 3\n\n\n\n\nrespondent No.3 for effecting sub-division of the land in\n\nquestion. However, sub-division of land in question is not\n\neffected in accordance with law even to this day.\n\n\n 4. Respondents who are under an obligation, without\n\nany valid reason have not considered the representation\n\nsubmitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order even to\n\nthis day. Accordingly, I pass the following:\n\n ORDER\n\n Writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents\n\nto effect sub-division of lands in Sy.Nos.236/A of Honavar village\n\nand 38 of Kulkod Village, U K District in accordance with law\n\nwithin a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of\n\nthis order and thereafter to carryout corrections in revenue\n\nrecords pertaining to the lands in question.\n\n\n\n Sd/-\n JUDGE\n\n\n\nbkm

e29d5bc9-462b-5c54-9070-bc288a5ba62f

court_cases

Orissa High CourtBanchhanidhi Sadmadia vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 9 February, 2022Author:A.K. MohapatraBench:A.K. MohapatraIN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n W.P.(C) No.3042 of 2022\n\n Banchhanidhi Sadmadia .... Petitioner\n Mr. Saroj Ku. Jee, Advocate\n -versus-\n\n State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties\n Mr. S.Jena, Standing Counsel\n S & ME\n\n CORAM:\n\n JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA\n\n ORDEROrder No. 09.02.2022\n 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement\n (virtual/physical mode).2. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application\n is that although his services have been regularized with effect from\n 08.11.2011 by the District Education Officer, Bargarh vide order\n dated 31.12.2020. The Petitioner is claiming regularization with\n effect from 15.01.1999. Therefore, it is submitted by the Petitioner\n that he is not aggrieved by the order under Annexure-4. Only his\n prayer is for modification of the date with effect from which the\n order of regularization shall be given effect to.3. Learned counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education\n Department submits that he has no objection to the prayer made by\n the Petitioner. He further submits that after considering the factual\n background, the District Education Officer has passed necessary\n orders. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that this\n // 2 //\n\n\n\n\n case is covered by the decision of this Court that the relief sought for\n by the Petitioner has been allowed by this Court in the case of\n similarly situated other employees. In the aforesaid context, he relies\n upon the order of this Court dated 01.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C)\n No.29357 of 2021 wherein the judgment of this Court dated\n 05.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.10071 of 2018 has been relied\n upon.4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court\n disposes of the writ application with a direction to the Petitioner to\n file a fresh representation along with a copy of the order/judgment of\n this Court, the Petitioner is relying upon within a period of two\n weeks from today. In the event such a representation is filed the same\n shall be considered and shall be disposed of in accordance with law\n by a seasoned and speaking order within 10 weeks from the date of\n filing of\n representation. The decision so taken on the representation of the\n Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days\n thereafter.5. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the\n merits of the case.6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands\n disposed of.7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rule.RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra)\n Judge

ffd9acc9-8cd7-5efc-b295-049027148985

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nPunjab-Haryana High Court\nSidhant Kalsi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 September, 2021CRM-M-5790-2021 (O&M) -1-\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n CHANDIGARH\n\n\n(119)\n CRM-M-5790-2021 (O&M)\n Date of Decision:- 24.09.2021\nSidhant Kalsi and others ...Petitioners\n\n VERSUS\n\nState of Punjab and another ...Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL\n\nPresent: Mr. S.P.Soi, Advocate with\n Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate\n for the applicants-petitioners.\n ...\nSUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)\n\n The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to\n\nCovid-19 pandemic.\n\nCRM-24738-2021\n\n Prayer in the application is for preponing of the hearing of main\n\ncase, which is fixed for 29.11.2021.\n\n Notice of the application.\n\n On asking of the Court, Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab\n\naccepts notice on behalf of the State-respondent No.1 and Mr. A.S.Gagrha,\n\nAdvocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2. They do not\n\nhave any objection in case the prayer is acceded to.\n\n Application is allowed. The hearing of the main case is preponed\n\nto today and is taken on Board.\n\n\n\n\n 1 of 4\n ::: Downloaded on - 25-09-2021 01:08:46 :::\n CRM-M-5790-2021 (O&M) -2-\n\n\n\nCRM-M- 5790-2021\n\n Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of\n\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.173 dated 09.10.2019\n\nregistered for offence under Sections 341, 323, 356, 148 and 149 of the\n\nIndian Penal Code, 1860, (Sections 325 and 201, IPC, were added later on)\n\nat Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, Annexure P-1, along with all\n\nsubsequent proceedings on basis of compromise dated 25.01.2021,\n\nAnnexure P-3.\n\n Counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR is an outcome of\n\na petty dispute between the accused-petitioners and the complainant-\n\nrespondent No.2, who were residents of the same locality, which has been\n\nsettled by virtue of compromise, Annexure P-3. Counsel submits that in\n\ncompliance of order passed by this Court on 09.02.2021, the petitioners\n\nhave appeared before the trial Court and their statements have been\n\nrecorded in support of the compromise.\n\n Heard.\n Vide order dated 09.02.2021, while issuing notice of motion, this\nCourt directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court\nfor getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise and a\nreport was called for on the following aspects:-\n "1. The number of accused arraigned in the FIR and\n how many have appeared before it and have made\n statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O.\n in the case;\n 2. the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved\n and whether all of them have appeared and made their\n statements in support of the compromise;\n 3. the stage of trial/proceedings;\n 4. if the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of\n free will of the parties."\n\n\n 2 of 4\n ::: Downloaded on - 25-09-2021 01:08:46 :::\n CRM-M-5790-2021 (O&M) -3-\n\n\n In compliance of above order, a report has been received from the\n\ntrial Court, the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:-\n\n "So, on 26.03.2021 both the parties i.e.\n complainant namely Aditya son of Mukaddar Lal and\n all the accused namely Sidhant Kalsi, Harjinder Kalsi,\n Chandan Pal, Mohit Pal and Pratham Pal accused put\n their appearance in the Court of the undersigned.\n Statements of both the parties were recorded.\n Complainant and accused above named suffered their\n respective statements with regard to the execution of\n compromise between them. Complainant and accused\n above named have deposed that they have compromised\n the matter. Complainant has further stated that he has\n no objection if the FIR in the present case is quashed\n against the above mentioned accused.\n It is further submitted that as per record there\n are above named five accused arraigned in the present\n FIR and there is no other accused. All the above said\n accused are appearing before the Court and none of the\n accused is PO. The case is at the stage of prosecution\n evidence. Adhar Cards as I.D. Proofs of the parties\n have been taken on record. It is respectfully submitted\n that from the statements of both the parties it seems that\n compromise effected between them is genuine one and is\n voluntary in nature, without any pressure, out of free\n will, duress or any undue influence."\n Upon instructions from, SI, Prem Kumar, learned State counsel\n\nsubmits that charge has been framed on 24.01.2020, though none out of the\n\ntwelve prosecution witnesses could be examined.\n\n\n\n\n 3 of 4\n ::: Downloaded on - 25-09-2021 01:08:46 :::\n CRM-M-5790-2021 (O&M) -4-\n\n\n\n Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and\n\nanother, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held that the High Court has\n\nwide power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash\n\nan FIR or complaint having predominantly civil flavour or involving\n\nmatrimonial offences and family disputes wherein the wrong is basically\n\nprivate or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire\n\ndispute. A Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of\n\nPunjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Division Bench of\n\nthis Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and\n\nanother, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 held that compounding of offence\n\ncan be allowed even after conviction, during pendency of the appeal and\n\neven in cases involving non-compoundable offences.\n Counsel for the parties are also ad idem that in view of the\n\nsettlement of the dispute between the parties, the present petition deserves\n\nto be accepted. In view of the above, no purpose will be served in\n\ncontinuing with the criminal proceedings.\n\n Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.173 dated\n\n09.10.2019, registered under Sections 341, 323, 356, 148 and 149 of the\n\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 325 and 201, IPC, were added later on),\n\nat Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, Annexure P-1, and all\n\nsubsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.\n\n\n24.09.2021 (SUVIR SEHGAL)\nKamal JUDGE\n Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No\n Whether Reportable Yes/No\n\n\n\n\n 4 of 4\n ::: Downloaded on - 25-09-2021 01:08:46 :::

13269b01-0524-57e7-9a5e-9a98d50b18a7

court_cases

Rajasthan High CourtSmt Shimla Devi And Others vs Rujdar Khan And Others on 22 October, 2021Author:Ashok Kumar GaurBench:Ashok Kumar GaurHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.774/2016\n\nReliance General Insurance Company Limited, Office At Man\nUpasna, Sarder Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its\nAuthorized Signatory.\n ----Appellant\n Versus\n1. Shimla Devi W/o Late Shri Babu Singh @ Babu Lal, aged\n about 28 years,\n2. Hemant S/o Late Shri Babu Singh @ Babu Lal, R/o aged\n about 5 years,\n3. Ganesh S/o Late Shri Babu Singh @ Babu Lal, aged about\n 3 years,\n [Claimants No. 2 & 3 being minor represented through\n natural guardian Shimla Devi]\n4. Kalyan Singh @ Kishana S/o Shri Shankar Lal, aged about\n 54 years,\n5. Smt. Gulabi Devi W/o Kalyan Singh @ Kishana, R/o aged\n about 51 years\n All residents of Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District\n Jaipur.\n Claimants-Respondents6. Ruzdar Khan S/o Shri Guraji Khan, R/o Nichalasath,\n Village Allahpur, Alwar [Rajasthan]\n [Driver - Truck No. RJ 02 GA 7513]7. Akbar Khan S/o Shri Kamal Khan, R/o House No.37,\n Nichalasath, Village Allahapur, Alwar Rajasthan.\n [Owner - Truck No. RJ 02 GA 7513]----Respondents\n Connected With\n S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1096/20161. Smt. Shimla Devi W/o Shri Babu Singh @ Babulal, age 29\nyears,2. Hemant S/o Shri Babu Singh @ Babulal, age 6 years and 6\nmonths,3. Ganesh S/o Shri Babu Singh @ Babulal, age 5 years,\n(Appellant no.2 and 3 through natural guardian mother Smt.\nShimla Devi W/o Shri Babu Singh @ Babulal)(Downloaded on 25/10/2021 at 10:16:32 PM)(2 of 3) [CMA-774/2016]4. Kalyan Singh @ Krishna S/o Shri Shanker Lal, age 55 years,5. Smt. Gulabi Devi W/o Shri Kalyan Singh @ Kishan, age 52\nyears.All residence of Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.)----Appellant\n Versus1. Rujdar Khan S/o Guraji Khan, R/o Nichalasath, Gram Allahpur,\nAlwar, Raj.(Driver of Mini bus bearing number RJ-02-GA-7513).2. Akbar Khan S/o Shri Kamal Khan, R/o House No.37,\nNichalasath, Gram Allahpur, Alwar, Raj.3. Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.----Respondents\n\n\nFor Appellant(s) : Mr.Rizwan Ahmed, Adv.\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr.Ritwick Dave, Adv.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR\n\n Order\n\n22/10/2021\n\nS.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1096/2016:-Learned counsel for the appellant and the claimant submitted\n\nthat the parties have entered into a compromise with the\n\nInsurance Company and as such counsel does want to pursue the\n\npresent appeal and he wants to withdraw the appeal in view of the\n\ncompromise arrived at between the parties in S.B.C.M.A.\n\nNo.774/2016.Accordingly, S.B.C.M.A. No.1096/2016 is dismissed as\n\nwithdrawn.S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 774/2016:-Learned counsel for the appellant and the claimants\n\nsubmitted that parties to litigation have entered into a(Downloaded on 25/10/2021 at 10:16:32 PM)(3 of 3) [CMA-774/2016]\n\n\n compromise and terms of the compromise have been filed before\n\n this Court.Learned counsel submitted that the matter may not be\n\n adjudicated on merits and appeal may be disposed in terms of the\n\n compromise.Accordingly, this Court disposes of the appeal in view of the\n\n compromise being entered between the parties.The compromise may be treated as part and parcel of this\n\n order.A copy of this order be separately placed in connected\n\n matter\n\n\n\n (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J\n\n Parul Sharma/Ramesh Vaishnav/132 & 134(Downloaded on 25/10/2021 at 10:16:32 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

ad79ffb2-3b47-5883-bdeb-4078983d0a73

court_cases

Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurSmt Pooja vs State on 16 April, 2020Author:Pushpendra Singh BhatiBench:Pushpendra Singh Bhati(1 of 2) [CRLMP-1204/2020]\n\n\n HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n JODHPUR\n S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1204/2020\n\n1. Smt Pooja W/o Amit Rathore D/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged\n About 25 Years, By Caste Rathore, R/o Ward No. 08,\n Chandi Chowk Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar\n (Raj.).\n2. Amit Rathore S/o Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 26 Years,\n By Caste Rathore, R/o Ward No. 08, Chandi Chowk Purani\n Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).\n ----Petitioners\n Versus\n1. State, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home\n Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar.\n3. Sho, Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.\n4. Shri Banwari Lal, Prabhu Chok, Ward No. 7, Purani Abadi,\n District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).\n5. Shri Laxman Meena S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 27\n Years, Prabhu Chok, Ward No. 7, Purani Abadi, District Sri\n Ganganagar (Raj.).\n ----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s) :\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr.Farzand Ali, GA-cum-AAG.\n\n\n\n HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATIOrder\n\n16/04/2020\n\n In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been\n\nadvised to refrain from coming to the Courts.The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition for\n\nissuance of necessary directions to the official respondents to\n\nprovide adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the\n\nground that they are facing grave threat of life and liberty at the(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:28:41 PM)(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1204/2020]\n\n\n\n hands of respondent no.4 & 5 and their family members, in view\n\n of solemnization of their marriage with each other on 12.09.2019.Heard learned Additional Advocate General.\n\n After perusing the material available on record and on an\n\n overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,\n\n this Court is of the opinion that nobody can be permitted to take\n\n law in his own hands merely because marriage is not acceptable.\n\n Thus, this Court deems it proper to direct the petitioners to appear\n\n before the S.H.O., Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri\n\n Ganganagar, who shall hear the grievance of the petitioners and\n\n after analyzing the threat perceptions, if required so, may pass\n\n necessary orders.Consequently, the present misc. petition stands disposed of\n\n by issuing direction to the S.H.O., Police Station Purani Abadi,\n\n District Sri Ganganagar to ensure necessary vigil that no harm is\n\n caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of\n\n those, who are opposed to the marriage.It is made clear that this order is not a proof of age and the\n\n marriage of the petitioners and any observations in this order shall\n\n not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the\n\n petitioners at the instances of their relatives.(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J\n 53-Sphophaliya/-(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:28:41 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

f5f7ec89-519b-584e-a5f6-58e716eed45f

court_cases

Chattisgarh High CourtLukky @ Lekhram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 May, 20211\n\n NAFR\n\n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n\n Proceedings Through Video Conferencing\n\n MCRC No. 1744 of 2021\n\n1.Arjun Das Sahu, S/o Dashru Ram Sahu, aged about 57 Years,\n Caste Teli,2. Narsingh Kadam, S/o Ude Ram, aged about 38 Years, Caste\n Kurmi,3. Sunil Sahu, S/o Baratu Sahu, aged about 38 Years, Caste Teli,4. Gulab Kadam, S/o Bhagwat Kadam, aged about 42 Years, Caste\n Kurmi,5. Harendra Kurmi, S/o Kejuram Kurmi, aged about 34 Years, Caste\n Kurmi,\n\n All R/o Village Murmunda Police Station Dongargarh District\n Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh---Applicants\n\n Versus\n\n State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Dongargarh,\n District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.---- Non-applicant\n\n MCRC No. 1867 of 2021\n\n Lukky @ Lekhram, S/o Maangilal, aged about 30 Years, R/o\n Village Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,\n Chhattisgarh.----Applicant\n\n Versus\n\n State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dongargarh, District\n Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.---- Non-applicant\n\n\n\n MCRC No. 2214 of 20212 Darwan, S/o Anand Ram, aged about 35 Years, Resident of\n Village Murmunda, Police Station Dongargarh, District\n Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.----Applicant\n\n Versus\n\n  State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police\n Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.---Non-applicant\n\n\n\nFor Applicants Shri Keshav Dewangan, Shri J.K. Gupta & Shri\n Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocates.For State Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy A.G.Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya\n Order on Board\n\n21/05/20211. As all these applications filed underSection 439of Cr.P.C. arise\n\n out of the same Crime No.10/2017 registered at police station\n\n Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G., for the offence\n\n punishable underSections 148/149,186/149,332/149,353/149,307/149&435/149of Indian Penal Code andSections 3&4of\n\n the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, they are\n\n being disposed of by this common order.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the night intervening\n\n 6-7 January, 2017 some cultural program was going on in village\n\n Murmunda where the present applicants along with other\n\n co-accused persons were creating nuisance. On complaint being\n\n made to the police, the police party reached there and tried to\n\n convince the accused persons not to do so. However, one of the\n\n accused assaulted the complainant with an iron rod on his head3with intention to commit his murder. The accused persons also\n\n caused damage to the police vehicles and set them on fire. The\n\n accused persons caused hindrance in the discharge of official\n\n duties by the police party.3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants\n\n have been falsely implicated in this crime, they are languishing in\n\n jail since 03.02.2021 & 04.02.2021, charge sheet has already\n\n been filed, due to COVID-19 pandemic, conclusion of trial is likely\n\n to take some time and that co-accused persons namely Santosh\n\n Shivankar, Shiv Kadam @ Yuvraj Kadam, Santaru Yadav, Suraj\n\n Kadam, Bhagwani, Chohal Kishore @ Mukesh Kumar Verma,\n\n Pemandas, Kewaldas Sahu, Sujit Kumar Sahu, Mahesh Kumar\n\n Dewangan, Yogesh Mandawi & Dwarika Patel in this case have\n\n already been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of\n\n this Court in MCRC No.2049/2017, MCRC No.2579/2017, MCRC\n\n No.2693/2017, MCRC No.2676/2017 and MCRC No.3109/2017\n\n vide order dated 17.05.2017. Therefore, the applicants be\n\n released on bail on the ground of parity.4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail\n\n applications.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to\n\n the facts and circumstances of the case, charge sheet has\n\n already been filed, the fact that the co-accused persons in this\n\n case have already been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate\n\n Bench of this Court, the detention period of the applicants, the\n\n fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and there is4no likelihood of the applicants tampering with the evidence or\n\n absconding as admitted by counsel for the parties and conclusion\n\n of trial may take some time, the applications are allowed.6. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each\n\n of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with\n\n one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial\n\n Judge for their appearance before the said trial Court as and\n\n when directed.7. It is made clear that this order granting bail to the applicants shall\n\n stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Bench by\n\n the Court below if (i) the trial Court finds that the applicants\n\n suppressed filing or pendency of any other application for grant of\n\n bail before this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court intentionally; (ii)\n\n the applicants do not cooperate in the trial; (iii) the applicants are\n\n found to be involved in any offence of the like nature; and (iv) the\n\n trial Court finds that the applicants remain absent without any\n\n sufficient and cogent reason. If bail is cancelled automatically in\n\n view of the above, the Court below may proceed further under\n\n the provisions of law, under intimation.8. The applicants are further directed to remain present before the\n\n SHO/IO/Incharge as the case may be to Police Station\n\n Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon on every Monday till trial at\n\n 11.00 am sharp to mark their appearance. If the applicants fail to\n\n appear as directed, Dongargarh Police may intimate the same to\n\n the Trial Judge and if the Trial Judge finds that the applicants\n\n remained absent without any cogent or proper reason, the bail5granted to the applicants shall stand cancelled without reference\n\n to the Bench under intimation.Sd/-Gautam Chourdiya\n (Vacation Judge)\n\nRavi.

e9a43fd2-bf53-59b5-82df-cbbb4b117f41

court_cases

Uttarakhand High CourtWPCRL/1822/2020 on 4 November, 2020Author:R.C. KhulbeBench:R.C. KhulbeWPCRL No.1822 of 2020\nHon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.Ms. Krishi Shukla, learned counsel for the\npetitioners.Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned DAG along with\nMr. Lalit Miglani, learned A.G.A. for the State.This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ\nof certiorari to quash the FIR lodged against the\npetitioners, details whereof are given in the prayer\nclause.By virtue of amendment to theCode of\nCriminal Procedure(Uttarakhand Amendment)\n2019 brought about by the State in Act No.20 of\n2020, the affected person(s) is entitled to bail\napprehending his arrest under the provision ofSection 438Cr. P.C. The said Act has come into\nforce w.e.f. 11.08.2020.Accordingly, I do not find it appropriate to\nproceed with the matter, because the writ\npetitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy.However, in order to protect the petitioners'\ninterest, the respondents are directed not to arrest\nthe petitioners for a period of one month from\ntoday, so as to enable them to approach the\nappropriate court for seeking appropriate remedy,\nprovided the petitioners will cooperate with the\ninvestigation.With these observations, the writ petition is\ndisposed of finally.Pending application, if any, stands disposed\nof.(R.C. Khulbe, J.)\n 04.11.2020\nBS/SS

29b044d6-63fa-53f9-bee8-1668d9f81907

court_cases

Telangana High CourtChelmetikari Kistaiah And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 30 November, 2020Author:K. LakshmanBench:K. LakshmanTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN\n\n CRIMINAL PETITION No.6116 OF 2020\n\nORDER:This petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 underSection 482Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Crime\n\nNo.112 of 2020, pending on the file of the Nannel Police\n\nStation, Ramagundam. The offences alleged against the\n\npetitioners are underSections 447,427read withSection 34of IPC.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public\n\nProsecutor and perused the record.In the complaint dated 19.05.2020, the allegation\n\nappears to be vague. The details of date of encroachment/\n\ntrespass i.e., the time and date etc., of the alleged incident are\n\nnot mentioned in the complaint.Considering the said aspects and also the fact that the\n\npunishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the\n\npetitioners is imprisonment of seven years or below seven\n\nyears, the criminal petition is disposed of directing the\n\nPolice, Nannel, to follow the procedure laid underSection\n\n41-Aof Cr.P.C., and also the guidelines issued by the Apex\n\nCourt inArnesh Kumar v. State of Biharand another1.\n\nThe Investigating Officer in Cr.No.112 of 2020 is further\n\ndirected not to arrest the petitioners herein till the completion\n\nof investigation and filing of final report.\n\n1 (2014) 8 SCC 2732Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand\n\nclosed.__________________\n K. LAKSHMAN, J\nDate:30.11.2020\nLrkm

9b646cc5-4fcc-52bf-a673-8525e12108e1

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nCalcutta High Court\nBhanu Sonkar & Anr vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ... on 9 August, 2023OD-2\n ORDER SHEET\n WPO No.1486 of 2023\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction\n ORIGINAL SIDE\n\n\n BHANU SONKAR & ANR.\n -Versus-\n KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA\n Date:9th August, 2023.\n Appearance:\n\n Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.\n Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv.\n ...for Petitioners.\n\n Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Adv.\n Mr. Jayanta Kr. Dhar, Adv.\n ...for KMC.\n\n Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.\n Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv.\n ...for Respondent Nos.6 & 7.\n The Court:-The instant writ petition is in respect of premises no.12,\n\nGoenka Lane, Ward No.23, Borough-IV under jurisdiction of the Kolkata\n\nMunicipal Corporation.\n\n The petitioners claim to be tenants of the subject premises. A suit is\n\npending consideration between the landlords and the tenants being Title\n\nSuit No. 56 of 2023 wherein a written objection has been filed on behalf of\n\nthe landlords mentioning that the plaintiffs, i.e. the petitioners herein are\n\nthe tenants in respect of two rooms, one is in the ground floor and another\n\nis on the first floor. The defendants decided to demolish the existing\n\nstructure in order to raise a multi storied building over there. The\n\ndefendants are ready and willing to restore the possession of the plaintiffs\n\nafter construction of the said premises.\n\n A building plan has been sanctioned for raising construction but in\n\nview of the objection raised by the petitioners, the Special Municipal\n\nCommissioner of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation by an order dated 4th\n\nMay, 2023 signed on 10th May, 2023 directed the sanctioned plan to be\n 2\n\n\n\nkept suspended and to be revoked or revised by inserting the names of the\n\nwrit petitioners as occupiers/ tenants, as the case may be, on the basis of\n\nfinal outcome of the title suit. The condition of the existing building being\n\nold and dilapidated, the private respondents, i.e., the landlords herein were\n\nallowed to demolish the said dangerous, old and dilapidated structure.\n\n The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order filed a writ petition\n\nbefore this Court being WPO No.1306 of 2023 which stood dismissed on\n\n27th June, 2023. The order of dismissal was carrying in appeal by the\n\npetitioners herein in APO No.94 of 2023 with WPO 1306 of 2023 and IA\n\nNO:GA/1/2023 and by order dated 2nd August, 2023 the Hon'ble Division\n\nBench was pleased to dismiss the appeal and the connected application.\n\n The Appeal Court was, however, of the opinion that a substantial\n\nportion of the building has already been demolished and it is imperative\n\nthat the appellants do vacate the premises at the earliest to enable\n\ndemolition thereof.\n\n The Hon'ble Division Bench reiterated that in the event the appellants\n\nsucceed in the civil suit pending before the learned City Civil Court, the\n\nnames of the appellants will be incorporated in the sanctioned building\n\nplan and they will be rehabilitated in the reconstructed building, in\n\naccordance with law.\n\n The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to record that if the\n\nappellants are aggrieved by the order passed under Section 412A of the\n\nKMC Act, 1980 and if they are entitled to challenge the same in accordance\n\nwith law, they can always do so.\n\n Relying on the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench,\n\nthe instant writ petition has been filed.\n 3\n The petitioners pray for a direction upon the respondents, inter alia,\n\nto set aside and quash the order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer\n\n(Civil)/Building/North of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated\n\n16.03.2023 and to comply with the guidelines as laid down in the office\n\nCircular No.7 of 2021-22 dated 22.11.2021.\n\n Though the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.03.2023\n\nbut it appears that thereafter the Special Municipal Commissioner of the\n\nKolkata Municipal Corporation passed an order on 04.05.2023 signed on\n\n10.05.2023 and the said order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division\n\nBench.\n\n The Special Municipal Commissioner of the Kolkata Municipal\n\nCorporation as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to protect\n\nthe interest of the petitioners by recording that in the event the appellants\n\nsucceed in the civil suit, their names will be incorporated in the sanctioned\n\nbuilding plan and they will be rehabilitated in the reconstructed building.\n\n The landlords have themselves admitted that the petitioners are the\n\ntenants and the landlords are agreeable to restore the possession of the\n\npetitioners after construction is made.\n\n Accordingly, at this stage the Court is of the opinion that there is no\n\nrequirement of entertaining the present writ petition.\n\n Right of the petitioners is very much protected by the order passed in\n\nthe proceedings before this Court and also before the Special Municipal\n\nCommissioner.\n\n In view of the above, there is no requirement of interfering in the\n\ninstant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby\n\ndismissed.\n 4\n Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.\n\n Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be\n\nsupplied to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities.\n\n\n\n (AMRITA SINHA, J.)\n\n\n\n\n nm

502f2ca5-cfec-58ef-818a-e4652baf2739

court_cases

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchQurat Ul Ain vs University Of Kashmir And Others on 9 May, 2022Author:Moksha Khajuria KazmiBench:Moksha Khajuria KazmiPage 1 of 7\n\n Sr. No. 68\n\n IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT SRINAGAR\n\n\n SWP No.1295/2018\n IA No.01/2018\n\n Qurat Ul Ain ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)\n\n Through: Mr. Sofi Manzoor, Advocate\n\n Vs.\n\n University of Kashmir and others ...Respondent(s)\n\n Through: Mr. T.H. Khawja, Advocate\n\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE\n ORDER09.05.202201. In the instant petition, petitioner herein has challenged the Notification\n\nNo.F (Casual/Contra-Gen-Adm) KU/14 dated 03.09.2014 forming\n\n(Annexure-E) to the writ petition and also order No.F (Regularization/Cont.)\n\nGA/KU/2017 dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-F) to the extent it regularizes the\n\npetitioner as helper instead of Lab. Assistant/Assistant.02. Petitioner has also challenged advertisement Notification No.02 of\n\n2018, whereby the post of Lab Assistant was advertised. The petitioner has\n\nfurther sought direction to the respondents to regularize the services of\n\npetitioner strictly in terms of the roadmap as has been approved and issued by\n\nthe respondent No.2 in the same manner as has been done by Jammu\n\nUniversity and on the analogy the similarly circumstanced contractual\n\nemployees were regularized against their own post. The petitioner has also\n\nsought her regularization with effect from the date she had completed her\n\n7(seven) years of service against the post of Lab Assistant.SWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018Page 2 of 703. In terms of advertisement No.Gen. 120 dated 14.05.2009; applications\n\nwere invited by University of Kashmir, Department of Electronics and\n\nInstrumentation Technology for the post of Lab Assistant. The petitioner\n\napplied for the said post and was duly selected in the year 2009. The petitioner\n\ncontinued to discharge her duties as Lab Assistant against the vacant post on\n\ncontractual basis in the department of Electronics and Instrumentation\n\nTechnology in the Kashmir University.04. The Kashmir University pursuant to the resolution passed by the\n\nUniversity Council of University of Kashmir and a Roadmap approved and\n\ncommunicated by Financial Advisor (Universities) viz University of Jammu\n\nand University of Kashmir vide No.FA-KU/JU/202-204.com/13 dated\n\n20.08.2013 also worked out the roadmap along-with time lines, for\n\noperationalizing the frame work. The relevant paras of the aforesaid\n\ncommunication are quoted hereinbelow: -"..........IV. There will be complete ban on engagement of\n casual/contractual workers.V. All the cases of casual workers presently engaged in the two\n universities will be processed and put up to an empowered\n committee (one each for the two universities) comprising of the\n concerned vice-chancellor, Registrar, Director General Accounts\n and Treasuries, Director Budget (both from the Finance\n Department) and an officer to the General Administration\n Department (not below the rank of additional secretary) strictly\n as per the provisions of statutes and regulations for regularizing\n all " engagees who have completed seven years of uninterrupted\n service after the date of first engagement and who have been paid\n regularly by the University from available non plan resources.\n Upon regularization such of the engagees as can't "Helpers" and\n be given the pay scales applicable to the lowest class iv or class\n III level of employees in the Universities, as the case may be. For\n such a process of regularization, supernumerary and temporary\n posts of the "Helpers" shall be created outside the\n normal/existing hierarchy of the University.VI. Helpers could subsequently move to the clear posts/vacancies\n in the formal organizational hierarchy as and when these become\n available and the supernumerary/temporary posts of helpers\n vacated by the incumbents will automatically abolished.SWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018Page 3 of 7VII. In case of contractual employees also, a similar dispensation\n could be followed with the difference that the designation could\n be "Assistants" in place of "Helpers" in case of class III posts.05. The University of Jammu vide notification No.Estab/13/477-576\n\n11.04.2014 framed the roadmap in terms of notification No.FA-KU/JU/202-204.com/13 dated 20.08.2013, the persons engaged on casual/contractual\n\nbasis were to be regularized on the basis of following guidelines: -I. That he/she has been engaged in the Main Campus/Offsite\n Campuses of the University of Jammu by the establishment\n Section on the approval of the Competent Authority.II. That he/she is continuously working on casual\n basis/consolidated/contractual/adhoc basis without any\n break (other than the usual breaks/leave sanctioned by the\n Authority i.e., Director/Head of the Department/Branch\n Officer).III. That he/she possessed the requisite qualifications and\n eligibility criteria required or the past (as given at Annexure)\n on the date of his/her initial engagement on casual or adhoc\n or contractual or consolidated basis.IV. That no disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending\n against him/her on the appointed day i.e., the date on which\n he/she is considered for regularization.V. That he/she has completed seven years or more service as\n such on the appointed day i.e., the day of regularization.4. (a). The Committee shall consider the cases of all the\n casual/contractual engages who have completed seven years of\n uninterrupted service after the date of first engagement and who\n have been paid regularly by the University from available resources.Upon regularization, such of the engages as cannot be regularized\n suitably against available posts, could be designated as "Helpers\n "and be given the pay scales applicable to the lowest Class-IV or\n Class-III level of employees in the University and temporary posts of\n "Helpers" shall be created outside the normal/existing hierarchy of\n the University.b. Helpers could subsequently move to clear posts/vacancies in the\n formal organizational hierarchy as and when these become\n available and the supernumerary/temporary posts of Helpers\n vacated by the incumbents shall automatically get abolished.SWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018Page 4 of 7c. In case of contractual employees also, a similar dispensation\n could be followed with the difference that the designations could be\n "Assistants" in place of " Helpers" in case of Class III posts."06. The University of Kashmir vide notification No.F (Casual/Contra-\n\nGen-Adm) KU/14 dated 03.09.2014 issued guidelines on the basis of which\n\npersons engaged on casual/contractual basis shall be regularized on the\n\nfollowing lines:-"........3. Procedure for regularizationa) The Committee shall consider the cases of all the\n casual/contractual engagees who have completed seven years of\n uninterrupted service after the first engagement and who have been\n paid regularly by the University from available resources. Upon\n regularization, such of the engagees as cannot be regularized\n suitably against available posts, could be designated as "Helper"and be given the pay scales applicable to the lowest Class-IV of\n employees in the University as the case may be. For such a process\n of regularization, supernumerary and temporary posts of "Helpers"\n shall be created outside the normal/existing hierarchy of the\n University.b). Helper could subsequently move to clear posts/vacancies in the\n format organizational hierarchy as and when these become\n available and the supernumerary/temporary posts of Helpers by the\n incumbents shall automatically get abolished.......".07. The contention of the petitioner that the roadmap of the University of\n\nKashmir which has been issued vide notification dated 03.09.2014 pursuant\n\nto which petitioner has been regularized as Helper is in violation of the\n\naforesaid roadmap. The petitioner has been regularized as Helper instead of a\n\nLab Assistant/Assistant. The petitioner was regularized in terms of order No.\n\nF/Regularization/Cont) GA/KU/17 dated 16.06.2017, wherein she figures at\n\nserial No.322 and has also joined against the post of Helper. The petitioner\n\nstates that she has been working on contractual basis for more than seven years\n\nthat too against the clear vacancy, had to be regularized on the basis of\n\nroadmap approved and issued by respondent No.2 for both the UniversitiesSWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018Page 5 of 7i.e., Jammu and Kashmir University. The employees of both the universities\n\nwithin the state are working under one employer i.e., State of Jammu and\n\nKashmir and therefore casual/contractual employees of both the Universities\n\nare supposed to be treated at par and forms a single class. The petitioner states\n\nthat she deserves to be regularized against the post of Lab Assistant from the\n\ndate she completed her seven years of service.08. The Notification dated 03.09.2014 not only refers to the resolution\n\ndated 11.10.2013 of the University Council but it also refers to the advice of\n\nthe Financial Advisor communicated vide his letter dated 20.08.2013. The\n\naforesaid letter clearly envisages in para (v) as well as in para (vii) the\n\nregularization of engagees not only to the lowest class IV but also to Class III\n\nlevel posts. This advice and opinion of the Financial Advisor has been adopted\n\nand approved by the University Council in its resolution dated 11.10.2013.\n\nTherefore, it does not lie in the mouth of University of Kashmir to contend\n\nthat the resolution adopted by the Council envisages regularization of\n\nengagees only against Class IV posts.09. Respondents have filed their reply and have stated that petitioner has\n\nbeen regularized against the supernumerary post of Helper pursuant to policy\n\nof regularization adopted by university for adoption of all the contractual and\n\ncasual employees engaged from time to time.10. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner is not entitled to any\n\nof the reliefs claimed in the writ petition as she has been engaged on\n\ncontractual basis on consolidated salary with the provision that the wages shall\n\nbe drawn by debit to local funds. Petitioner having been appointed as Lab\n\nAssistant in 2009 claims regularization against the post in terms of policy\n\nadopted by the University. The scheme referred by the petitioner has beenSWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018Page 6 of 7primarily made for regularizing casual workers working against the post of\n\nclass IV who are supposed to be regularized against the similar class IV post\n\navailable in the University against the supernumerary post of Helper that may\n\nbe created, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to regularization against\n\nhigher post including that of Lab Assistant.CONCLUSION11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The\n\ncounsel for the petitioner has placed on record the judgment passed by\n\nDivision Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 26.08.2021 on the same issue. Paras\n\n29, 30 and 33 are relevant to be quoted herein: -............." 29. Thus the finding of the writ court that regularization\n of casual/contractual engagees has to be considered against the posts\n in respect of which they have been performing their duties is further\n strengthened by the road map formulated by the Financial Advisor as\n approved by the University Council vide its resolution dated\n 11.10.2013. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the\n notification dated 03.09.2014 envisages regularization of engagees\n not only against Class IV posts but against Class III posts provided\n the engagees fulfill the requisite conditions postulated in the aforesaid\n notification30. It is not the case of respondent-University that aforementioned\n four writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements postulated in\n notification dated 03.09.2014 for their regularization. Therefore, the\n authorities of the University of Kashmir cannot deny accord of\n consideration of above named four writ petitioners for their\n regularization against the posts of Junior Professional Assistants as\n they have been regularly performing the duties as such against these\n posts. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the\n finding recorded by the learned writ court in this regard.33. In view of the directions passed in the preceding para, we are not\n going into the issue with regard to legality of the policy of\n regularization issued by the University vide its notification dated\n 03.09.2014."12. Counsel for the respondents has also conceded to the fact that the\n\njudgment of the Division Bench has attained finality and has not been\n\nchallenged by respondent-University so far.SWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018Page 7 of 713. In view of judgment passed by the Division Bench, the writ petition\n\nof the petitioner is hereby allowed and the respondent-University is directed\n\nto accord consideration to the regularization of the petitioner to any of vacant\n\npost of Lab Assistant/Assistant subject to its availability and also to consider\n\nthe regularization of the petitioner from the date she completed her seven\n\nyears of service.14. Disposed of.(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)\n JUDGE\nSRINAGAR\n09.05.2022\nShameem H.SWP No.1295/2018IA No.01/2018

b332b9ae-f3a4-52aa-b41c-5d7d9593431a

court_cases

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchNissar Ahmad Bhat And Others vs State Of Jk And Others on 15 January, 2020Author:Sanjeev KumarBench:Sanjeev KumarThrough Video\n Conference\n Sr. No.65\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR\n AT JAMMU\n\n CM No.7887/2019\n in OWP No.1341/2010\n CM No.6610/2019\n IA Nos.1 & 2/2010 and\n 3/2011\n c/w\n SWP No.37/2011\n IA Nos.13 & 14/2011\n SWP No.44/2011\n IA Nos.13 & 14/2011\n\n\n\n Nissar Ahmad Bhat and Others .....Petitioner(s)\n\n Through :- None.\n V/s\n\n State of JK and Others .....Respondent(s)\n\n\n Through :- None.\n\n Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE\n\n ORDERNo representation, adjourned.List again on 03.02.2020.(Sanjeev Kumar)\n Judge\n Jammu\n 15.01.2020\n SurinderSURINDER KUMAR2020.01.16 16:28I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document

eb7e82fe-eaf5-5931-b1ee-b5608ab535d2

court_cases

Madras High CourtKolandai Ammal vs P.Mani on 2 November, 2020Author:V.M.VelumaniBench:V.M.VelumaniC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n DATED: 02.11.2020\n\n CORAM:\n\n THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI\n\n C.M.A.No.3342 of 2010\n\n Kolandai Ammal .. Appellant\n Vs.\n 1.P.Mani\n\n 2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,\n East Coast Chambers, 1st Floor,\n 92, G N Chetty Road, Chennai.\n\n 3.Meena Chandrasekhar\n\n 4.The National Insurance Company Limited,\n Registered Office, No.3,\n Shriram Chit Office, Chennai. .. Respondents\n\n Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed underSection 173of the\n Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated\n 17.02.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2005 on the file of the Motor\n Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Salem.\n\n For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj\n for Mr.T.S.Vijayaraghavan\n\n For R2 : Ms.Eleveera Ravindran\n\n For R4 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran\n\n\n 1/12\nhttp://www.judis.nic.in\n C.M.A.No.3342 of 2010\n\n\n JUDGMENTThe matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”.2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award\n\n dated 17.02.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2005 on the file of the Motor\n\n Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Salem.3.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2005 on the file\n\n of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Salem. She\n\n filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation\n\n for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 29.12.2004.4.According to the appellant, on 29.12.2004 at about 02.45 P.M., while\n\n she was travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 27 R 7360\n\n belonging to the 1st respondent on Mettur – Salem road near Kandanur\n\n Reliance Petrol Bunk, the tyre of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 02 K\n\n 4000 belonging to the 3rd respondent which was driven by the driver from the\n\n opposite direction got burst due to which the driver lost his control and\n\n dashed against the bus in which the appellant was travelling and caused the\n\n accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries all2/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010over her body particularly at shoulder, legs and hands. Immediately after the\n\n accident, the appellant was taken to Government Hospital, Mettur. Therefore,\n\n the appellant filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as\n\n compensation against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the bus\n\n and owner and insurer of the lorry respectively.5.The respondents 1 and 3 being the owner of the bus and lorry\n\n respectively remained exparte before the Tribunal.6.The 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited, being\n\n the insurer of the bus belonging to the 1st respondent filed counter statement\n\n and denied all the averments made by the appellant. According to the 2nd\n\n respondent-Insurance Company the accident has occurred only due to the\n\n rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 3rd\n\n respondent. The driver of the 1st respondent's bus drove the bus in a slow and\n\n cautious manner following all the traffic rules and only the driver of the 3rd\n\n respondent's lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed\n\n against the bus and caused the accident. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-New\n\n India Assurance Company Limited is not liable to pay any compensation to\n\n the appellant. The appellant has to prove the age, avocation, income, nature3/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010of injuries and expenses incurred towards medical treatment by producing\n\n valid documents. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the\n\n appellant is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as\n\n against the 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited.7.The 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Limited, being the\n\n insurer of the lorry belonging to 3rd respondent filed separate counter\n\n statement and denied all the averments made by the appellant. According to\n\n the 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Limited, the tyre of the lorry\n\n belonging to 3rd respondent got burst and due to the same, the driver of the\n\n lorry lost his control and the lorry dashed against the bus. It clearly shows\n\n that the accident is an inevitable one and it is due to Act of God. Therefore,\n\n the 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Limited is not responsible\n\n and not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. The appellant has to\n\n prove her age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability, period of\n\n treatment and amount spent towards medical treatment by producing valid\n\n documents. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the\n\n appellant is exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as\n\n against the 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Limited.4/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 20108.Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and\n\n marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The respondents 2 and 4 did not let in\n\n any oral and documentary evidence.9.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary\n\n evidence, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the rash and\n\n negligent act of both the drivers of bus and lorry were not proved.10.Against the said order of dismissal dated 17.02.2010 made in\n\n M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2005, the appellant has come out with the present appeal\n\n for granting compensation.11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the\n\n accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver\n\n of the lorry which resulted in bursting of the tyre of the lorry. If the driver of\n\n the lorry belonging to 3rd respondent had driven the lorry at a moderate speed,\n\n he could have avoided the bursting of tyre and avoided the accident. The\n\n Tribunal failed to consider the F.I.R., wherein it has been stated that there\n\n was 70 feet distance between the lorry and bus at the time of bursting of tyre5/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010of the lorry. There was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the\n\n bus and inspite of such distance, the accident occurred causing grievous\n\n injuries to several persons including the appellant. The Police after\n\n investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the lorry belonging to 3rd\n\n respondent. The appellant sustained multiple injuries and spent huge amount\n\n for treatment. The Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition and\n\n prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal and for awarding\n\n compensation.12.Per contra, Ms.Eleveera Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for\n\n the 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited, insurer of the bus\n\n contended that accident did not occur due to the negligence on the part of the\n\n driver of the bus. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving\n\n by the driver of the lorry who drove the same in a high speed which resulted\n\n in bursting of tyre of the lorry and accident has occurred. F.I.R. was\n\n registered against the driver of the lorry and charge sheet also laid against the\n\n driver of the lorry. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent-New India\n\n Assurance Company Limited being the insurer of the bus belonging to 1st\n\n respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant and prayed\n\n for dismissal of the appeal.6/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 201013.Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-\n\n National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the lorry contended that\n\n accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of\n\n the lorry belonging to 3rd respondent. The accident has occurred due to burst\n\n of tyre of the lorry and it is an Act of God. Due to sudden burst of tyre of the\n\n lorry, the lorry hit against the bus and the same cannot be said that the\n\n accident has occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the 3rd\n\n respondent's lorry. In view of the same, the 4th respondent-National Insurance\n\n Company Limited is not liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry. The\n\n Tribunal considering the evidence, dismissed the claim petition against the 4 th\n\n respondent-National Insurance Company Limited and prayed for dismissal of\n\n the appeal.14.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the\n\n learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-New India Assurance\n\n Company Limited and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-\n\n National Insurance Company Limited and perused the entire materials on\n\n record.7/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 201015.From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the\n\n contention of the appellant that due to bursting of tyre of the lorry, the lorry\n\n dashed against the bus and accident has occurred. The appellant as P.W.1 has\n\n deposed with regard to manner of accident and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1 and\n\n charge sheet laid against the driver of the lorry as Ex.P3. On the other hand, it\n\n is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4\n\n Insurance Companies that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of\n\n their insured vehicles. It is the contention of the 4th respondent-National\n\n Insurance Company Limited that accident occurred is an Act of God. The\n\n Tribunal considering the fact that accident has occurred due to bursting of\n\n tyre of lorry, held that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the\n\n driver of the lorry belonging to 3rd respondent. The said reasoning is not\n\n correct. The Tribunal failed to see that it is the duty of the owner of the\n\n vehicle to maintain the vehicle properly so that accident can be avoided when\n\n vehicle is used in a public place. In the present case, the 3rd respondent has\n\n not maintained the lorry in good condition which resulted in bursting of tyre\n\n of the lorry while plying in the public place and thereby accident has\n\n occurred. Due to bursting of tyre, the lorry went to a distance of 70 feet and\n\n dashed against the bus and caused accident. This shows that lorry was driven8/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010at a high speed by the driver of the lorry. Considering the entire materials on\n\n record, this Court is of the view that accident has occurred only due to rash\n\n and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The 4th respondent-National\n\n Insurance Company Limited has not denied the insurance of the lorry. The 4th\n\n respondent-National Insurance Company Limited as insurer of the lorry is\n\n liable to pay the compensation. The appellant is entitled to compensation and\n\n 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Limited is liable to pay the\n\n compensation.16.The appellant marked Accident Register as Ex.P2. The appellant\n\n has not examined any Doctor to prove the nature of injuries sustained by her\n\n in the accident. The appellant also has not stated that she suffered any\n\n grievous injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, it will be just and\n\n equitable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant towards injuries. The\n\n appellant has produced Ex.P6/medical bills to show that she has purchased\n\n medicines for a sum of Rs.13,356/-. Though she has not produced any\n\n prescription from medical practitioner to substantiate her claim, considering\n\n the fact that she would have spent some amount towards medical expenses,\n\n this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses to the\n\n appellant. Thus, the amount awarded by this Court is as follows:9/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010S. Description Amount awarded by Award confirmed or\n No this Court (Rs) enhanced or granted1. Injuries 15,000/- Granted2. Medical expenses 10,000/- Granted\n Total Rs.25,000/- Granted Rs.25,000/-17.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and\n\n a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded by this Court together with interest at the\n\n rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The\n\n appellant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee as per the order of this\n\n Court dated 27.10.2010 made in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in C.M.A.SR.No.83041 of\n\n 2010. The 4th respondent-National Insurance Company Limited is directed to\n\n deposit the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest\n\n and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of\n\n this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.604 of 2005 on the file of the\n\n Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Salem. On such\n\n deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now\n\n determined by this Court, along with interest and costs by making necessary\n\n applications before the Tribunal. No costs.02.11.2020\n\n krk\n Index : Yes / No\n Internet : Yes / No10/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010To\n\n 1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge,\n Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,\n Salem.\n\n 2.The Section Officer,\n VR Section,\n High Court,\n Madras.11/12http://www.judis.nic.inC.M.A.No.3342 of 2010V.M.VELUMANI, J.\n krkC.M.A.No.3342 of 201002.11.202012/12http://www.judis.nic.in

17a188ef-09e6-52d8-867a-db1cbb3993a0

court_cases

High Court of MeghalayaShri. Dhirendra Singh Jadon vs . Union Of India & Ors. on 22 July, 2022Author:H. S. ThangkhiewBench:H. S. ThangkhiewSerial No. 38\nRegular List\n HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA\n AT SHILLONG\n\n WP(C) No. 508 of 2019 Date of Decision: 22.07.2022\n\n\n Shri. Dhirendra Singh Jadon Vs. Union of India & Ors.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge\n\n\n Appearance:\n For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with\n Ms. A. Barua, Adv.\n\n For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, ASG with\n Ms. M. Nongrum, Adv.\n\n\n i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No\n Law journals etc.:\n\n ii) Whether approved for publication\n in press: Yes/No\n\n\n JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had qualified\n\n for recruitment into the Assam Rifles as a Technical Tradesman in the\n\n rank of Radio Mechanic Warrant Officer, and was duly appointed by a1Provisional Appointment letter dated 27.07.2018 issued by the\n\nrespondent No. 4. After reporting for joining his post, the petitioner was\n\nmade to undergo a Review Medical Examination and was found to be\n\nunfit for recruitment in the Assam Rifles on account of his vision being\n\nfound to be of CP IV Level. The petitioner was then sent to the Central\n\nReserve Police Force Composite Hospital at New Delhi to undergo a\n\nReview Medical Examination by a Medical Board and was found to be\n\nunfit for service due to defective Colour Perception of the category CP\n\nIV. Thereafter, by a rejection slip dated 10.01.2019, issued by the\n\nrespondent No. 7, the candidature of the petitioner for appointment in the\n\nAssam Rifles, was rejected on the ground of defective colour vision.2. The petitioner thereafter, filed a representation on 21.01.2019,\n\nbefore the respondent No. 3, and as no reply was forthcoming filed a writ\n\npetition being WP(C) No. 47 of 2019 before this Court, which directed\n\nthat the pendency of the writ petition shall not operate as a bar for\n\ndeciding the appeal, if filed or may be filed by the petitioner. On an\n\nappeal being filed by the petitioner dated 27.03.2019, the respondent No.\n\n3 by reply dated 29.03.2019 informed that further re-medical\n\nexamination of the petitioner cannot be considered. The said WP(C) No.\n\n47 of 2019, was then disposed of as infructuous, with liberty given to the2petitioner to assail the order dated 29.03.2019. Hence, the petitioner is\n\nbefore this Court again by way of this instant Writ Petition.3. It is contended by Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned senior counsel\n\non behalf of the petitioner that, having been found medically fit initially\n\nfor appointment in the Assam Rifles, the findings of the Medical Board\n\nsubsequently that the petitioner was unfit with CP IV vision is not\n\ntenable. It is submitted that, no where in the rules of any provision, has\n\nit been stipulated that a candidate having CP IV vision, be not eligible\n\nfor appointment in the Assam Rifles. He further submitted that, many of\n\nthe grounds in the appeal filed by the petitioner were not addressed by\n\nthe respondent while disposing of the appeal. He thus prays that the\n\nimpugned rejection slip dated 10.01.2019, be set aside and quashed.4. Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG assisted by Ms. M. Nongrum,\n\nlearned counsel for the respondents in reply submits that there are\n\nuniform guidelines for recruitment and different visual standards for\n\ndifferent categories are prescribed. He submits that, though CP IV\n\nstandard is permissible in certain trades like education, animal transport,\n\nbarber, washerman, water carrier, etc., the post the petitioner had applied\n\nfor, that is Radio Mechanic, required at least CP III, hence, the petitioner\n\nwas ineligible for enrolment as Radio Mechanic in the Assam Rifles. It\n\nis further submitted that, the appointment granted earlier to the petitioner3was provisional, made on the basis of an initial assessment pursuant to a\n\nrecruitment rally. The Review Medical Examination, he submits, having\n\nfound the petitioner unfit, as per the uniform guidelines for recruitment,\n\nas contained in the memorandum dated 20.05.2015, wherein, it has been\n\nstipulated that colour vision test should be done once at the time of\n\nrecruitment and later on at the time of basic training, there was no\n\nquestion of granting enrolment to the petitioner in the Assam Rifles.5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and after carefully\n\nperusing the materials on record, it is noted that the petitioner has been\n\ngiven adequate chance and opportunity on the two main counts, that is\n\ntest of fitness and opportunity of hearing. The respondents to assess the\n\npetitioner's fitness, had subjected him to Review Medical Examinations\n\ntwice, initially at the training centre at Assam Rifles, Dimapur and later,\n\nby the Medical Board at New Delhi, where he was found unfit on both\n\noccasions as having CP IV vision. Thereafter, his appeals were decided\n\nin accordance with the prescribed medical fitness guidelines.6. In the face of such facts and circumstances, it is clearly seen\n\nthat, there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents and the non-\n\nenrolment of the petitioner in the Assam Rifles cannot be said to be\n\nillegal or arbitrary. There being no merit in the instant writ petition, the\n\nsame is accordingly dismissed.47. There shall be no order as to costs.Judge\n\n\nMeghalaya\n22.07.2022\n"D.Thabah-PS"5

4614d466-8878-5c10-b81d-51963fe0bb8c

court_cases

Allahabad High CourtMarkandey Ram vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 15 September, 2021Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash ChandHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD\n \n \n\n?Court No. - 37\n \n\n \nCase :- WRIT - A No. - 54928 of 2002\n \n\n \nPetitioner :- Markandey Ram\n \nRespondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Alld. And Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- L.M. Singh,P.R.Maurya,S.P.S. Rathi\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.\n \n\n \nHon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.List the matter on 08.10.2021.Order Date :- 15.9.2021\n \nPS

af38f859-86d5-52a1-8e68-51961afa6054

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nNational Company Law Appellate Tribunal\nShreyas K Doshi vs State Bank Of India on 1 December, 2022\nAuthor: Ashok Bhushan\nBench: Ashok Bhushan\n NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI\n\n Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1426 of 2022\n & I.A. No. 4481 of 2022\n\nIN THE MATTER OF:\nShreyas K Doshi ...Appellant\n\nVersus\n\nState Bank of India ...Respondent\n\nPresent:\n For Appellant: Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf, Mr. Bhavya Sethi and Ms.\n Gyanika Kochar, Advocates.\n For Respondent:\n\n\n\n ORDER\n\n01.12.2022: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated\n\n06.10.2022 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has appointed the\n\nResolution Professional in an application filed under Section 95 by the State\n\nBank of India.\n\n2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that constitutional validity of\n\nSection 95, 96(1), 97(5) and 99 are under challenge before the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16464/2021 &\n\nOrs., where interim orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.\n\n3. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is in accordance with\n\nlaw as exist today, hence, we are of the view that any proceeding in pursuance\n\n\n\n\n Cont'd..../\n -2-\n\n\n\nof the order dated 06.10.2022 shall be subject to the order of the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court in the pending matter. Appeal is disposed of with these\n\nobservations.\n\n [Justice Ashok Bhushan]\n Chairperson\n\n\n\n [Dr. Alok Srivastava]\n Member (Technical)\n\n\n\n [Barun Mitra]\n Member (Technical)\nArchana/nn\n\n\n\n\nCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1426 of 2022

52a161ce-cc95-5d59-87a7-3ebe0471c542

court_cases

Telangana High CourtUnion Of India vs Geeta Devi , Gita Devi And 2 Others on 9 June, 2023THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI\n\n Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.965 OF 2019\n\nORDER:This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed underSection\n\n23of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 aggrieved by the\n\nJudgment dated 02.07.2019 in OA II (U) No.279 of 2016 passed\n\nby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench,\n\nat Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the\n\napplicants claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- for the\n\ndeath of F. Khetan Sing @ Khet Sing @ Khetaram @ Khetram,\n\nwho has fallen from the running train and died.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2016\n\nafternoon the deceased has purchased II class train journey\n\nticket bearing No. APA 08927805 from Warangal to Khammam\n\nand boarded train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast\n\nExpress and informed the same to his wife. When the train\n\nhalted at Khammam Railway Station, many passengers got\n\ndown from the train with heavy luggage and when the deceased\n\ncame to the door of the compartment to alight, train suddenly\n\nstarted moving, as such he was standing near the train to get\n\ndown from the train on the next halt. In the meantime the\n\ndeceased slipped and fell down accidently from the running2train at KM 485/12-14, just after Khammam Railway Station\n\ni.e., in between Khammam and Pandilapalli Railway Stations.\n\nThe body of the deceased was dragged by the train, due to\n\nwhich the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the\n\nspot. Therefore, the wife and sons of the deceased have filed\n\napplication seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- against the\n\nrespondent.3. The respondent filed written statement denying the\n\naverments and stated that there were no eyewitness to the\n\nincident. Therefore, it cannot be stated that under what\n\ncircumstances the incident has happened and there was no\n\nintimation to guard, driver and based on the message by B.\n\nPrem Kumar, who is duty key man, that one unknown body was\n\nlying side of the down line tract in between Khammam and\n\nPandillapalli Railway Stations, FIR was registered. It is further\n\ncontended that the incident has happened beyond destination\n\nstation i.e., Khammam, as such ticket has no evidentiary value.4. Before the Tribunal, AW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to\n\nA10 were marked on behalf of the applicants. Ex.A1 is the\n\noriginal journey train ticket, Exs.A2 to A4 are the attested\n\ncopies of FIR, Inquest and Postmortem report. Ex.A5 is the\n\ndeath certificate of the deceased. Exs.A6 to A10 are the Aadhar3Cards, birth certificate and ration card of the applicants. On\n\nbehalf of the respondents, none were examined. However,\n\nEx.R1 Divisional Railway Manager's Report was marked.5. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal allowed the\n\napplication in part by awarding a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.\n\nAggrieved by the said order, the respondent has preferred the\n\npresent civil miscellaneous appeal.6. Heard both sides and perused the entire record.7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the\n\nappellant is that the deceased has travelled beyond destination\n\nstation i.e., Khammam, as such Ex.A1 ticket has no evidentiary\n\nvalue and thereby the deceased was not a bonafide passengers\n\nfrom Khammam Railway Station to Pandilapalli Railway Station\n\nbut the Tribunal without considering the same, has awarded\n\ncompensation and hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting\n\naside the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Per contra,\n\nlearned counsel for the respondent - applicant has argued that\n\nthere is ample evidence on record to substantiate that the\n\ndeceased Khetan Singh was a bonafide passenger of train No.\n\n18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast Express and he died in4an untoward incident due to accidental fall from the said train\n\nbetween Khammam and Pandilapalli Railway Station.8. Now the point for consideration is:"Whether the deceased was bonafide\n passenger of Train No. 18646 Hyderabad -Howrah East Coast Express travelling from\n Warangal to Khamma on 30.06.2016 and thereby\n the applicants are entitled for compensation?"9. Admittedly, the death of the deceased occurred due to\n\naccidental fall from the train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah\n\nEast Coast Express, which is travelling from Warangal to\n\nKhammam on the date of the accident. The learned Tribunal on\n\nappreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the\n\nconclusion that the train ticket was purchased by the deceased\n\nto travel from Warangal to Khammam and the deceased was\n\nsupposed to get down at Khammam Railway Station, however,\n\nthe attempt of the deceased to get down from the said train\n\ncould not be successful, as many passengers got down from the\n\nsaid train with heavy luggage and as a result the train moved.\n\nThereby the deceased could not get down from the train at\n\nKhammam Railway Station and that prompted the deceased to\n\ncontinue in the same train to the next halt. While the deceased\n\nstayed near the door of the compartment to get down the train5at the next halt, the deceased fell down from the moving train\n\naccidentally, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.10. Now the issue to be resolved is whether the deceased can\n\nbe held to be a bonafide passenger having been travelled beyond\n\ndestination station i.e., Khammam. The learned counsel for the\n\nrespondent relied upon a decision of this Court in A. Laxmi @\n\nLaxmi @ Reddymalla Renuka and others v. Union of India1,\n\nwherein this Court by placing reliance onB. Narayana v. Union\n\nof India2, held as follows:"At the most, the passengers, who travelled\n beyond their destination in a train, would be\n liable to pay excess fare or charge for the over\n travelled distance. But merely on the ground that\n a person travelled beyond his destination in a\n train, it cannot be held that he is not a bonafide\n passenger without a proper pass or ticket. The\n mere fact that a passenger had over-travelled\n beyond the destination does not necessarily\n warrant a finding that he was not a bonafide\n passenger, though such person is liable to pay\n proper or excess fare to the Railways."1CMA No.682 of 2016 decided on 26.10.20182CMA No.20 of 2003 decided on 22.07.2010611. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon an\n\nauthority in Sunitha C. and others v. Union of India3 the High\n\nCourt of Kerala at Ernakulam held as follows:"The said rule has also been relied on by\n the High Court of Bombay in Vaishali Bhalerao v.Union of India. The conclusion, which is\n inescapable on a reading ofSections 55,123,124,124-Aand138of the Railways Act, 1989\n and the provisions of the manual is that an\n unintentional overriding of the journey for which a\n ticket is purchased is an accident which can be\n corrected by payment of fine or purchase of a\n ticket back to the original destination."12. In view of the principle laid down in the above citations, it\n\nis evident that merely because the passenger over-travelled the\n\ndestination, it cannot be said that the said passenger is not a\n\nbonafide passenger. Thereby, the applicants being the legal\n\nrepresentatives of deceased, are entitled for compensation.13. In view of the above discussion, learned counsel for the\n\nappellant failed to substantiate any of the grounds to succeed in\n\nthe present appeal and thereby this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal\n\nis liable to be dismissed.32017 ACJ 878714. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the\n\nrespondents has prayed to pass appropriate direction, so that\n\nthe first applicant can withdraw entire share awarded by the\n\nTribunal to her. Since the time frame fixed by the learned\n\nTribunal to deposit the share of the first applicant No.1 in a\n\nnationalized bank for a period of two years has already been\n\nlapsed, this Court is inclined to permit the first applicant i.e.,\n\nfirst respondent herein to withdraw entire compensation\n\namount awarded to her.15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.\n\nThere is no order as to costs.Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand\n\nclosed.__________________________\n JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI\n09.06.2023\nAS8THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI\n\n\n\n\n Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.965 OF 2019\n\n\n\n\n Dated: 09.06.2023\n\n\n\n\nAS

53fa46eb-1e91-5942-bec8-9911e1d7a976

court_cases

Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurBarminco Indian Underground Mining ... vs Hindustan Zinc Limited on 20 July, 2020Author:Dinesh MehtaBench:Dinesh MehtaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n JODHPUR\n S.B. Arbitration Application No. 10/2020\n\n Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services Llp, Through Its\n General Manager, Commercial And Legal, Having Its Principal\n Office At - 81/1, Adchini, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi, Delhi,\n 110017, Email - Craig.earnshaw@ Barminco.com.au.\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n Hindustan Zinc Limited, Having Its Registered Office At - Yashad\n Bhawan, Udaipur - 313004, Rajasthan.\n ----Respondent\n\n\n For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nakul Diwan, Sr. Advocate\n assisted by Mr. Kunal Bishnoi\n For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted\n by Dr. Sachin Acharya\n\n\n\n S. No Particulars Page Number\n 1 Introduction 1-3\n 2 Facts in a Nutshell 3-6\n 3 Respondent's contention 6-11\n 4 Applicant's response 11-19\n 5 Rejoinder arguments 19\n 6 Analysis and findings 19-36\n 7 Conclusion and Directions 36-37\n\n JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA\n\n ORDERReserved on :: 08/07/2020\n Pronounced on :: 20/07/2020\n\nReportable1. Present application underSection 9of the Arbitration &\n\n Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of\n\n 1996") has been preferred by the applicant inter-alia praying that\n\n the respondent be restrained from invoking or encashing bank(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(2 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nguarantee of rupees five crores, which it had furnished pursuant to\n\ncontract No.5100024963, executed with the respondent on\n\n11.03.2019.2. While issuing pre-admission notice on 14.5.2020, a\n\nCoordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order and\n\nrestrained the respondent from invoking above referred bank\n\nguarantee of rupees five crores.3. A preliminary reply has been filed by the respondent\n\nCompany whereby objection about maintainability of the present\n\napplication before the High Court and following ancillary issues\n\nhave been raised:"(a) the present matter is not an "international Commercial\n arbitration" underSection 2(1)(f)of the Arbitration and\n Conciliation Act, 1996;(b) the Applicant has suppressed the fact that the Applicant is an\n Indian incorporated body;(c) the allegations of fraud against the Respondents are\n misplaced;(d) the scope of interference by Courts in matters relating to\n involving bank guarantee is very limited;(e) the Applicant is pursuing divergent stances before this Hon'ble\n Court and before the Arbitral Tribunal; and(f) the Applicant should have first tried to settle the matter before\n initiating arbitration proceedings."4. Since the objection regarding the maintainability of the\n\npresent application goes to the very root of the matter and\n\njurisdiction of this Court, it was thought appropriate to decide\n\nobjections enumerated in clause (a), (b) & (f) para No.3 above,\n\nbefore adverting to other aspects/merit of the application.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(3 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]5. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel, led Dr. Sachin\n\nAcharya on behalf of the respondent Company and submitted that\n\nthe application at hands filed by the applicant is liable to be\n\ndismissed for want of jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction to hear the\n\napplication underSection 9of the Act of 1996 lies with the\n\nPrincipal Civil Court at Udaipur and not with the High Court.6. Though maintainability before the High Court was the sheet\n\nanchor, other subsidiary and supplementary contentions (not\n\ntouching upon the merits of the case) were also heard.7. For the purpose of deciding the preliminary objection, the\n\nfactual canvas, shorn of unwarranted details is laid hereinunder:-Facts in a Nutshell\n\n\n(7.1) The applicant Company - Barminco Indian Underground\n\nMining Services (or "Barminco") is a Limited Liability Partnership\n\n(hereinafter referred to as "the LLP"), registered underLimited\n\nLiability Partnership Act, 2008(hereinafter referred to as "the Act\n\n2008" or "LLP Act").(7.2) On 11.03.2019, the applicant entered into a contract to\n\nprovide its services for development of Rampura Agucha Mine of\n\nthe respondent - Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL).\n\n\n(7.3) According to the applicant, it had duly deployed its\n\nresources, manpower and machinery in terms of the contract with\n\na view to perform the work awarded to it.(7.4) During the course of performance of the work, applicant\n\nraised certain invoices, which were duly paid by the respondent -\n\nHZL, whereafter, the invoices for February, 2020 and March, 2020(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(4 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nand the claim raised under the "Force Majeure" and "Change In\n\nLaw Clauses" of the contract were not paid.(7.5) As per the averments made in the application, citing that the\n\nContract in question was "financially unviable", the respondent-\n\nHZL sought re-negotiation of the terms of the Contract and\n\nrequested the applicant to reduce the scope of work by 50%.\n\n\n(7.6) As the applicant refused to accept such offer, the respondent,\n\nvide letter dated 19.04.2020, unilaterally terminated the contract\n\nw.e.f. 01.05.2020, alleging that the applicant had failed to honour\n\nClause 15.3 of the Contract.(7.7) The applicant thereafter demanded unpaid amount\n\n(Rs.32,17,30,998/-) towards the work already done from the\n\nmonth of January, 2020 to April, 2020.(7.8) It is alleged by the applicant that as a counter-blast of the\n\napplicant's claim, the respondent Company (HZL) vide its letter\n\ndated 29.04.2020, raised a claim of Rs.49.69 crores against it.\n\n\n(7.9) Numerous e-mails were exchanged between the applicant\n\nand the respondent, which, for the present purposes are not of\n\nmuch relevance.(7.10) Apprehending that the respondent - HZL would invoke the\n\nbank guarantee of rupees five crores furnished by it, the applicant\n\npreferred the present application underSection 9of the Act of\n\n1996 inter-alia seeking injunction, while apprising the Court that\n\nthere is an arbitration clause in the form of Clause-16 of the\n\nGeneral Terms and Conditions of the Contract, which provides for\n\ndispute settlement mechanism through arbitration.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(5 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\n(7.11) Clause 16 reads thus :\n\n\n "16. ARBITRATIONAny dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the\n parties out of or relating to the interpretation, meaning, scope,\n operation or effect of this Agreement or the existence, validity,\n breach or anticipated breach thereof or determination and\n enforcement of respective rights, obligations and liabilities of the\n parties thereto shall be amicably settled first by way of a meeting\n between senior management representatives of each party. If\n the dispute is not conclusively settled within a period of twenty-\n one (21) days from the date of commencement of the meeting\n between senior management representatives or such further\n period as the parties shall agree in writing, the dispute shall be\n referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by\n Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") in accordance\n with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International\n Arbitration Centre ("SIAC" Rules") for the time being in force.\n The arbitration shall be conducted as follows:(i) The Arbitration shall be conducted by a forum of three\n arbitrators with one arbitrator nominated by each Party and the\n presiding arbitrator selected by the nominated arbitrators.(ii) The language of the mediation and arbitration proceedings\n shall be English. The seat of arbitration shall be Singapore.(iii) The award made in pursuance thereof shall be final and\n binding on the parties."(7.12) It is asserted in the application that as the Seat of the\n\narbitration is located outside India, it is an International\n\nArbitration, for which the applicant has approached the High Court\n\ninvokingSection 9of the Act of 1996 and applied for measures.8. The applicant has made categorical averments regarding\n\nterritorial jurisdiction in para-104, 105 and 106 of the application,\n\nmore particularly jurisdiction of the High Court in order to(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(6 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nmaintain the application before the High Court, which are\n\nreproduced hereinfra :-"104. The Applicant submits that under with Clause 17 of the\n Contract, the parties have agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts\n at Udaipur. The applicant further submits that the Contract was\n executed at Udaipur. Further, the Respondent is also situated at\n Udaipur. Accordingly, a part of the cause of action has arisen at\n Udaipur.105. The Applicant further submits that the arbitration between\n the parties herein would be an International Commercial\n Arbitration in view of the fact that seat of arbitration it outside\n India i.e. Singapore. Accordingly, in view ofSection 2(1)(e)(ii)of\n the Act, the Applicant has to approach this Hon'ble Court, being\n the High Court in exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction,\n having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject\n matter of the arbitration.Section 2(1)(e)(ii)of the Act is as\n follows :"Court" means-(i) ...(ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration,\n the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil\n jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions\n forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same\n had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a\n High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees\n of courts subordinate to that High Court;106. Therefore, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur would\n have the necessary territorial jurisdiction."Respondent's contentions:9. Respondent's attack regarding maintainability of the present\n\napplication mainly rested on four limbs:-(I) Non-disclosure of material fact:10. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel at the outset\n\ncontended that the present application has been craftily drafted(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(7 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nand not only the fact that the applicant is an LLP registered under\n\nthe Indian laws has been suppressed, but the certificate of\n\nincorporation has also been withheld, with a motive to mislead the\n\nCourt and further with a purpose of portraying itself to be a body\n\ncorporate, registered outside India.11. Mr. Jain fervently argued that had the applicant been\n\nbonafide, it would have made a clear disclosure of the fact that it\n\nis an LLP, registered under the Act of 2008 - an Indian enactment.It should have ideally placed its certificate of incorporation also,\n\nadded learned senior counsel. Had it been done, this Court would\n\nhave easily deciphered or realized that none of the parties are\n\nincorporated out of India and thus, would have refrained from\n\npassing any order, because the High Court does not have the\n\njurisdiction to hear an application underSection 9in light of the\n\nprovisions contained inSection 2(1)(f)(ii)of the Act of 1996.\n\n\n(II) No negotiation prior to invokingSection 9:12. Second submission regarding maintainability of the present\n\napplication underSection 9of the Act of 1996 was made by\n\nlearned senior counsel that since no endeavor to settle the dispute\n\namicably or through negotiation was made by the applicant, not\n\nonly invocation of arbitration as per Clause 16 but the present\n\napplication underSection 9also is pre-mature.13. Advancing his argument further, learned counsel invited\n\nCourt's attention towards Clause 16 of the Contract and submitted\n\nthat as per the Arbitration Clause in question, any dispute or\n\ndifference arising between the parties is required to be first\n\namicably settled by way of meeting between Senior Management(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(8 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nRepresentatives of each party and in case the dispute does not get\n\nsettled within a period of 21 days from the date of commencement\n\nof the meeting, then only it can be referred to and finally resolved\n\nby arbitration.14. Asserting that the applicant Company has not made any\n\nendeavor to get the dispute settled amicably or through\n\nnegotiation or by way of meeting; with a tinge of disappointment\n\nand astonishment, it was submitted by Mr. Jain that much before\n\ninvocation of the arbitration clause, the applicant company has\n\napproached rather rushed to this Court, in an over-anxiety of\n\nobtaining interim order, apprehending invocation of bank\n\nguarantee.(III) Order in case of M/sHalliburton Offshore Services\n\nInc. Vs. Vedanta Limited & Anr.vacated :15. Contending that order dated 20.04.2020 of the Delhi High\n\nCourt inHalliburton's case had been the basis of granting\n\ninjunction in applicant's favour, when the matter was first heard by\n\nCoordinate Bench of this Court on 14.05.2020, Mr. Jain eagerly\n\napprised the Court that the same has later been vacated by the\n\nsaid High Court on 30.05.2020.16. It was argued that over-arching reliance, which was placed\n\nby the applicant Company on the order dated 20.04.2020 of the\n\nDelhi High Court has lost its very existence as the same has been\n\nvacated. He went ahead to submit that since the very basis or\n\nreason for which the interim order came to be passed in\n\napplicant's favour, has ceased to exist, the interim order dated\n\n14.05.2020 granted in applicant's favour should also be vacated.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(9 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\n(IV) Jurisdiction does not vest in the High Court:17. Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the Objector,\n\nargued that the arbitration in question cannot be treated to be an\n\nInternational Commercial Arbitration by any stretch of imagination\n\nor interpretation, as none of the parties - neither Barminco nor\n\nHZL, are a body corporate incorporated in a Country other than\n\nIndia.18. He invited Court's attention towardsSection 2(1)(f)and2(1)(e) of the Act of 1996 andSection 2(1)(d)and2(1)(n)of the LLP\n\nAct to drive his above point home that the arbitration in question\n\nis not an International Commercial Arbitration.19. It will also not be out of place to reproduce the definitions of\n\nexpression "body corporate" and "Limited Liability Partnership",\n\ngiven underSection 2(1)(d)and2(1)(n)of the Act of 2008,\n\nrespectively :"section 2(1)(d)- "body corporate" means a company as\n defined inSection 3of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of\n 1956) and includes -(i) a limited liability partnership registered under this\n Act;(ii) a limited liability partnership incorporated outside\n India; and(iii) a company incorporated outside India......."section 2(1)(n)- "limited liability partnership" means a\n partnership formed and registered under this Act;"20. It would not be out of place to keep relevant provisions\n\nincludingSection 2(1)(e)and2(1)(f)of the Act of 1996 handy,\n\nwhich run as under:(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(10 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\n "Section 2. Definition. (1) In this Part unless the\n context otherwise requires, -..................Section 2(1)(e). "Court" means -(i) In the case of an arbitration other than\n international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court\n of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High\n Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction,\n having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the\n subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the\n subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court\n of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court\n of Small Causes;(ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration,\n the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil\n jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions\n forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had\n been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High\n Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of\n courts subordinate to that High Court;"Section 2(1)(f): "international commercial arbitration"means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of\n legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered\n as commercial under the law in force in India and where at\n least one of the parties is -(i) an individual who is a national of, or habitually resident\n in, any country other than India; or(ii) a body corporate which is incorporated in any country\n other than India; or(iii) an association or a body of individuals whose central\n management and control is exercised in any country other\n than India; or(iv) the Government of a foreign country;"21. Having navigated the Court through the above quoted\n\nstatutory provisions, Mr. Jain argued that admittedly the applicant\n\nCompany is a Limited Liability Partnership, incorporated under theLLP Actand thus, a body corporate, duly incorporated in India. He\n\nadded that, equally undisputed is the fact, that the respondent is\n\na Company registered in India, and since both the parties to the\n\narbitration are body corporates registered in India, the arbitration(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(11 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nin question cannot be said to be an International Commercial\n\nArbitration.22. Having submitted that the arbitration in question is not an\n\nInternational Commercial Arbitration, he drew Court's attention\n\ntowards the provisions contained in definition clause 2(1)(e) of the\n\nAct of 1996, particularly sub-clause (ii) thereof, and argued that\n\nan application underSection 9of the Act of 1996 does lie before\n\nthe High Court only in a case of International Commercial\n\nArbitration. He emphasised that as the arbitration in question is\n\npurely a domestic arbitration, the jurisdiction lies with the\n\n"Principal Civil Court" as per sub-clause (i) and not before the\n\nHigh Court under sub-clause (ii) ofSection 2(1)(e)of the Act of\n\n1996, as claimed by the applicant.23.In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the\n\njudgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case ofTDM\n\nInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UE Development India Private\n\nLimited[(2008) 14 SCC 271]; M/sLarsen & Toubro Ltd.\n\nVs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region[(2019) 2 SCC 271];P.T.C.\n\nTechno Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.[2019 SCC Online Allahabad 3881] and submitted that on the\n\nbasis of the enunciation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in\n\nthe above judgments, the Contract in question and the arbitration\n\nin question are not International Commercial Arbitration and thus,\n\nthe jurisdiction does not vest in the High Court.Applicant's Response :24. Mr. Nakul Diwan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.\n\nKunal Bishnoi, responded to the objections raised by Mr. Jain with(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(12 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nequal vehemence. Opposing the respondent's contention\n\nregarding non-disclosure of applicant's residential status, he\n\ninvited Court's attention towards the cause-title (memo of parties)\n\nand submitted that the applicant Company had clearly indicated\n\nthat it is an LLP - Limited Liability Partnership. He took the Court\n\nthrough para-19 of the application and submitted that the fact\n\nthat the applicant is an LLP incorporated in accordance with theLLP Acthas duly been mentioned.25. It will not be out of place to reproduce para 19 of the\n\napplication, which runs thus :"19. The Applicant is a limited liability Partnership\n incorporated in accordance with theLimited Liability\n Partnership Act, 2008. The Applicant is a part of the\n Barminco Group of companies which is one of the world's\n largest hard rock underground mining services operator\n with operations in Australia, Asia and Africa."26. Retorting to Mr. Jain's allegation that his client has tried to\n\nmislead the Court, he submitted that such accusation is totally\n\nbaseless inasmuch as the applicant has enclosed the Limited\n\nLiability Partnership agreement between the Barminco India Pvt.\n\nPTY Ltd. and Barminco India Holding PTY Ltd. and Clause-B\n\nthereof clearly suggests that both these entities are Limited\n\nLiability Partnership under theLLP Act. While adding that\n\nallegations of non-disclosure and concealment hurled by the\n\nrespondent are aimed to divert Court's attention from the core\n\nissue, he maintained that such allegations have no legs to stand.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(13 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]27. Adverting to the respondent's second submission regarding\n\nfailure to go for amicable settlement, learned counsel navigated\n\nthe Court through various documents placed with the application\n\nand submitted that vide letter/communication dated 15.04.2020\n\n(Annexure-A/23), the respondent Company had called the\n\napplicant for mutual discussion in a meeting proposed to be held\n\non 15.04.2020 itself. While pointing out that practically no time\n\nwas allowed for negotiation, he was perturbed when he stated that\n\nit was neither practicable nor possible for the applicant to\n\napproach and participate in the discussion on such a short notice.28. While reiterating that the request for negotiation vide letter\n\ndated 15.02.2020 was an eye-wash, learned counsel submitted\n\nthat the respondent Company had not only hustled in issuing\n\nnotice for termination on 19.04.2020 but had also sent a letter\n\ndated 29.04.2020 and demanded a huge amount under various\n\nheads.29. Highlighting the above facts, he argued that it is writ large\n\nthat the respondent Company has proceeded arbitrarily,\n\nvindictively and against the basic business ethics. That apart, the\n\nthreat of invocation of bank guarantee left the applicant Company\n\nwith no other alternative but to approach this Court and seek a\n\nprotection underSection 9of the Act of 1996, while\n\nsimultaneously initiating arbitration proceedings in Singapore.30. Stating that instant application was filed on 12.05.2020 and\n\nproceedings for arbitration at Singapore were taken up on\n\n14.05.2020, Mr. Diwan informed that now both the parties have\n\nnominated their respective arbitrators and the matter is pending(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(14 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nfor appointment of Chairman. Therefore, in light of subsequent\n\ndevelopment, the efforts of negotiation, which were thwarted\n\nrather frustrated by none other than the respondent Company,\n\nthe objection has been rendered academic, as the stage of\n\nnegotiation has since passed.31. With reference to the proposition as to whether an\n\napplication underSection 9of the Act of 1996 in the present\n\nfactual backdrop will lie before this Court or before the Principal\n\nCivil Court, Mr. Diwan argued that since parties have chosen\n\nSingapore to be the Seat of Arbitration, the arbitration in question\n\ncannot be said to be a domestic arbitration governed byPart-I of\n\nthe Actof 1996. His stance was that in view of embargo\n\ncontained in sub-section (2) ofSection 2of the Act of 1996, which\n\nconfines the applicability of Part I to the cases in which the place\n\nof arbitration is in India, the definition of International Commercial\n\nArbitration and restrictive definition of Court encapsulated inSection 2(1)(f)&2(1)(e)of the Act of 1996 respectively does not\n\napply to the present case because of its peculiarity.32. In a bid to drive his point home, he read sub-section (2) ofSection 2and submitted that except for the provisions ofSection\n\n9,27and37(1)(a)and37 (3)of the Act of 1996, Part-I does not\n\napply in a case where the place of arbitration is outside India.33. Sub-section (2) ofSection 2of the Act of 1996 is reproduced\n\nhereunder :"(2) This Part shall apply where the place of arbitration is in\n India: emphasis supplied.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(15 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n Provided that subject to an agreement to the contrary, the\n provisions ofsection 9,27and clause (a) of sub-section (1)\n and sub-section (3) ofsection 37shall also apply to\n international commercial arbitration, even if the place of\n arbitration is outside India, and an arbitral award made or\n to be made in such place is enforceable and recognized\n under the provisions of Part II of this Act."34. Laying emphasis on the opening words of sub-section (2) ofSection 2, learned senior counsel submitted that since Part-I is\n\napplicable only when place of arbitration is in India, the whole of\n\nPart-I would not apply in the present case, as the place of\n\nArbitration is in Singapore.35. Propelling his arguments further, he tenaciously argued that\n\ndefinition of International Commercial Arbitration given inSection\n\n2(1)(f)is an integral constituent ofPart-I of the Actof 1996.\n\nTherefore, definition given inSection 2(1)(f)has no application in\n\nthe present case, given that the place of arbitration is Singapore.\n\nHe added that once the definition given underSection 2(1)(f)is\n\ninapplicable, it cannot be said and held that the arbitration in\n\nquestion is not an International Commercial Arbitration.36. Mr. Diwan urged that having regard to the fact that the seat\n\nof arbitration is in Singapore, the arbitration in question must be\n\ntreated and held to be an International Commercial Arbitration\n\nand as a necessary fall out of such finding, the application underSection 9of the Act of 1996 be also held maintainable before the\n\nHigh Court and not before the Principal Civil Court.37. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of MP High\n\nCourt rendered in case ofSassan Power Limited Vs. North(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(16 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nAmerican Coal Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC MP\n\n1747 and also informed that same has been affirmed by the\n\nSupreme Court in its judgment reported at (2016) 10 SCC 813.Learned counsel also cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in the\n\ncase ofGMR Energy Limited Vs. Doosan Power Systems\n\nIndia Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC Online Del 11625 to contend that\n\nthe arbitration in question is an International Commercial\n\nArbitration and the application underSection 9of the Act of 1996\n\nwill lie before the High Court.38. Inviting Court's attention towards amendment brought inSection 2(2)of the Act of 1996, he submitted that proviso to sub-\n\nsection (2) was inserted w.e.f. 23.10.2015, essentially with a view\n\nto confer a jurisdiction upon the Courts in India in the cases of\n\nInternational Commercial Arbitration and/or where arbitration\n\ntakes place outside India.39. It was further submitted that since the arbitration\n\nproceedings are to be held in Singapore, it would result in an\n\naward, which would be enforceable in India underPart-II of the\n\nActand thus, the arbitration in question cannot be branded to be\n\na domestic arbitration.40. It was suggested that considering seat centric legislative\n\nintent, the High Court alone, should exercise jurisdiction over an\n\narbitration seated outside India.41. During the course of submission, Court's attention was\n\ninvited towards the Law Commission Report, that had suggested\n\namendments to theArbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996,(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(17 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nparticularly para-41 thereof, which is being reproduced for ready\n\nreference :-"41. While the decision in Balco is a step in the right\n direction and would drastically reduce judicial intervention\n in foreign arbitrations, the Commission feels that there are\n still a few areas that are likely to be problematic.(i) Where the assets of a party are located in India, and\n there is a likelihood that that party will dissipate its assets\n in the near future, the other party will lack an efficacious\n remedy if the seat of the arbitration is abroad. The latter\n party will have two possible remedies, but neither will be\n efficacious. First, the latter party can obtain an interim\n order from a foreign Court or the arbitral tribunal itself and\n file a civil suit to enforce the right created by the interim\n order. The interim order would not be enforceable directly\n by filing an execution petition as it would not qualify as a\n "judgment" or "decree" for the purposes ofsections 13and44Aof the Code of Civil Procedure (which provide a\n mechanism for enforcing foreign judgments)". Secondly,\n in the event that the former party does not adhere to the\n terms of the foreign Order, the latter party can initiate\n proceedings for contempt in the foreign Court and enforce\n the judgment of the foreign Court undersections 13and44Aof the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither of these\n remedies is likely to provide a practical remedy to the\n party seeking to enforce the interim relief obtained by it.That being the case, it is a distinct possibility that a\n foreign party would obtain an arbitral award in its favour\n only to realize that the entity against which it has to\n enforce the award has been stripped of its assets and has\n been converted into a shell company.(ii) While the decision in BALCO was made prospective\n to ensure that hotly negotiated bargains are not\n overturned overnight, it results in a situation where Courts,\n despite knowing that the decision in Bhatia is no longer\n good law, are forced to apply it whenever they are faced(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(18 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n with a case arising from an arbitration agreement executed\n pre-BALCO."42. Responding to Mr. Jain's reliance over the judgments inTDM\n\nInfrastructure Private Limited(supra), M/sLarsen & Toubro\n\nLtd.(supra) andP.T.C. Techno Pvt. Ltd.(supra), Mr. Diwan\n\nsubmitted that all these orders have been passed in exercise of\n\npower underSection 11of the Act of 1996, which have no\n\nprecedential value, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme\n\nCourt in case ofState of West Bengal Vs. Associated\n\nContractor, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 32. The part ofthe said\n\njudgmenthe relied upon, reads thus:-"It is obvious thatSection 11(12) (b)was necessitated\n in order that it be clear that the Chief Justice of the\n "the High Court" will only be such Chief Justice within\n whose local limits the Principal Civil Court referred to inSection 2(1)(e)is situate and the Chief Justice of that\n High Court which is referred to in the inclusive part of\n the definition contained inSection 2(1)(e). This Sub-\n section also does not in any manner make the Chief\n Justice or his designate "court" for the purpose ofSection 42. Again, the decision of the Chief Justice or\n his designate, not being the decision of the Supreme\n Court or the High Court, as the case may be, has no\n precedential value being a decision of a judicial\n authority which is not a Court of Record."43. Without prejudice to his submission that the application filed\n\nby the applicant is maintainable before the High Court, learned\n\ncounsel alternatively implored that in case the Court comes to a\n\nconclusion that it does not have the jurisdiction and the(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(19 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\njurisdiction rests with the Principal Civil Court, the application be\n\nsent to the concerned Court or the same be returned to the\n\napplicant to be filed in competent court, however, while continuing\n\nthe interim order dated 14.05.2020, at least for a period of fifteen\n\ndays.Rejoinder arguments :44. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -\n\nHZL, in his crisp and concise rejoinder argued that Indian entity\n\nincorporated under the Indian laws, more particularly having its\n\nbusiness operations in India cannot act in derogation of Indian\n\nlaws, including the Act of 1996. He submitted that the judgments\n\nrelied upon by the respondent, which were passed by the\n\nSupreme Court in exercise of powers underSection 11of the Act\n\nof 1996 may not be binding, but the interpretation of the statutory\n\nprovisions given by the Supreme Court is like a guiding pole star.45. It was lastly submitted that the conduct of the applicant\n\ndisentitles it from claiming equitable relief. Thus, not only the\n\napplication merits rejection on the ground of jurisdiction, but\n\ninterim order passed therein also deserves vacation.Analysis and Findings :46. Dealing with the first objection first, this Court feels that the\n\napplicant Company should have made clearer and categorical\n\ndisclosure of the fact that it is an LLP, registered under the Indian\n\nlaws. The applicant ought to have placed its certificate of\n\nincorporation on record as well. Ideally what was expected of the(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(20 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\napplicant Company has not been done, so far as pleading part is\n\nconcerned.47. However, these lacunae are not fatal to the maintainability of\n\nits application in hands.48. This Court does not find much substance in the submission\n\nof Mr. Jain that the applicant Company has deliberately done so,\n\nwith a view to project itself to be an entity, registered outside\n\nIndia. It cannot be said with certitude that it was done to impress\n\nupon this Court that its case is covered by the provisions\n\ncontained in sub clause (ii) of clause (f) ofSection 2(1).49. In considered opinion of this Court, non-furnishing the\n\nrequisite information, as was expected from the applicant\n\nCompany cannot be held to be a material non-disclosure so as to\n\ndenude or divest it from claiming equitable relief, particularly in\n\nthe face of the stand the applicant Company has taken: the\n\napplication underSection 9of the Act of 1996 will lie before the\n\nHigh Court, as the seat of arbitration is Singapore.50. Having regard to the averments made in para 105 of the\n\napplication, it cannot be said that the applicant has deliberately or\n\nwillfully indulged in concealment. Applicant, therefore, cannot be\n\nnon-suited on this count, particularly because it has approached\n\nthe High Court with a plausible argument/reasoning.51. Second contention of Mr. Jain concerning the question of the\n\nmaintainability of the application, as the applicant failed to first\n\nmake attempt to settle the dispute amicably keeping the spirit of\n\nClause 15 and 16 of the Contract, is also equally frail, if not(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(21 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nfallacious. Upon appraisal of the facts and documents on record,\n\nthis Court finds that the applicant cannot be arraigned of avoiding\n\namicable settlement and/or not resorting to mutual negotiation.52. The facts are revealing. The respondent Company vide\n\ncommunication dated 15.04.2020 had called upon the applicant\n\nfor mutual discussion in a meeting fixed on 15.04.2020 itself. No\n\nsooner had the respondent invited the applicant for negotiation\n\nthan it terminated the Contract (on 19.04.2020), practically giving\n\nno time to the applicant. In this view of the matter, neither can\n\nthe applicant be accused of non adherence to the Clause 15/16\n\nnor can its application be held non maintainable on this count.53. Much was said by the respondent about the interim order\n\ndated 20.04.2020 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of\n\nM/sHalliburton Offshore Services Inc.(supra) - it was contended\n\nthat the applicant had heavily relied upon the interim order passed\n\nby Delhi High Court to successfully impress upon the Court that it\n\nwas entitled for identical injunction. According to Mr. Jain, present\n\ninterim order came to be passed in light of the order of the Delhi\n\nHigh Court. While informing that the interim injunction passed by\n\nthe Delhi High Court has been vacated on 29.05.2020, learned\n\ncounsel for the respondent submitted that the interim order\n\npassed in the present case should also follow suit.54. Having gone through the reasoned interim order passed by\n\nthe Coordinate Bench on 14.05.2020, this Court is of the\n\nconsidered opinion that the interim order of Delhi High Court in\n\ncase of M/sHalliburton's case (supra) can not even be said to be\n\nin the back of the mind of the Court, much less being a reason to(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(22 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\ngrant injunction in applicant's favour. The interim order has\n\nobviously been passed considering the submissions made and\n\narguments advanced, which are duly penned in the interim order\n\nitself.55. Be, that as it may, since this Court is not pronouncing upon\n\nthe merit of the application and/or the interim order passed herein\n\nand is confining the present order to the extent of deciding the\n\npreliminary objections to the extent of its maintainability, it would\n\nbetter deter from making any observation or recording a finding\n\nas to whether the interim order in question deserves to be\n\ncontinued or vacated.56. This Court, however, cannot resist from observing that\n\nmerely because the interim order, which has been placed as\n\nannexure with the application has been vacated, the interim\n\ninjunction granted in applicant's favour cannot be dissolved.57. Coming on to the core question, which has cropped up for\n\nconsideration and further to resolve the conundrum involved in\n\nthis case, viz. - "What is the true import of expression\n\n'International Commercial Arbitration', given the fact that place\n\nand seat of arbitration is in Singapore?" Sprouting from the same\n\nstem, equally seminal and significant is the issue, "as to whether\n\npresent application will lie before the High Court or not?"58. Before embarking upon the journey, it would be beneficial to\n\nbear in mind the principles, which emerge from the reading of the\n\nprovisions and emanate from various enunciation made by Hon'ble\n\nthe Apex Court and other High Courts.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(23 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]59.The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been\n\nenacted on the United Nations Commission on International Trade\n\nLaw (UNCITRAL) Model Law of International Commercial\n\nArbitration in 1985 applies equally to International Commercial\n\nArbitration and arbitration which is not International Commercial\n\nArbitration, often referred to as Domestic Arbitration.The Actof\n\n1996 deals with both types of arbitration.60.The Actof 1996 envisages two types of awards based on\n\nseat of arbitration. Award passed in furtherance of arbitral\n\nproceedings held abroad, is termed as foreign award, else it is\n\nclassified as domestic award.61. The distinction between the International Commercial\n\nArbitration and an arbitration which is not International\n\nCommercial Arbitration has a bearing or impact essentially on\n\njurisdiction of the Courts in relation to grant of injunction;\n\napplication for setting aside award and appointment procedure\n\nunderSection 11of the Act etc.62. Proviso to sub-section (2) ofSection 2has been incorporated\n\nvide Section 3 of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 23.10.2015\n\nwith a view to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of India in the\n\nmatters relating toSection 9,27,37(1)(a)and37 (3)of the Act of\n\n1996, when the place of arbitration is outside India. Prior to\n\namendment, in case of International Commercial Arbitration, when\n\nthe place of arbitration was outside India, the courts were\n\nconfronted with an inherent inhibition in the teeth of provisions ofSection 2of the Act of 1996, if they were to grant injunction. The\n\nSupreme Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company &(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(24 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nOrs. etc. Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service Inc. & Ors.\n\netc., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 552 has concluded as under :"194. In view of the above discussion, we are of the\n considered opinion that theArbitration Act, 1996has\n accepted the territoriality principle which has been\n adopted in the UNCITRAL Model Law.Section 2(2)makes a declaration thatPart I of the Arbitration Act,\n 1996shall apply to all arbitrations which take place\n within India. We are of the considered opinion thatPart I of the Arbitration Act, 1996would have no\n application to international commercial arbitration held\n outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be\n subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when\n the same are sought to be enforced in India in\n accordance with the provisions contained inPart II of\n the Arbitration Act, 1996. In our opinion, the\n provisions contained in theArbitration Act, 1996make\n it crystal clear that there can be no overlapping or\n intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I with\n the provisions contained inPart II of the Arbitration\n Act, 1996."63. With a view to cure the lacuna, the proviso has been inserted\n\nin sub-section (2) ofSection 2, so as to enable the courts of law in\n\nIndia to deal with the applications underSection 9,27,37(1)(a)and37(3)of the Act of 1996.64. After insertion of proviso to sub-section (2) ofSection 2, the\n\nprovisions ofSection 9,27,37(1)(a)and37(3)of the Act have\n\nbeen made applicable to International Commercial Arbitration,\n\neven if the place of arbitration is outside India.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(25 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]65. Learned senior counsel for the respondent - HZL has cited\n\njudgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case ofTDM\n\nInfrastructure(supra) and M/sLarsen & Toubro(supra) in support\n\nof his contention that the Courts have refused to hold identical\n\narbitrations to be International Commercial Arbitration. A perusal\n\nof the judgments so cited reveals that in those cases, the seat of\n\narbitration was New Delhi and Bombay respectively. The\n\narbitrations in question were held not to be 'International\n\nCommercial Arbitration', as both the parties had Indian nationality.66. It would not be out of place to reproduce relevant extracts of\n\nthe judgments cited -(a) para No.19 of the judgment in case ofTDM Infrastructure(supra):"19. Determination of nationality of the parties plays\n a crucial role in the matter of appointment of an\n arbitrator. A company incorporated in India can only\n have Indian nationality for the purpose of the Act. It\n cannot be said that a company incorporated in India\n does not have an Indian nationality. Hence, where\n both parties have Indian nationalities, then the\n arbitration between such parties cannot be said to be\n an international commercial arbitration."(b) para 18 of the judgment in case of M/sLarsen & Toubro(supra):"18. this being the case, coupled with the fact, as correctly\n argued by Shri Divan, that the Indian company is the lead\n partner, and that the Supervisory Board constituted under\n the consortium agreement makes it clear that the lead(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(26 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n partner really has the determining voice in that it appoints\n the Chairman of the said Board (undoubtedly, with the\n consent of other members); and the fact that the\n Consortium's office is in Wadala, Mumbai as also that the\n lead member shall lead the arbitration proceedings, would\n all point to the fact that the central management and\n control of this Consortium appears to be exercised in India\n and not in any foreign nation."67. Both the judgments cited by Mr. Gopal Jain, do not provide a\n\ndirect answer to the question, which this Court is seized of.68. The facts of this case are a bit peculiar - the seat of\n\narbitration, so also the venue of the arbitration proceedings is\n\nSingapore, whereas the contracting parties hail from India. The\n\naward, if passed, would obviously be a foreign award and not a\n\ndomestic award.69. The issue, which the Court is faced with in the present case\n\nis, which Court will have jurisdiction to entertain an application\n\nunderSection 9of the Act of 1996 - will it be High Court or the\n\nPrincipal Civil Court? given the fact that seat and venue of\n\narbitration is Singapore.70. To answer the question as to whether this Court is invested\n\nwith the jurisdiction to entertain an application underSection 9of\n\nthe Act of 1996, one would obviously advert to the definition of\n\nterm "Court", as given underSection 2(1)(e)of the Act of 1996. A\n\nbare look at the definition of the expression "Court" suggests that\n\nin case of arbitration other than International Commercial\n\nArbitration, the term "Court" means Principal Civil Court of original\n\njurisdiction in a district and includes High Court in exercise of its(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(27 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nordinary original civil jurisdiction. Whereas in case of\n\nInternational Commercial Arbitration, High Court has been\n\nprescribed as the Court, even if it does not have original civil\n\njurisdiction.71. Therefore, to ascertain as to whether the High Court has the\n\njurisdiction to entertain an application underSection 9of the Act\n\nof 1996, one has to firstly find out, as to whether the arbitration in\n\nquestion is an International Commercial Arbitration or not.72. The term "International Commercial Arbitration" has been\n\nexpressly defined in clause (f) ofSection 2(1). This definition,\n\nwhich is nationality centric definition, clearly suggests that an\n\narbitration to be termed or treated as an International Commercial\n\nArbitration, the agreement has to have at least one foreign party\n\nor a company whose nationality is other than that of India.73. Two judgments of the Supreme Court namely,TDM\n\nInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and M/s Larsen & Toubro were\n\ncited by Mr. Jain, precedential value whereof was doubted by Mr.\n\nDiwan on the ground that they were passed by the Supreme Court\n\nin exercise of power underSection 11of the Act of 1996, which\n\njurisdiction was administrative in nature until the recent\n\namendment.Mr. Diwan relied upon judgments in the case ofState of West Bengal Vs. Associated Contractors; (2015) 1\n\nSCC 32 to contend that the judgment ofTDM(supra) andLarsen\n\n& Toubro(supra) are not binding. On the issue of binding\n\nprecedential value of the judgments in question, this Court is of\n\nthe view that the adjudication made by the Supreme Court underSection 11may be administrative in nature, but the interpretation(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(28 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nof the provision made therein can always be relied and this Court\n\ncan gather guidance from the exposition of law. They may be\n\ntreated to be not binding, only when other contrary view on\n\njudicial side is available.74. May be, that in the present factual backdrop, since seat and\n\nvenue of arbitration is Singapore, the award passed (if any),\n\nwould be a foreign award and the same will be executable in\n\naccordance with the provisions ofPart-II of the Actof 1996. But\n\nmerely because the award is to be executed in accordance withPart-II of the Actof 1996, the arbitration by itself cannot be\n\ntreated to be an International Commercial Arbitration. To be an\n\nInternational Commercial Arbitration, the prerequisite conditions\n\nenumerated in sub-clause (i) to (iv) ofSection 2(1)(f)are required\n\nto be satisfied.75. Applicant being an LLP is a body corporate in India in terms\n\nof clause (i) ofSection 2(1)(d)read withSection 2(1)(n)of LLP\n\nAct. It is therefore a body corporate having Indian nationality. The\n\nrespondent - Company is admittedly an Indian Company. Hence,\n\nnone of the parties to the contract is a body incorporated outside\n\nIndia. This being the position, the arbitration in question cannot\n\nbe termed as International Commercial Arbitration, as it does not\n\nsatisfy the conditions cataloged in clause (i) to (iv) ofSection 2(1)(f).76. The judgment of Delhi High Court in the case ofGMR Energy\n\nLtd.(supra) and that of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case ofSassan Power Ltd.(supra), which were cited by Mr. Diwan, hardly\n\nlend any support to the cause of his client. Dealing with almost(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(29 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nidentical facts, the High Courts in these cases have held that seat\n\nof arbitration being abroad,Part-I of the Actof 1996 will not\n\napply, as mandated by sub-section (2) ofSection 2of the Act.\n\nThere can be no two opinion about coverage of the arbitration in\n\nquestion underPart-II of the Act. The bone of contention or main\n\ncontroversy in the present case is, as to whether the arbitration\n\nbetween the parties is an International Commercial Arbitration or\n\nnot? and further sincePart-I of the Actis not applicable, whether\n\nthe definition clause being its integral component, can be resorted\n\nto or not.77. Main reason for maintaining the present application in the\n\nHigh Court as per the applicant is, because the seat and place of\n\narbitration is in Singapore. No statutory provision or case law was\n\nbrought to the notice of the Court, which provides that an\n\napplication underSection 9of the Act of 1996 will be laid before\n\nthe High Court, in a case where the seat of arbitration is not in\n\nIndia.78. It appears that the applicant has preferred the present\n\napplication before this Court under misconception that this Court\n\nexercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, which is evident from\n\nfollowing excerpt of para No.105 of its application "... ... ... to\n\napproach this Hon'ble Court, being the High Court exercising\n\nordinary original jurisdiction ... ... ...". It may be noted that\n\nRajasthan High Court does not possess original civil jurisdiction\n\nand it is conferred with only appellate civil jurisdiction by the\n\nRajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. Hence, it cannot be(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(30 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\ntreated to be a Court as per sub-clause (i) of clause (e) ofSection\n\n2(1)of the Act of 1996.79. A close and conjoint reading of the provisions contained inSection 2(1)(e)&2(1)(f)of the Act of 1996 makes it abundantly\n\nclear that for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the\n\ncourt with respect to an application underSection 9of the Act of\n\n1996, the sole factor to be looked at, is, as to whether the\n\narbitration in question is International Commercial Arbitration or\n\nnot. The seat of arbitration and/or place of arbitration is\n\nabsolutely inconsequential, rather irrelevant for the purpose of\n\ndetermining the jurisdiction of the Court. May be in a contract\n\nhaving place of arbitration abroad, the award would be a foreign\n\naward; such being the case, if a party seeks to challenge the\n\naward or prefer an application for setting aside the award, the\n\nseat/venue may be relevant, but thenin that case, the Courts in\n\nIndia per-se would not be available as forum.80. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Diwan that according to\n\nsub-section (2) of Section 2, Part-I of the Act is applicable only in\n\nthe event of place of arbitration being in India. In other words,\n\nhis argument was that since place of arbitration, in the present\n\ncase, isSingapore, Part-I of the Actof 1996 does not apply and,\n\ntherefore, definition of International Commercial Arbitration given\n\ninSection 2(1)(f)of the Act of 1996, which forms part ofPart I of\n\nthe Actof 1996 cannot be held applicable.81. In considered opinion of this Court, the argument put forth\n\nby Mr. Diwan is paradoxical and self defeating, to say the least.\n\nNot only that the reasoning behind the argument is flawed, it(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(31 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nwould also lead to anomalous and disastrous results, if not absurd.\n\nIf the preposition as advanced by the applicant is accepted and it\n\nis held thatPart-I of the Actof 1996, including what has been\n\ncontained inSection 2of the Act of 1996 is inoperative or\n\ninapplicable in the present case, as the place of arbitration is\n\nSingapore, the very foundation of his novel argument falls flat on\n\nthe ground. The reasons are set out hereinafter82. It is noteworthy that sub-section (2) ofSection 2of the Act\n\nis not divorced of Part-I. If his argument is accepted, then, entire\n\nPart-I, which envelopes within its foldSection 2(1)- the definition\n\nclause gets eclipsed or becomes non-est in the cases, where the\n\nplace of arbitration is out of India.83. In the cases, where the place of arbitration is outside India,\n\nobviously, procedure and other provisions contained in Part I do\n\nnot apply. It will be too far fetched to hold or even to contend\n\nthat the definition clause of the Act of 1996 also will not apply,\n\nsimply because place of arbitration is not in India, particularly\n\nwhen, both the parties are incorporated in India and substance\n\nand substratum of the dispute emanates from Indian laws.84. According to this Court, the whole of the definition clause\n\nbeing the soul of an Act cannot be held inapplicable to a particular\n\npart of the Act, especially in the contextual facts. That apart, the\n\ndefinition clause is determinative of the expressions used in the\n\nAct. If argument advanced by Mr. Nakul Diwan is brought to\n\nlogical end, and expression "International Commercial Arbitration"given in clause (f) is to be held inapplicable, then, which\n\narbitration will be an International Commercial Arbitration, will be(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(32 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nan impossible question to be answered. Besides this, one fails to\n\ncomprehend as to how can the applicant, thereafter, rely upon\n\ndefinition of expression "Court' given in the selfsame Part-I itself -\n\nclause (e) ofSection 2(1)of the Act of 1996, to maintain its\n\napplication before any Court, let alone High Court?85. One has to bear in mind the statutory position thatPart-II of\n\nthe Actdoes not have a separate definition clause of its own to\n\ngovern the arbitration having place outside India. As such, if the\n\nargument advanced by the applicant were to be accepted, andSection 2(1)(f)of the Act namely definition of 'Internal\n\nCommercial Arbitration' were to be excluded, then according to\n\nthis Court, it cannot be done selectively-in that case, the whole\n\nof the definition clause will have to be ignored or held inapplicable.86. This Court is firmly of the view that it could never be the\n\nintention of the Legislature to eschew applicability of the definition\n\nclause for Part II, while incorporating sub-section (2) ofSection 2of the Act, particularly when no definition or interpretation clause\n\nhas been separately provided for Part-II or other parts.87. It is noteworthy thatSection 2of the Act, which contains\n\nvarious definitions, uses the opening words:"2(1) In this part, unless the context otherwise requires -"Similar is the language used in sub-section (2) ofSection 2,\n\nwhich reads thus:-"2(2) This part shall apply where the place of Arbitration is in\n\nIndia."*emphasis supplied(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(33 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nGenerally definition clause is not restrictive of its applicability to a\n\nparticular part - it applies to whole of the Act. Use of expression\n\n'Part' in opening words of the definition clause has resulted in\n\nsomewhat confusing, if not conflicting situation - it gives an\n\nimpression as if the definition clause is not applicable to remaining\n\nparts of the Act, except Part-I.88. This Court does not have slightest of doubt that in case, the\n\ninterpretation sought to be given by the applicant is accepted, it\n\nwould lead to anomaly, incongruity and absurdity.89. The Book 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' by Justice\n\nG.P. Singh (14th Edition - 2016 Lexis Nexis - page 158) contains\n\nan extraction of four conditions, which should exist to depart from\n\nthe plain meaning of the Statute from the judgment of House of\n\nLords in the case of Stock Vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.:(1978) 1 AII ER 948, page 954. It will be of immense use to\n\nreproduce relevant part hereinfra:"... a court would only be justified in departing from\n the plain words of the statute when it is satisfied\n that: (1) there is clear and gross balance of\n anomaly; (2) Parliament, the legislative promoters\n and the draftsman could not have envisaged such\n anomaly, could not have been prepared to accept it\n in the interest of a supervening legislative\n objective; (3) the anomaly can be obviated without\n determent to such legislative objective; (4) the\n language of the statute is susceptible of the\n modification required to obviate the anomaly."(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(34 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]90. It is pertinent to note that above principle has been approved\n\nand applied by the Apex Court in the case ofAfcons\n\nInfrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction\n\nCompany: (2010) 8 SCC 24 (at page 36).91. With a view to obviate the anomaly or incongruity taking cue\n\nfrom the principle noticed in para No. 89 above, duly approved by\n\nthe Apex Court inAfcons' case (supra), the word 'Part' used inSection 2(1)is required to be read as 'Act'. If that is done, not\n\nonly the present incongruity will be taken care of and the\n\nprovisions of the Act, particularly the definition clause will be given\n\nits true and full meaning and play.92. Upon reading of expression "Part" used in sub-section (1) ofSection 2as "Act", the definition clause will naturally be applicable\n\nto the entire Act, notwithstanding the expression used in sub-\n\nsection (2) ofSection 2. Then, it cannot be said that since place\n\nof arbitration is not in India, the definition clause is not applicable\n\nor that it cannot be read.93. The case before this Court is a bit peculiar. As the seat and\n\nplace of arbitration is Singapore, it cannot be said that the\n\narbitration is a domestic arbitration. Nor can it be said that the\n\naward which would be passed will be a domestic award. It is a\n\nthird situation - where the arbitration is not International\n\nCommercial Arbitration, but the award will be a foreign award.94. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, this Court deduces\n\nthus:(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(35 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\n (i) An arbitration agreement can result in Foreign award tobe covered by Part-II, yet the arbitration can be an arbitration\n\n other than International Commercial Arbitration.(ii) the definition clause given inSection 2(1)of the\n\n Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to whole of the Act\n\n and is not confined to Part-I thereof.(iii) If an arbitration is not an International Commercial\n\n Arbitration, the expression 'Court' would mean Principal Civil\n\n Court or the High Court having original civil jurisdiction as per\n\n clause (i) ofSection 2(1)(e).95. As there is no quarrel about the fact that the applicant is\n\nincorporated under the provisions of theLLP Act, whereas the\n\nrespondent is a company registered under theIndian Companies\n\nAct, 1956. Nationality, natural habitation or residence of both the\n\nparties is unquestionably Indian/India. The nationality being the\n\nsole determining or decisive factor, which in the present case, of\n\nboth the contracting parties is, Indian, it cannot be said that the\n\narbitration in question is an International Commercial Arbitration.96. Since the arbitration in question is not an International\n\nCommercial Arbitration, going by the definition of expression\n\n"Court", encapsulated in clause (e) ofSection 2(1), there remains\n\nno doubt that the case at hands will fall within the sweep of sub-clause (i) of clause (e), to the exclusion of sub-clause (ii).97. This Court upon appraisal of facts and analysis of law,\n\nconcludes that for the purpose of the Act of 1996, the "Court" in\n\nthis case would be Principal Civil Court. It is only such Court,(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(36 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]\n\n\nwhich is conferred with the jurisdiction to deal with present\n\napplication.98. Although, according to the provisions of the Act of 1996, the\n\npresent application would lie before the Principal Civil Court, but\n\nwhile giving the final verdict and consequential direction, this\n\nCourt cannot, but be oblivious of the provisions of theCommercial\n\nCourt Act, 2015.99. According toSection 10(3)of the Commercial Court Act,\n\n2015, all arbitration matters are required to be dealt with by the\n\nCommercial Court of the District. As noticed earlier, Rajasthan\n\nHigh Court does not exercise original civil jurisdiction nor any\n\ncommercial division of the Rajasthan High Court has been\n\nconstituted. Hence, the present application would lie before the\n\ncompetent Commercial Court, having territorial jurisdiction to deal\n\nwith the disputes/issues arising in this case, which in the present\n\ncase is Udaipur, as per para 104 of the application, reproduced in\n\npara 8 of this judgment.:: Conclusion and Directions ::100. Objection regarding maintainability of the instant application\n\nbefore this Court is, accepted.101. It is hereby held that Rajasthan High Court is not endowed\n\nwith or clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the\n\npresent application underSection 9of the Act of 1996. The\n\njurisdiction to hear the present application, as per clause 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act of 1996 read withSection 10(3)of the Commercial\n\nCourts Act, 2015 vests in Commercial Court, Udaipur.(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)(37 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020]102. Keeping the spirit of the provisions of Rule 10 and 10-A of\n\n Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure in mind, the application\n\n filed by the applicant M/s Barminco Indian Underground Mining\n\n Services LLP is hereby ordered to be returned to it.103. Both the parties shall appear before the Commercial Court,\n\n Udaipur on 31.07.2020. The applicant shall either file fresh\n\n application or the application, which would be returned to it, by\n\n 31.07.2020.104. The applicant will be required to pay requisite/deficit Court\n\n fee (if any).105. The concerned court shall fix the next date(s) with the\n\n consent of the parties, albeit subject to its convenience and hear\n\n the application itself or consider the prayer for interim relief\n\n afresh, as deemed expedient.106. The interim order dated 14.05.2020 shall continue till\n\n 14.08.2020, whereafter the order of the Court concerned shall\n\n govern the rights of the parties.107. Any fact noticed or observation made herein will be treated\n\n to be a prima facie observation of this Court and the same shall\n\n not be construed to be binding in any manner upon the court,\n\n deciding the application.108. Application stands disposed of for statistical purposes.109. No order as to costs.(DINESH MEHTA), J\n s-3-ArunV/-(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

913dd5b5-bbda-55e3-91d1-2be001ecde60

court_cases

Bangalore District CourtHarshavardhan vs Ghouse Peer on 1 April, 20221\n Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\nKABC010007722015\n\n\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS\n JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56)\n :Present :\n Sri. Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi,\n B.Sc., LL.M., HDSE\n LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru.\n\n Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n DATE: THE 1st DAY OF APRIL 2022.\n\nAPPELLANT :: HARSHAVARDHAN\n S/o Pawankumar5\n Aged about 32 years,\n Residing at Kaval Byrasandra,\n R.T. Nagar Post,\n Bengaluru - 560 094.\n\n (Rep. by M/s V.Srinivasan & Co.,\n Adv.)\n\n -V/s-\nRESPONDENT/S :: GHOUSE PEER\n S/o Ibrahim Saheb\n Aged about 63 years,\n Residing at No.504/A, 3rd Cross,\n Kanakanagar\n Bengaluru - 560 032.\n\n (Rep. by Sri.KAP, Adv.)\n 2\n Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\n\n\n JUDGMENTThis is an appeal underSection 449of Cr.P.C. by the\n\nappellant / accused being aggrieved by the Order passed\n\nby learned XII ACMM, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.31953/2006\n\ndated 06.12.2014, forfeiting the bail bonds.1. The parties will be referred as per the ranks they\n\nheld before the learned Magistrate.2. The facts of the case of complainant are that, the\n\naccused and his brother entered into an agreement of sell\n\ndtd 31.08.2005 with the complainant in respect of the\n\nproperty bearing NO. 1, Katha No. 194, situated at\n\nNagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and\n\nreceived Rs.10 lakhs as advance consideration. Due to\n\nsome circumstances, the transactions could not been\n\ntaken place and hence, the appellant issued a cheque No.\n\n731136 dated 15.06.2006 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, R.T.\n\nnagar, Branch, Bengaluru towards part payment of Rs.10\n\nlakhs. The said cheque on presentation came to be3Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\ndishonoured, notice was issued and in view of non-\n\ncompliance of notice, complaint came to be filed and\n\nstatement underSection 313was recorded and in the\n\nmeanwhile the matter was referred to Lok-Adalat, but no\n\nsettlement arrived at due to the absence of the accused\n\nand the learned Magistrate on 06.12.2014 forfeited the\n\nbail bonds and issued NBW and thereafter the matter was\n\nposted to 17.01.2015. The order dated 06.12.2014\n\nforfeiting the bail bonds is impugned herein.3. The appellant/ accused has following ground for the\n\nappeal."Grounds for Appeal."That impugned order suffers from lack of\n\nunderstanding and no case is made out to forfeit the bail\n\nbonds of the appellant /accused. The order of the learned\n\nMagistrate is not a speaking order and no reasonings are\n\nforthcoming as to why forfeiting of bail bond is passed.\n\nThe order of the learned Magistrate is without application\n\nof mind. No prior show cause notice issued to the4Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\naccused / appellant before forfeiting the bail bonds as\n\nenvisaged in the Code and hence prays to set aside the\n\nimpugned order.4. After issuance of notice respondent appeared and\n\nnot filed statement of objections to memorandum of\n\nappeal and as the certified copy of the impugned order is\n\nmade available securing of trial Court records were\n\ndispensed with.5. Despite giving sufficient opportunity the counsel for\n\nthe appellant not advanced arguments and arguments of\n\ncounsel for the appellant taken as nil with a liberty to file\n\nwritten arguments. No written arguments is filed. Heard\n\nthe counsel for the respondent.6. Based on the above points are that arise for\n\nconsideration;1. Whether bail bond forfeited by the trial court\n is legal and proper?2. What order ?7. The above points are answered as under:5Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\n Point No.1 : In the Affirmative\n Point No.2 : As per final order for the following.REASONS8. POINT No.1 :: Before adverting to the facts of the\n\ncase, it is necessary to reproduceSection 446of Cr.P.C.\n\nwhich reads thus.446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of\n property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court,\n or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that\n the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under\n this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond\n was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been\n transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the\n bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such\n proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the\n penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid.Explanation.- A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of\n property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for\n appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before\n any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred.\n\n (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court\n may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed\n by it under this Code. 1 provided that where such penalty is not paid and\n cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as\n surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the\n penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six\n months.]\n\n (3) The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty\n mentioned and enforce payment in part only.\n\n (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate6Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\n shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.\n\n (5) Where any person who has furnished security undersection 106orsection 117orsection 360is convicted of an offence the commission of\n which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond\n executed in lieu of his bond undersection 448, a certified copy of the\n judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may\n be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety\n or sureties, and,; if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall\n presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is\n proved.9. The main grievances of the appellant herein is that\n\nwithout giving an opportunity and without hearing and\n\nwithout recording the reasons the bail bond is forfeited.10. By perusal of the order sheet of the trial court, it is\n\nclear that the appellant is continuously irregular in\n\nappearance; on various occasions, the exemption petitions\n\nare filed, NBW is issued and later it was recalled and on\n\n06.12.2014 on the date when the impugned order was\n\npassed exemption petition was filed and it was rejected\n\nand NBW issued and bail bond was forfeited. Earlier to\n\nthat it is worthwhile to mention that cash security of the\n\naccused was forfeited on 05.03.2014 and his bail bond\n\nwas forfeited. The learned Magistrate has not granted7Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\nexemption from appearance on the day. During the course\n\nof trial, the learned Magistrate can exempt appearance of\n\nthe appellant / accused.11.In a ruling reportedBhaskar Industries Ltd. v.\n\nBhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 40119.The position, therefore, boils down to this: it is within the powers\nof a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the\npersonal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any\nparticular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the\nMagistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself\ninflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him, and the comparative\nadvantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare\ninstances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or\ncarries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons\nthe Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the\naccused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the\nMagistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the\nprecautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. We may reiterate\nthat when an accused makes an application to a Magistrate through his\nduly authorised counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal\npresence being dispensed with the Magistrate can consider all aspects\nand pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further.12. So in the wisdom and discretion of Magistrate has\n\nfound the requirement of accused for the proceedings and\n\nhence, rejected the exemption petition filed by the\n\ncounsel for the appellant / accused.13. With respect to forfeiting of bail bond, the Hon'ble\n\nHigh Court of Karnataka in a ruling reported in ILR 19858Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\nKAR 2813 Sadananda vs State Of Karnataka5.Section 446of the Code does not provide for any notice to be\nissued to the surety before forfeiting the bond executed by him for\nfailure of the terms of the bond executed by him. The wordings ofSection 446(1)clearly show that if a term of a bond is violated or breach\nof a term of a bond is committed, the bond automatically stands\nforfeited. All that is required is that the Magistrate has to satisfy himself\nthat the bond has been forfeited. Therefore, the issue of the notice to\nthe surety before forfeiting the bond is not necessary (see Madhu v.\nState of Karnataka, ILR (1981) 2 Kant 1138: (1982 Cri LJ NOC 9)).6. However, it is clear from the last portion of sub-section (1) ofSection 446that once the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall call\nupon the surety, bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to\nshow cause why it should not be paid and at that stage the Court shall\nrecord the grounds of the proof of the forfeiture of the bond. In other\nwords, at the stage of issuing the notice to the surety after forfeiting his\nbond, the Court shall record the grounds of the proof of the forfeiture of\nthe bond and call upon the surety to pay the penalty or to show cause\nwhy it should not be paid. Obviously law enjoins upon the Court to\nrecord the grounds of forfeiture of the bond at that time of issuing the\nnotice to the surety calling upon him to show cause why it should not be\npaid so as to enable the surety to show cause, if any against payment of\nthe bond amount by way of penalty. This is particularly to be so,\nbecause no notice is contemplated underSection 446to the surety\nbefore forfeiting his bond. This being the position in law, it seems to me\nthat strict compliance of the provision relating to the issue of the notice\nto the surety after forfeiting the bond should be insisted upon because\naction to be taken against the surety in this proceeding is of a penal\nnature.14. with respect to grievances that the accused has to\n\nbe heard, reasons have to be recored, the Hon'ble High\n\nCourt of Karnataka in a ruling reported in ILR 1981 Kar\n\n1138 MUDHU ALIAS BELLA KUDTARKAR VERSUS\n\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA has held as under:-The wording ofSection 446(1)clearly shows that if a term of a\nbond is violated or breach of a term of a bond is committed, the bond\nautomatically stands forfeited. The Magistrate has to satisfy himself that9Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\nit has been forfeited. No formal order of forfeiting the bond is called for.\nTherefore, the issue of a notice to the surety before forfeiting the bond\nis not necessary.(Para 4)\n\n It is not provided inSection 446of the Code that an opportunity\nshould be afforded to the surety to produce the accused because,\nforfeiture of the bond takes place as soon as the accused absents\nhimself on a particular date of hearing. If the surety is able to produce\nthe accused or produces the accused, the fact or circumstance may be\ntaken into consideration by the Magistrate who has taken action against\nthe surety in regard to levying of penalty on the surety. The Magistrate\ncan even waive levying of penalty.(Para 5)15. Therefore, there is no requirement to hear the\n\naccused while forfeiting the bond. More over, no order\n\nunderSection 446of Cr.P.C. is passed which gives raise to\n\nfile this appeal and only bond is forfeited.16. It is worthwhile to note here that the concerned CC\n\nNo.31953/2006 is also disposed off on 15.12.2016.Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the\n\nAffirmative.17. POINT NO.2:- Hence, for all the above discussions\n\nand answering the above point, accordingly the following.10Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\n ORDER\n\n This appeal filed under Section 449 ofCr.P.C. by the the appellant / accused by name\nHarshavardhan being aggrieved by the order\ndated 06.12.2014 in C.C.No.31953/2006 passed\nby learned XII ACMM, Bengaluru is hereby\ndismissed.The order dated 06.12.2014 in\nC.C.No.31953/2006 passed by learned XII\nACMM, Bengaluru is confirmed.Office to send back the trial Court records\nwith copy of this judgment.[Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him,\ntranscription corrected and then pronounced by me in\nopen court, dated this the 1st day of APRIL 2022]\n\n\n (Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi)\n LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru.11Crl.A.No.33/2015\n\n\n\n\n Judgment passed and pronounced in\n the open Court. The operative\n portion reads thus.ORDER\n\n This appeal filed underSection 449of Cr.P.C. by the the\nappellant / accused by name\nHarshavardhan being aggrieved by\nthe order dated 06.12.2014 in\nC.C.No.31953/2006 passed by\nlearned XII ACMM, Bengaluru is\nhereby dismissed.The order dated 06.12.2014\nin C.C.No.31953/2006 passed by\nlearned XII ACMM, Bengaluru is\nconfirmed.Office to send back the trial\nCourt records with copy of this\njudgment.(Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi),\n LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore

d7ff86af-bd69-5163-b7f0-1d2bc7eac8f2

court_cases

Central Information CommissionVijay Kumar Bunkar vs Geological Survey Of India on 9 September, 2021Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Neeraj Kumar Guptaके ीय सूचना आयोग\n Central Information Commission\n बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका\n Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nि तीय अपील सं!या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/GSIND/A/2020/103308 and\nCIC/GSIND/A/2020/103309\n\nMr. Vijay Kumar Bunkar ... अपीलकता /Appellant\n VERSUS\n बनाम\nCPIO ..."ितवादी /Respondent\nM/o. Mines, Geological Survey Of\nIndia, Northern Region, Sector-E,\nAliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-\n226024\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the appeals:-\n\nRTI : 17-09-2019 FA : 26-09-2019 SA : 20-01-2020\n\nCPIO : 24-09-2019 FAO : 22-10-2019 Hearing : 06-09-2021\n\n ORDER1. The appellant filed an application under theRight to Information Act,\n2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o.\nMines, Geological Survey of India, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant\nseeking information is as under:-Page 1 of 42. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.09.2019 had offered an inspection to the\nappellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the appellant\nfiled the first appeal dated 26-09-2019 requesting that the information should be\nprovided to him. The first appellate authority vide its order dated 22-10-2019\nupheld the reply furnished by the CPIO and disposed of the first appeal.\nThereafter the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3)of the RTI Act\nbefore the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to\nhim and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete\nand correct information.Hearing:3. The appellant remained absent despite notice. The mobile number of the\nappellant remained unanswered despite several attempts made by the\nCommission. The respondent, Shri U. C. Gautam, Director/ CPIO attended the\nhearing through audio-call.4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 27.08.2021 and\nthe same has been taken on record.5. Since the appellant remained absent during the hearing he at a later stage\ncontacted the Commission telephonically and informed that he was waiting at\nthe NIC studio at Lucknow and has kept his mobile phone on silent, despite\nhaving the intimation from the Commission that the hearing will be held\nthrough audio conferencing. He further pleaded that his submission be taken on\nrecord that complete and correct information has not been provided to him\ndeliberately by the respondent on his RTI applications dated 17.09.2019 which\nis filed in the larger public interest since as many as 100 peoples are affected\nwith the same and the same is being filed on behalf of all.6. The respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 24.09.2019, they\nhave furnished a point wise reply to the appellant and also offered him to\ninspect the documents related to his queries. He further submitted that thePage 2 of 4appellant also came for the inspection on 26.09.2019 and inspected the\ndocuments available on record.Decision:7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and\nafter perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the appellant\npertains to all the documents, records, registers, and forms applications etc of\nDepartments, Divisions, Sections, and Units etc which are subordinate to the\nMinistry. The Commission further observes that the information sought is\ngeneric in nature and relates to multiple files, locations, etc., which is\nvoluminous in nature and is not readily available with the CPIO in the manner\nas sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would\ndisproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. . The\nCommission further observes that instead of seeking specific information\npertaining to his own, he is seeking information on behalf of numerous persons\nwhich cannot be allowed under theRTI Act. Nonetheless, the CPIO vide its\nreply dated 24.09.2019 has offered an inspection to the appellant which was\nalso availed by him on 26.09.2019.8.In this regard, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court of India inCentral Board of Secondary Education and Anr.\nVs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was\nheld as under:"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions underRTI Actfor disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to\n transparency and accountability in the functioning of public\n authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive\n as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and\n result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive\n work of collecting and furnishing information.The Actshould not be\n allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the\n national development and integration, or to destroy the peace,\n tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be\n converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials\n striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where\n 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in\n collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of\n discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under theRTI Actand the pressure of the authorities under theRTI ActshouldPage 3 of 4not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information\n furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."9. Based on the abovementioned matrix, the Commission finds that the\nappellant is trying to settle public grievance through theRTI Act. RTI\ncannot be used as a tool for the grievance redressal and hence the\nCommission upholds the reply furnished by the CPIO/ FAA and hence no\nfurther intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For the\nredressal of his grievance, if any, the appellant is advices to approach the\nappropriate forum.10. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.नीरज कु मार गु ा)\n Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा\n सूचना आयु )\n Information Commissioner (सू\n\n दनांक / Date : 06-09-2021\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)\n\nS. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),\n(011-26105682)\n\nAddresses of the parties:\n1. CPIO\n M/o. Mines, Geological Survey Of India,\n Northern Region, Sector-E, Aliganj,\n Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024\n\n2. Mr. Vijay Kumar BunkarPage 4 of 4

f747d2d2-5c91-520e-93f6-00f015b1ae75

court_cases

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Punjab National Bank Of India vs Gour Gopal Mondal & Ors on 25 January, 2021Author:Arindam SinhaBench:Arindam Sinha25.01.2021\n 10\n ns Ct.04\n F.M.A. 1689 of 2018\n\n\n Punjab National Bank of India.\n Vs.\n Gour Gopal Mondal & Ors.\n\n\n\n Mr. Rabindranath Majumder .... for appellant.\n\n Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,\n Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya .... for respondents.This appeal is against judgment dated 2nd\n\n August, 2017. The appeal is ready for hearing and taken\n\n up.Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears on\n\n behalf of appellant and draws attention to impugned\n\n judgment dated 2nd August, 2017. First, he places the\n\n following paragraph extracted therefrom:"....This is also a case where there is\n no evidence to establish the charges\n framed against the petitioner. Thus, it\n is a case of perverse finding. The\n enquiry officer could not appreciate the\n well drawn distinction between mere\n identification of documents and proof of\n their contents. Description of what a\n document contains is no proof of its\n content which may establish a charge\n against the petitioner."He then wants to place the entire judgment.2On query from Court Mr. Saha Roy, learned\n\nadvocate appearing on behalf of respondent/writ petitioner\n\nsubmits, impugned judgment should be confirmed for\n\ncorrect finding of perversity, to set aside the disciplinary\n\nproceeding. It would appear from pages 61 to 66 that\n\ndocuments marked Management Exhibits (ME) were only\n\nidentified by Management Witness (MW) but not proved.\n\nThen Enquiry Officer (EO) tendered MW to Presenting\n\nOfficer (PO) for cross examination! It will also appear from\n\nthose pages that PO had put two questions to his client\n\nbeing Chargesheeted Officer (CSO), he not being a witness.On query from Court, Mr. Saha Roy submits,\n\npoint regarding discovery and inspection of documents,\n\nwas not taken in the writ petition. As such, he submits\n\nbased on regulation 9, on the first day of the enquiry the\n\ndocuments were produced, the proceeding conducted and\n\nconcluded. His clients were entitled to an adjournment on\n\nnot having pleaded guilty. Mr. Majumder submits, this\n\npoint as was not taken in the writ petition, waiver should\n\nbe construed. Mr. Majumder also relies on the following in\n\nthe record of enquiry proceeding, to submit, respondent did\n\nnot pray for or seek adjournment."E.O. asked the CSO whether he would\n like to make any statement at this\n stage. CSO replied that he would not\n like to do so.As none of the sides had any document\n to place or any witness to initiate the3enquiry proceedings ended with the\n following orders:-"Regulation 9 is reproduced below:-"If the officer employee does not plead\n guilty, the inquiring authority shall\n adjourn the case to a later date not\n exceeding 30 days or within such\n extended time as may be granted by\n the inquiring authority."The procedure applicable mandates\n\nadjournment, on the charged officer pleading not guilty.\n\nPage 61 in the paper book is record of enquiry proceedings\n\nheld on 25th July, 2014. Following from said record is\n\nreproduced below:-"At the outset, the Enquiry Officer (EO)\n read out the charge sheet, a copy of\n which was handed over to the CSO.On being asked by the EO whether the\n CSO understood the contents of the\n charge sheet and accepted the charges\n leveled in the said charge sheet, the\n CSO replied that he understands the\n contents but denies the charges.\n The EO asked the CSO whether he\n needed any Defence Representative\n (DR) to defend his case at the enquiry;the CSO informed that Sri Susanta\n Kumar Chakraborty, Manager, (Audit &\n Inspection Department), Paschim\n Medinipur Region will act his as his DR4for which necessary authorisation\n letter was submitted.Then the EO asked the Presenting\n Officer (PO) to present the case before\n the enquiry. The PO submitted a list of\n Management Documents (Exhibits)/ &\n Management Witness and following\n documents:"It will appear from extract of the proceeding\n\nthat at instance of EO, PO presented the case. Thereupon\n\nDefence Representative (DR) presented the case in defence\n\nand the enquiry proceeding ended, to be followed by\n\nreport. The regulation mandates adjournment on\n\nproceeding with the enquiry, at instance of CSO not\n\npleading guilty. The adjournment is necessarily to be seen\n\nas required for the benefit of CSO, to prepare his case in\n\ndefence upon not having accepted guilt. We have perused\n\nthe record of enquiry proceeding but have not been able to\n\nfind that the enquiry was proceeded with and concluded on\n\na statement of CSO recorded, as having declined to have\n\nthe proceeding adjourned. It is of no consequence that EO\n\nhad asked CSO, at the stage of conclusion of the\n\nproceeding, whether CSO would like to make any\n\nstatement. That was not an offer of adjournment, to be\n\nseen as compliance of mandate of regulation 9. This adds\n\nweight to the finding in impugned judgment that the\n\ndocuments were merely identified and not proved. When\n\nthe bank had embarked on an enquiry proceeding, to the5end of awarding major penalty, care should have been\n\ntaken to conduct the proceedings as per letter of the\n\nregulations.For above additional reasons, impugned order\n\nis confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.(Arindam Sinha, J.)\n\n\n\n\n (Suvra Ghosh, J.)

c819a6d5-ca2d-50fe-be58-94a3cf4706ac

court_cases

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Uttam Bagdi & Ors vs Unknown on 20 May, 202120.5.2021 CRM 1420 of 2021\nCourt No.28Item No. 38(Through Video Conference)\n s.bharIn Re:- An application for anticipatory bail undersection 438of the\n Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chanchal Police Station\n Case No. 1161 of 2020 dated 15.12.2020 underSections\n 447/323/324/307/34of the Indian Penal Code.And\n\n In the matter of : Uttam Bagdi & Ors....Petitioners\n\n Mr. Sourav Mukherjee\n ...For the Petitioner.Mr. N. Ahmed\n Mr. Amar Hossain\n Ms. Ratna Ghosh\n ...For the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is\n property dispute between the parties and the case and counter case\n are pending relating to the self-same incident.The State refers to the case diary and opposes for anticipatory\n bail.It appears from the statement of witness Aman Bagdi\n recorded underSection 161Cr.P.C that the blow was dealt with by\n petitioner no. 2 Pratap Bagdi.Considering the alleged direct and active involvement of\n petitioner no. 2 is alleged crime, we are inclined to hold that his\n custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation\n and he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, considering the\n extent of complicity of the other petitioners, i.e., petitioners nos. 1,3,\n 4 and 5 in the alleged crime, we are of the view that they may be\n granted anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the\n petitioners, namely, Uttam Bagdi, Chandana Bagdi and Ratul Bagdi\n and Punam Bagdi shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of2Rs. 10000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom\n must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject\n to the conditions as laid down underSection 438 (2)of the Code of\n Criminal Procedure, 1973.With the aforesaid observation, the application for\n anticipatory bail, being CRM 1420 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of.All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly\n downloaded from the official website of this court.(Suvra Ghosh, J) (Soumen Sen, J)

507722d2-677c-5654-8907-dccfc557ce4d

court_cases

Delhi High Court - OrdersPraveen Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 September, 2020Author:Vibhu BakhruBench:Vibhu Bakhru$~15\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n + W.P.(CRL) 2190/2019 & CRL. M.A. 39955/2019 (stay)\n CRL. M.A. 11033/2020 (modification of order)\n\n PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners\n Through Mr Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with\n Mr Harsh Kumar, Mr Aditya Raj, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents\n Through Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing counsel with\n Mr Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate.\n\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU\n ORDER% 04.09.2020\n\n [Hearing held through video conferencing]1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that\n the FIR bearing No. 0073/2019 underSections 498-A/406/34of the IPC andSection 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered with PS Welcome,\n Delhi be set aside.2. Mr Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners\n contends that the said FIR is liable to be quashed as the same was registered\n without due inquiries and without considering the material provided by the\n petitioners. Mr Uppal contended that the petitioners had provided sufficient\n material to the Investigating Officer to clearly establish that none of the\n allegations made in the FIR were merited yet the FIR has been registered.Signature Not VerifiedSigned By:DUSHYANTRAWALLocation:Signing Date:04.09.202023:04:433. He referred to the FIR in question and drew the attention of this Court\n to the allegation that the petitioner used to compel the complainant to\n consume alcohol and on refusal used to physically assault her. He submits\n that the said allegation is patently false as certain whatsapp messages\n exchanged between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 (Annexed as\n Annexure-L) would establish that the complainant would insist on\n consuming alcohol despite the petitioner discouraging her.4. He further submits that the said FIR has been registered casually\n without following the guidelines as set out in the Standing Order No. 281 of\n the Special Police Unit for Women and Children. The said Standing Order\n sets out detailed instructions regarding inquiries to be conducted prior to the\n registration of the FIR.5. Mr Uppal submitted that in terms of the said guidelines, necessary\n approvals of the concerned DCP/ACP are required to be obtained before\n registration of the FIR and as well as before any coercive steps are taken\n against the accused and the FIR was registered without securing such\n approvals.6. Mr Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State\n submitted that the FIR plainly discloses commission of an offence and\n therefore, the same ought not to be quashed. He further submitted that a\n charge sheet has already been filed and the question whether the material\n gathered by the IO is sufficient to raise a strong suspicion regarding\n commission of the offence, will be decided by the Trial Court after hearing\n the rival contentions in this regard. He further submitted that inquiries wereSignature Not VerifiedSigned By:DUSHYANTRAWALLocation:Signing Date:04.09.202023:04:43conducted before the registration of the FIR and the Investigating Agency is\n not bound to place all the material collected in the charge sheet. He\n contended that the IOs have standing instructions to follow the guidelines\n before filing the charge sheet and the same have been followed.7. A plain reading of the FIR indicates that respondent no. 3\n (complainant) has made several allegations against the petitioners.\n Respondent no.3 (complainant) has stated that her marriage with the\n petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 23.11.2016 according to Hindu rites and\n ceremonies at Krishnayan Garden, University Road, Gwalior, Madhya\n Pradesh. She alleged that their marriage celebrations were ostentatious and\n sufficient jewellery and dowry was given by the complainant's parents to the\n petitioners. She had also alleged that as per the demands of the petitioners, a\n Maruti Vitara Breza was also given as dowry at the time of their marriage.\n In addition, a sum of ₹ 21-22 lakhs was spent by them on the marriage, as\n per the demand of the petitioners.8. She further alleged that immediately on reaching her matrimonial\n home accused no.3 (petitioner no.2- the complainant's sister-in-law) had\n taken away her earrings stating that the same would look better on her face.\n She further alleged that she had also removed five expensive saaris which\n were brought by the complainant and were a part of her Istridhan. She\n alleged that she kept quiet at the material time and hoped that her sister-in-\n law would return the items after some time, but the same was not done.9. Next, she alleged that the complainant's mother-in-law had also taken\n her jewellery on the pretext of keeping it in safe place but had refused toSignature Not VerifiedSigned By:DUSHYANTRAWALLocation:Signing Date:04.09.202023:04:43return the same. She alleged that her husband (petitioner no.1) took control\n of all her affairs including her bank account and used to spend her hard\n earned money as per his own will. Thus, she was even deprived of her\n earnings.10. She further alleged that even though her parents had given a vehicle in\n dowry, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to taunt her, as they wanted\n a Toyota Fortuner Car. The complainant has also made allegations regarding\n use of abusive and filthy language been used against her. She has further\n alleged that she was also physically tortured and beaten.11. It is not necessary to narrate the entire allegations made in the FIR as\n it is ex-facie apparent that if the same are found to be correct they do\n disclose commission of offences.12. Clearly, in view of the allegations made by respondent no.3, the FIR\n cannot be quashed. The contention whether the said allegations are bereft of\n any substance is a matter to be considered by the Trial Court while\n considering the order on charge. The question whether the evidence\n collected by the IO establishes the commission of the alleged offences\n would be considered by the Trial Court, if the charges are framed and the\n matter is put to trial.InState of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp (1)\n SCC 335, the Supreme Court had set out the grounds on which the FIR\n could be quashed. This Court is of the view that none of the grounds are\n made out in this case.13. The only question remaining to be addressed is whether the FIR has\n been registered contrary to the Standing Order No. 281 and withoutSignature Not VerifiedSigned By:DUSHYANTRAWALLocation:Signing Date:04.09.202023:04:43obtaining the necessary approvals. To this limited extent, Mr Rahul Mehra\n seeks time to examine the records and file a reply. Let the same be filed\n within a period of one week from today.14. List on 29.09.2020.VIBHU BAKHRU, J\n SEPTEMBER 4, 2020\n pkvSignature Not VerifiedSigned By:DUSHYANTRAWALLocation:Signing Date:04.09.202023:04:43

413086a3-4460-59a6-aa23-f6b9668b90ac

court_cases

Jharkhand High CourtPankaj Baraik @ Pankaj Chik Baraik vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. ... on 17 January, 2022Author:Subhash ChandBench:Subhash ChandIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n B.A. No. 9696 of 2021\n\n Pankaj Baraik @ Pankaj Chik Baraik ..... ... Petitioner\n Versus\n The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party\n --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND------For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate\n For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.\n --------\n04/17.01.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for\n the State.This bail application has been filed on behalf of the\n applicant- Pankaj Baraik @ Pankaj Chik Baraik with prayer to release on\n bail in connection with Bolba P.S. Case No. 03 of 2021 registered underSections 420,489(A),489(B),489(C),489(D),489(E),120(B)of the\n Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial\n Magistrate, Simdega.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the\n F.I.R. of this case was lodged against four named accused persons\n including the applicant with the allegations that all these accused persons\n were involved in printing of counterfeit currency and about 3,09,600/-\n were recovered as counterfeit currency. It is submitted that from the\n possession of the applicant computer printer, coloured ink, papers etc.\n used in printing the notes were recovered. The learned counsel for the\n applicant has further submitted that there is nothing on record to show\n that these counterfeit notes were being printed by the printer of the\n applicant. The similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Pradeep\n Manjhi has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide\n order dated 29.07.2021 passed in B.A. No. 6590 of 2021 and Lok Singh\n Sidar and Amit Yadav have also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench\n of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2021 passed in B.A. No. 7456 of\n 2021 from whose possession the counterfeit currency was also recovered.\n The role of the applicant is identical. The applicant has been languishing\n in jail since 01.02.2021.Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently\n opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant\n and contended that the printer which was recovered from the possession\n of the applicant was being used in printing the counterfeit currency\n notes.-2-In view of the submissions made and materials on record,\n the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant\n be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty\n Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of\n the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in\n aforesaid case.(Subhash Chand, J.)\nMadhav/-

7de83a99-6003-5e18-915e-f1d0b2b571b5

court_cases

Madhya Pradesh High CourtMeenakshi Dubey vs Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut ... on 8 January, 2020Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 128Author:Sanjay YadavBench:Sanjay Yadav,Atul Sreedharan1\n\n WA-756-2019\n\n\n THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n (Division Bench)\n\n Writ Appeal No.756/2019\n\n Meenakshi Dubey\n versus\n Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited\n and others\n\nShri Anubhav Jain, Advocate for appellant.\nShri Ankit Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.3.\n\nCORAM :\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Yadav, Judge\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge\n\n ORDER(Jabalpur, dated : 08.01.2020)\n\nPer : Sanjay Yadav, J :-This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha\n\nNyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyan, 2005, is directed\n\nagainst the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition\n\nNo.9631/2017 whereby, challenge to order dated 20.01.2017 has\n\nbeen negatived.2. That, by order dated 20.01.2017, claim of the petitioner for\n\ngrant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of her father\n\nwas negatived on the ground that she does not fall in the category of2WA-756-2019\n\n\npersons who are entitled for such appointment as stipulated in\n\nClause 2.2 of the Chief General Manager's Order No. lk&435/7836-\n\n37 dated 12.12.2014 which stipulates that "only son, unmarried\n\ndaughter, widowed daughter or divorcee daughter dependent on the\n\nemployee who dies in harness" are entitled for consideration for\n\nsaid appointment. As the petitioner was a married daughter, she was\n\ndeclined the appointment.3. Father of the petitioner was employed as Senior Lineman with\n\nrespondent-organization who died while in service on 05.04.2016.\n\nPetitioner, married daughter, living with her husband, gave a\n\nrepresentation seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the\n\nplea that her mother is old and the brother is vagabond and has not\n\nborne the responsibility. It was stated that the petitioner was\n\ndependent on his parents and almost separated with her husband.\n\nEvidently, no order regarding judicial separation or of divorce was\n\nfiled. Be that as it may. The petitioner was not falling within the\n\ncategory under Clause 2.2 of the Policy.4. Learned Single Judge observing that the petitioner does not\n\nfall into any of the category of Clause 2.2 and that the petitioner did\n\nnot challenge its validity, declined indulgence. It also observed :"That apart, the division bench in the similar\n circumstances vide order dated 23/10/2017 passed in3WA-756-2019\n\n\n WP No.270/2017 in the case ofSanjay Shriwas Vs. The\n Chairman-cum-Managing Director MP Paschim Kshetra\n Vidyut Vitaran Co.Ltd & anotherand vide order dated\n 10/7/2018 in WP No.7713/2016 in the case of Ravi\n Talimpuri Vs. State of MP & four others has upheld the\n policy as also the order of rejection of compassionate\n appointment based upon the Policy of 2013.That apart, in the present case, the claim for\n compassionate appointment is in respect of the married\n daughter and there is nothing on record to show that the\n married daughter has no means to support herself.\n Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that\n the respondents have not committed any error in\n rejecting the petitioners case for compassionate\n appointment by the impugned order dated 14/7/2017\n because the petitioner is not eligible as per the terms of\n the Policy of Compassionate Appointment of 2013."5. Appellant questions the order on the contention that the view\n\ntaken by learned Single Judge is contrary to the decision by a\n\nDivision Bench at Indore in the case ofSmt. Meenakshi vs State of\n\nMadhya Pradesh & others: Writ Petition No.3769/2017 decided\n\non 09.10.2018; wherein the co-ordinate Bench, dwelling on Clauses\n\n2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the Policy of the State Govt. for compassionate\n\nappointment, which mandates :4WA-756-2019\n\n\n 2-2 e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@ifRu }kjk ;ksX;rk u\n j[kus vFkok Lo;a vuqdaik fu;qfDr u ysuk pkgs rks mlds }kjk\n ukekafdr iq= ;k vfookfgr iq=h A\n 2-3 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.kZr% vkfJr\n gksdj mlds lkFk jg jgh gks vFkok mijksDr ik= lnL; u gksus\n dh fLFkfr esa fo?kok iq=o/kq tks 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le;\n ml ij iw.kr% vkfJr gksdj muds lkFk jg jgh gks A\n 2-4 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh larku flQZ iq=h@iqf=;ka gks\n vkSj og fookfgr gks rks fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr\n ifr@ifRu }kjk ukekafdr fookfgr iq=h A\n ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds\n vkfJr ifr@iRuh thfor gksus ij gh fookfgr iq=h dks vuqdaik\n fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxh A (,sls vuqdaik fu;qfDr ikus okyh iq=h\n dks 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@ifRuh ds ikyu iks"k.k dh\n ftEesnkjh dk 'kiFk i= nsuk gksa)- and by relying on the decision by Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The\n\nState of Kerala (Writ Petition (Civil) No.373 of 2006) wherein,\n\nthe restriction upon entry of women by virtue of provisions\n\ncontained under the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorization\n\nof Entry) Act, 1965 was questioned on the anvil ofArticles 14, 15,\n\n25and51(A)(e)of the Constitution, held Clause 2.2 and 2.4 as\n\nviolative ofArticle 14, 15, 25and51(A)(e)of the Constitution by\n\nobserving :5WA-756-20197. The aforesaid paragraphs make it very clear that\n inspite of glorifying that the women are goddesses, they\n have been subjected to discrimination time and again. If\n a male married dependent child can be considered for\n grant of compassionate appointment, there is no\n justification in not considering the female married child,\n who is also totally dependent upon the deceased\n government servant. The Constitution of India does not\n provide for such discrimination. Man and woman are to\n be treated with equality crossing all artificially created\n barriers and therefore, the policy issued by the State\n Government to the extent it discriminates between male\n child and female child specially, Clause 2.2 and 2.4 to\n the extent the right of the married daughter specially\n when the deceased government servant was having male\n children also, has been curtailed is certainly\n unconstitutional and violative ofArticle 14, 15, 25and51(A)(e)of the Constitution of India. Net result is that\n the policy to the extent it debars married girl to be\n considered for grant of compassionate appointment is\n quashed and the respondent/State is directed to consider\n the case of the petitioner on merits even though she is\n married keeping in view policy dated 29.09.2014.6. Close reading of the order inSmt. Meenakshi(supra) reveals\n\nthat the appointment on compassionate ground has been treated as a\n\nright.6WA-756-20197. Trite it is that, appointment on compassionate ground is given\n\nsolely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide\n\nimmediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden\n\nfinancial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.\n\nAppointment based solely on descent is inimical to our\n\nconstitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be\n\nstrictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and\n\ncomparative merit, in consonance withArticles 14and16of the\n\nConstitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible.\n\nNevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been\n\nrecognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the\n\ninterest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an\n\nemployer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That\n\nbeing so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as\n\nthe case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee.\n\nBeing an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and\n\nconfined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. (Please see :Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs Union of India(2011) 4 SCC 209).8.In view whereof, we respectfully disagree with their Lordships\n\ndecision inSmt. Meenakshi(supra) in holding Clauses 2.2 and 2.4\n\nof the Policy of compassionate appointment 2014 as ultra vires.7WA-756-2019\n\n\nTherefore, let the record be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for\n\nplacing the matter before Larger Bench for deciding the issue :"Whether in the matter of compassionate\n appointment covered by Policy framed by the State\n Government wherein, certain class of dependent which\n includes unmarried daughter, a widowed daughter and a\n divorced daughter and in case of a deceased Govt.\n servant who only has daughter, such married daughter\n who was wholly dependent on Govt. servant subject to\n she giving her undertaking of bearing responsibility of\n other dependents of the deceased Govt. servant, Clause\n 2.2 and 2.4 can be said to be violative ofArticle 14, 15,\n 25and51(A)(e)of the Constitution."9. So far as present case is concerned, reference to larger Bench\n\ndoes not deter us from deciding the matter because in respondent-\n\norganisation, they have their own policy for compassionate\n\nappointment. The Scheme was brought in vogue on 03.06.2013\n\nwhich was amended on 29.12.2014. The Scheme was challenged\n\nbefore Indore Bench of this High Court inSanjay Shrivas vs\n\nChairman-cum-Managing Director, M.P. Paschim Kshetra\n\nVidyut Vitaran Company Ltd.: Writ Petition No.5386/2015\n\ndecided on 13.02.2017, wherein it is held :"9/ The new scheme of compassionate appointment\n was introduced on 3rd June, 2013 which was amended on8WA-756-2019\n\n\n29/12/14 by incorporating clauses 1.1(a) & 1.1(b)\nconfining benefit of the scheme only to certain category\nof persons in respect of old cases prior to 10/4/12.\nClauses 1.1 & 3.8 relevant for present controversy\nprovide as under:1-1 e/;izns'k if'pe {ks= fo?kqr forj.k daiuh esa dk;Zjr (1)\ne/;izns'k jkT; fo?kqr eaMy ds ,sls dkfeZd tks jkT; 'kklu dh\nvf/klwpuk fnukad 10-04-2012 ds }kjk if'pe {ks= daiuh dks\nvafre :i ls varfjr ,oa vkesfyr gq, gS ,oa daiuh esa gh dk;Zjr gS\n;k (2) if'pe {ks= daiuh }kjk fu;qDr ,oa ftudh lsok;sa daiuh\nds }kjk fu;af=r gSa ,oa daiuh lsokdky esa e`R;q gqbZ gks] ds vkfJrksa\ndks dafMdk 2 ,oa 3 esa of.kZr ik=rk dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj vuqdaik\nfu;qfDr nh tk;sxhA\n1-1 (v) ,sls dkfeZd] ftudh e`R;q fnukad 15-11-2000 ds i'pkr~\nfdarq 10-04-2012 ds iwoZ e-iz-jk-fo-e.My@daiuh dk dk;Z djrs\nle;] vkdfLed nq?kZVuk] fo?kqr nq?kZVuk] geykojksa }kjk gR;k vFkok\ndk;Z ds nkSjku okgu nq?kZVuk] ds dkj.k gqbZ gks] ds vkfJrksa dks\ndafMdk 2 ,oa 3 esa of.kZr ik=rk dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj vuqdaik\nfu;qfDr nh tkosxhA\n1-1 (c) nq?kZVuk e`R;q ls vfHkizsr gS] fd daiuh ds dk;Z djrs le;\nvkdfLed nq?kZVuk] fo?kqr nq?kZVuk] geykojksa }kjk gR;k vFkok dk;Z\ndjrs le; okgu nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k gqbZ e`R;qA\n3-8 dafMdk 1 ds n'kkZ;s vuqlkj fnukad 10-04-2012 ds iwoZ ,oa\nfnukad 15-11-2000 ds i'pkr~ ds nq?kZVuk e`R;q ds izdj.kksa dks\nNksMdj] 'ks"k vLohd`r] fujkd`r ,oa yafcr izdj.kksa ij fopkj ugha\nfd;k tk,xkA\n10/ As per clause 1.1(a) the dependents of the\nemployee dying in harness due to sudden accident,\nelectrocution, murder or vehicular accident while doing\nthe work of company/board after 15/11/2000 and prior\nto 10/4/12 working in earlier MP State Electricity\nBoard/company are eligible for compassionate\nappointment and as per clause 3.8 the cases except9WA-756-2019\n\n\nrelating to accidental death after 15/11/2000 and prior to\n10/4/12 either rejected, decided or pending, will not be\nconsidered.11/ Since the father of petitioner had died on account\nof heart attack therefore, in terms of clauses 1.1(a) and\n3.8 of the policy petitioner's case falls outside the\npurview of consideration under the new amended policy\nof 2013.12/ The matter does not end here because the\npetitioner has challenged the new amended policy of\n2013 itself on the ground of being arbitrary and\nunreasonable.13/ The compassionate appointment is an exception to\nthe General Rule of appointment to public office. As a\ngeneral rule appointment to public office is to be made\nstrictly in accordance with mandatory requirement ofArticles 14& 16of the Constitution. The object of\ncompassionate appointment is to remove the financial\nconstraints of the bereaved family on loosing the bread\nearner and to enable the family of deceased employee to\ntide over the sudden crises.14/ Compassionate appointment is not a vested right\n(See.MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singhreported in AIR 2013 SC 3365, Umesh Kumar Nagpal\nVs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138) .\n15/ Since it is not a vested right therefore,\nrespondent's option to change the policy of\ncompassionate appointment is not closed.(SeeKuldip10WA-756-2019\n\n\nSingh Vs. Government, NCT Delhireported in AIR\n2006 SC 2652).16/ It is no longer res integra that compassionate\nappointment is to be granted on consideration of several\nfactors such as eligibility, financial condition of the\ncompany etc. as may be provided in the scheme and\nsuch a right is a legal right which is creation of terms of\nthe applicable scheme.17/ Power to frame policy by executive decision or by\nlegislation also includes power to withdraw the same\nunless in the former case, it is done by malafide exercise\nof power or the decision or action taken is in abuse of\npower. The doctrine of legitimate expectation plays no\nrole when the appropriate authority is empowered to\ntake a decision by an executive policy or under law. The\nauthority also has full range of choice within the limits\nof its executive or legislative power. (See:P.T.R. Exports\n(Madras) Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and\nothersreported in (1996) 5 SCC 268).18/ In the present case the amended policy reveals that\nbenefit of compassionate appointment in the cases\nconcerning the period prior to 10/4/2012 is restricted to\nonly certain categories of persons. The justification for\nproviding cut off date as 10/4/12 for such cases is given\nin para 1.1 of the scheme itself. Under Clause 1.1(a) of\nthe amended policy, the new scheme has retrospective\napplication for the period prior to 10/4/2012 only to the\ndependents of the employee dying in harness on account11WA-756-2019\n\n\n of accidental death in certain specified eventualities\n while doing the work of the Board/company. Such\n employees form separate class, therefore, the\n classification is reasonable having nexus with object\n sought to be achieved. The policy is not tailor made to\n favour any particular person nor malafides are reflected\n and it is also neither whimsical nor has been issued with\n ulterior motive. Hence the petitioner's challenge to the\n amended policy of 2013 for compassionate appointment\n cannot be accepted."10. The order passed inSanjay Shrivas(supra) is affirmed by the\n\n Division Bench at Indore in an intra Court appeal : Writ Appeal\n\n No.270/2017 decided on 23.10.2017.11. In view whereof, the petitioner being a married daughter and\n\n not shown to be dependent on her father, we perceive no illegality in\n\n the impugned order as will call for an interference.12. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in above terms. No\n\n costs.(Sanjay Yadav) (Atul Sreedharan)\n JUDGE JUDGE\nvinodDigitally signed by VINODVISHWAKARMADate: 2020.01.16 18:40:57+05'30'

bb2468f4-2133-5a7b-b4e4-88a253ba3d08

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nCalcutta High Court\nHemant Bangur & Ors vs B. Majumdar Samajpati & Sons Hotel ... on 21 June, 2021OD-2 ORDER SHEET\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n ORIGINAL SIDE\n\n IA NO. GA/4/2021\n In CS/277/2015\n\n HEMANT BANGUR & ORS.\n Versus\n B. MAJUMDAR SAMAJPATI & SONS HOTEL (PVT.) LTD.\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA\n Date : 21st June, 2021.\n\n Appearance :\n Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. A. Mitra, Adv.\n Mr. A. Gaggar, Adv.\n Mr. Subhojit Ghosh, Adv.\n ... for the petitioner.\n\n Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.\n ... for the respondent.\n The Court: Affidavit-of-service is kept on record. Learned Counsel\n\nappearing for the parties submit that the interim order dated 27th May,\n\n2021 restraining the defendant and/or members of the concerned family\n\nfrom inducting any further new Directors in the Board or issuing or\n\ntransferring any shares etc. to any other persons of the family was\n\nextended for a period of three weeks by a further order dated 3rd June,\n\n2021.\n\n Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant seeks to file an\n\naffidavit-in-opposition.\n\n Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks as prayed for;\n\nreply thereto within two weeks thereafter.\n\n List this matter after four weeks.\n 2\n\n\n The interim order dated 27th May, 2021 and continued by an order\n\nof 3rd June, 2021 shall be extended for a further period of eight weeks\n\nfrom date.\n\n\n (MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.)\n\n\n\nmg

fed98c93-ca15-5fa1-b828-44245c8c0549

court_cases

Patna High CourtSanjay Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 18 September, 2020Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 (NOC) 324 (PAT.), AIRONLINE 2020 PAT 888Author:Madhuresh PrasadBench:Madhuresh PrasadIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7566 of 2020\n ======================================================\n1. Sanjay Ram Son of Arjun Ram Resident of Village- Halsi, Post Office-\n Halsi, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.\n2. Sri Devi Wife of Raj Kumar Mahto Resident of Village- Mohiuddin Nagar,\n Post Office- Mohiuddin Nagar, Police Station- Halsi, UP Pramukh, Block\n Panchayat Samittee, Halsi, District Lakhisarai.\n\n ... ... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of\n Panchayat, Government of Bihar, Patna.\n2. The District Magistrate-cum- District Election Officer, (Panchayat),\n Lakhisarai.\n3. The Block Development Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Block Panchayat\n Samittee, Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.\n4. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna, through its Secretary, Bihar,\n Patna.\n5. Sangita Devi Wife of Kunwar Paswan Resident of village- Lalpur, Post\n Office- Tarhari, Police Station and Block- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai,\n Member Panchayat Samittee, Bhanpur Gram Panchayat, Block- Halsi,\n District- Lakhisarai.\n6. Janak Devi Wife of Masudan Yadav Resident of Village and Post Office-\n Dheera, Police Station and Block- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member\n Panchayat Samittee, Dheera Gram Panchayat, Block and Police Station-\n Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.\n7. Mahesh Manjhi Son of Shyam Sundar Manjhi Resident of Village- Ballopur,\n Post Office- Matasi, Police Station and Block- Halsi, District- Member,\n Panchayat Samittee, Gram Panchayat Ballopur, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n8. Ajay Kumar Son of Triloki Yadav Resident of Village- Sirkhindi, Post\n Office- Bahchha, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member\n Panchayat Samittee, Gram Panchayat Sirkhindi, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n9. Awadhesh Thakur Son of Sukhdeo Thakur Resident of Village- Lahuara,\n Post Office- Nauma, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member,\n Panchayat Samittee, Gram Panchayat Ra, Shrikhindi, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n10. Sunita Devi Wife of Yogendra Kumar Rai Resident of Village- Sheikhpura,\n Post Office- Parsama, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member,\n Panchayat Samittee, Gram Panchayat, Kaindi, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n11. Bhaso Paswan Son of Churaman Paswan Resident of Village and Post\n Office- Kaindi, Block- Halsi, Member Panchayat Samittee No. 2, Gram\n Panchayat Kaindi, Block- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.7566 of 2020 dt.18-09-2020\n 2/4\n\n\n\n\n 12. Vijay Paswan Son of Shrawan Paswan Resident of Village and Post Office-\n Halsi, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member Panchayat\n Samittee Bhag- 9, Gram Panchayat Raj, Halsi, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n 13. Ram Bhushan Sharma Son of Hardeo Sharma Resident of Village- Bahrama,\n Post Office- Pursanda, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member\n Panchayat Samittee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gema Pursanda, Block- Halsi,\n District- Lakhisarai.\n 14. Gyatri Devi Wife of Shrawan Mahto Resident of Village and Post Office-\n Pursanda, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member Panchayat\n Samittee, Gram Panchayat Raj Gema Parsanda, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n 15. Dharmendra Kumar Son of Late Ishwar Thakur Resident of Village and Post\n Office- Sarh Maph, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, presently\n member Panchayat Samittee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sarh Maph, Block-\n Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.\n 16. Meena Devi Wife of Akhilesh Ram Resident of Village and Post Office-\n Shivsona, Police Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai, Member Panchayat\n Samittee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sarh Maph, Block- Halsi, District-\n Lakhisarai.\n\n ... ... Respondent/s\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr Arun Kumar, Advocate\n For the Respondent/s : Ms Archana Meenakshee\n ======================================================\n CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD\n\n ORAL JUDGMENT\n\n Date : 18-09-2020\n\n\n Mr Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, at\n\n the very outset, submits that due to inadvertence, wrong\n\n vakalatnama has been submitted in this case. He undertakes that\n\n by the end of the day, he will be forwarding photostat copy of the\n\n correct vakalatnama executed by the petitioners, by E-mail. He\n\n further undertakes that other defects, as pointed out, shall be\n\n removed, as and when called upon by this Court to do so.\n Patna High Court CWJC No.7566 of 2020 dt.18-09-2020\n 3/4\n\n\n\n\n 2 This case has been taken up for consideration through\n\n Video Conferencing.\n\n 3 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the\n\n State.\n\n 4 Petitioners' counsel submits that petitioners No 1 and\n\n 2 were the Pramukh and Up Pramukh. It is submitted that the\n\n requisition for removal of the petitioners was submitted through\n\n the Executive Officer and that the same was not served on all the\n\n Panchayat Samiti Members and, therefore, he submits that the\n\n requisition dated 14.02.2020 leading to his removal in the Special\n\n Meeting dated 22.02.2020 (Annexure 4) is bad in law.\n\n 5 Ms Archana Meenakshi appears on behalf of the\n\n State. She submits that as per averments made in paragraphs 7 and\n\n 8 of the writ petition, petitioner No 1 himself has fixed the date of\n\n convening the Special Meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on\n\n 22.02.2020.\n\n 6Nothing has been brought on record by the\n\n petitioners in the writ petition to show that thereafter they raised\n\n any objection in this regard before any Authority. The resolution\n\n of the Special Meeting dated 22.02.2020 clearly shows that the\n\n Motion of No Confidence was carried through by 8 members out\n\n of 12. Subsequent thereto, the Secretary, State Election\n Patna High Court CWJC No.7566 of 2020 dt.18-09-20204/4Commission, Bihar, Patna has also issued a Communication dated\n\n 07.03.2020 to the District Magistrate -cum- District Election\n\n Officer (Panchayat), Luckeesarai to complete the process of\n\n election of new Pramukh/Up Pramukh on 23.03.2020 after\n\n ensuring service of notice for the election by 15.03.2020. Much\n\n thereafter, the writ petition has been filed on 07.09.2020. It is\n\n further submitted that the election was finally held on 26.08.2020.7 In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have\n\n not approached any Authority diligently objecting to the notice of\n\n No Confidence Motion dated 14.02.2020 and even after their\n\n removal dated 22.02.2020. Only after the fresh election was fixed\n\n and now after the same has already been conducted, even as per\n\n submission of learned counsel for the petitioners on 26.08.2020,\n\n there is no scope for this Court to undo all that has democratically\n\n been done till date in exercise of jurisdiction underArticle 226of\n\n the Constitution of India.8 Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.(Madhuresh Prasad, J)\nM.E.H./-AFR/NAFR NAFR\nCAV DATE NA\nUploading Date 20.09.2020\nTransmission Date NA

f4df0e2c-a71a-5f34-82d5-0fe5d2a100ab

court_cases

Rajasthan High CourtAnirudh Devendra Swarnkar S/O Devendra ... vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2020Author:Mahendar Kumar GoyalBench:Mahendar Kumar GoyalHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8357/2020\n\nAnirudh Devendra Swarnkar S/o Devendra Swarnkar, Aged About\n40 Years, Resident Of D-1501 Synchronicity, Chandivali, Dmart\nAndheri East, Mumbai ,sakinaka, Mumbai Maharashtra Mumbai\nMaharashtra India 400072Having Din 02749518\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of\n Corporate Affairs, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra\n Prasad Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110001\n2. Registrar Of Companies, G/ 6-7, Second Floor, Residency\n Area, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Rajasthan).\n3. Registrar Of Companies, 100, Everest, Marine Drive,\n Mumbai- 400002\n ----RespondentsFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat\nFor Respondent(s) :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL\n\n Order\n\n07/08/2020\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the\n\ncontroversy involved in the present writ petition is about treating\n\nthe petitioner as Disqualified Directors underSection 164(2)(a)of\n\nthe Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner has also sought direction\n\nto use his Director Identification Number (DIN) and Digital\n\nSignature Certificate for the purpose of filing his return.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the\n\nDivision Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.4062/2019\n\n(Narendra Kumar Jat Vs. Union of India) dated 09.07.2019 has already\n\npassed interim order and directions have been given to reactivate(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 09:43:02 PM)(2 of 2) [CW-8357/2020]\n\n\n the Director Identification Number (DIN) and further Digital\n\n Signature Certificate is required to be issued in the capacity of the\n\n Director to file necessary annual returns to discharge statutory\n\n obligations of all the other companies wherein the petitioner is\n\n Director.This Court, as an interim measure, directs the respondents\n\n to reactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) of the\n\n petitioner and Digital Signature Certificate to enable the petitioner\n\n to file necessary annual return and also to discharge his statutory\n\n obligations.The interim order, passed by this Court, will remain subject\n\n to final outcome of the present writ petition.Let this case be listed before the Division Bench.\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file additional\n\n copy of the writ petition enabling Registry to list the matter before\n\n the Division Bench.(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J\n\n\n\n DANISH USMANI/86(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 09:43:02 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

6c33e8ae-b5b0-5fa8-83a2-12203e6e0b90

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nOrissa High Court\nTapan Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 September, 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n W.P.(C) No.21936 of 2022\n\n Tapan Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner\n\n\n -versus-\n\n State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties\n\n\n COROM:\n JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY\n\n ORDER\n 7.9.2022\nOrder No\n 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.\n\n 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the\n Petitioner and Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned A.G.A appearing\n for the opp. parties\n\n 3. The Petitioner has filed the writ Petition with the\n following prayer:-\n\n "i. Direct the respondent to extend the\n benefit of coverage under OCS\n O.C.S.((Pension)) Rules 1992 and the GPF\n (O) Rules 1938 in favour of the petitioner\n within a stipulated period."\n\n 4. It is submitted by Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for\n the Petitioner that vide the advertisement issued on\n 19.5.1995 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner not only made\n her application as against the vacancy meant for\n General(male) candidate, but also his name was duly\n reflected in the select list published by the office of Opp.\n Party No.3 on 07.01.2000 under Annexure-2. In the said\n // 2 //\n\n\n\nlist and in respect of General (male) candidate, the\nPetitioner's name was reflected at serial No.27.\n\n5. It is submitted that even though the Petitioner was\nduly selected with her name finding place at Sl. No.27 in\nrespect of General (male), the Petitioner in view of the\nvacancy advertised for such General (male) candidates at\n32 in Annexure-1, the Petitioner should have been provided\nwith the appointment. But it is submitted that instead of\nhis qualifying the test and his name reflected in Annexure-\n2, the Petitioner was not issued with the order of\nappointment and was kept waiting.\n\n6. It is submitted that only vide office order\ndtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was provided\nwith the appointment as Junior Clerk. Pursuant to the said\norder, the Petitioner not only joined, but also she was\npromoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 2017.\n\n7. It is submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed\nas per order dtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4, he was\ndebarred from being covered under the Provisions of OCS\n(Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938. It is also\nsubmitted that even though the Petitioner was kept waiting\ntill order at Annexure-4 was issued in his favour, but\nperson similarly placed and selected vide notification under\nAnnexure-2, were provided with the appointment\nimmediately and accordingly they were covered under the\nprovision of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O)\nRules, 1938.\n\n8. It is also submitted that since because of the latches\non the part of the Opp. Parties, the Petitioner was kept\n\n Page 2 of 5\n // 3 //\n\n\n\nwaiting and provided with the appointment only vide order\ndtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4 even though he was\ndeclared selected in the notification dtd.07.01.2000, the\nPetitioner's claim for his inclusion under the provision of\nOCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938\nneeds favourable consideration.\n\n9. Mr. Chhatoi in support of his aforesaid submission\nrelied on the decision of the learned Odisha Administrative\nTribunal dtd.19.09.2013 passed in O.A. No.1612(C) of 2011\nand 1613(C) of 2011. In the said decision, learned Tribunal\nin a case arising out of the present selection process held\nthe Petitioners therein to be covered under the provisions of\nOCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938.\n\n10. Mr. Chhatoi accordingly submitted that the decision\nrendered by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid case\nsquarely applies to the case of the Petitioner. It is also\nsubmitted that the order of learned Tribunal passed in the\naforementioned case was never assailed by the State-Opp.\nParties and accordingly the same has attained finality in\nthe eye of law.\n\n11. Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned A.G.A appearing for the Opp.\nParties submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed\nvide order dtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4 i.e. after\ncoming into the force of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension)\nAmendment Rules, 2005, which came into force w.e.f.\n01.01.2005, the Petitioner cannot be covered under the\nprovisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF(O)\nRules, 1938. Accordingly, Mr. Babu prayed for dismissal of\nthe writ Petition.\n\n Page 3 of 5\n // 4 //\n\n\n\n12. Heard learned counsel for Parties at length. Perused the\nmaterials available on record. There is no dispute that\npursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on\n19.05.1995, the Petitioner was duly selected with\npublication of the select list vide notification\ndtd.07.01.2000 under Annexure-2.\n\n13. In view of the vacancy available and reflected in\nAnnexure-1 in respect of General (male) candidates at 321,\nthe name of the Petitioner being placed at Sl. No.27 in the\nlist of General (male) candidates, he should have been\nprovided with the appointment after publication of the\nnotification under Annexure-2. The opp. Parties in their\ncounter affidavit in W.P.C(OAS) No.31 of 2015 have not\nassigned any cogent reason for not providing appointment\nto the Petitioner immediately after issuance of the\nnotification under Annexure-2 and keeping the same\npending till the order dtd.8.03.2007 was issued under\nAnnexure-4.\n\n14. It is also not in dispute that some of the selected\ncandidates, whose name finds place in Annexure-2 were\nprovided with the appointment immediately after\npublication of the said notification and accordingly they\ncame under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as\nwell as GPF(O) Rules, 1938.\n\n15. Though was provided with the order passed by the\nlearned Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A. No.1612(C) of\n2011 and O.A. No.1613(C) of 2011 but submitted that she\nhas no instruction as to whether the order of the learned\nTribunal has been assailed before this Court or not. But he\n\n Page 4 of 5\n // 5 //\n\n\n\nfairly submitted that similar issue has been held in the\naffirmative by the learned Tribunal.\n\n16. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position\nwith regard to the selection of the Petitioner with\npublication of the select list under Annexure-2 on\n07.01.2000 and the vacancies available in respect of\nGeneral (male) candidate as reflected under Annexre-1 and\nthe order passed by the learned Tribunal in the\naforementioned case, the Petitioner's claim for his inclusion\nunder the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the\nGPF(O) Rules, 1938 needs favourable consideration.\n\n17. Accordingly, this Court while allowing the prayer\nmade in the writ Petition directs the Opp. Parties to extend\nthe benefit of coverage under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992\nand the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 in favour of the Petitioner. It is\nfurther directed that the Opp. Parties shall complete the\nentire exercise within a period of 3 months from the date of\nreceipt of this order.\n\n18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ\nPetition is disposed of.\n\n (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)\n Judge\nsangita\n\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 5

810e3721-1358-5634-9dff-b7d90f0ba553

court_cases

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - MumbaiM/S Boss Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai on 20 December, 2021IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n "SMC" Bench, Mumbai\n Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member\n\n I.T.A. No. 885/Mum/2020\n (Assessment Year 2011-12)\n\n Boss Infosolutions Private Vs. ITO,Ward-12(1)(3)\n Limited Room No.145A,\n 107/108, Natraj Market, Aaykar Bhawan\n Mezannie floor M.K.Road\n Opp. Kasturba Cinema Mumai-400 020\n Malad West\n Mumbai-400 064\n\n PAN : AACCB3849H\n (Appellant) (Respondent)\n\n\n Assessee by Vivek Jani\n Department by Ms. Smita Verma\n Date of Hearing 13.10.2021\n Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2021\n\n ORDERPer Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :-This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 dated 04.12.2019 and pertains to\nassessment year 2011-12.2. Grounds of appeal read as under:-GROUND NO. I: REOPENING TO BE BAD IN LAW:1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\n in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Learned Assessing Office\n (Income tax Officer Ward 12(l)(3))("Ld. AO") under section 147 of the Act.2. The Appellant prays that the reopening be held to be bad in law.GROUND NO. II: DISREGARDING PURCHASES:2IT A N o . 8 8 5 /M / 2 0 2 01. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in\n upholding the observation of the Ld. AO that the purchases amounting to Rs.\n 13,11,393 is non-genuine.2. The Appellant prays that the purchases be held to be genuine and the same be\n allowed while computing the taxable income of the Appellant.GROUND NO. III: ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES FROM M/s.\n GLOBAL 1MPEX (INDIA):1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\n upholding the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing purchases made from M/s Global\n Impex (India) on the basis of third party statement. . .2. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to allow the purchases from\n M/s. Global Impex (India).3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale\nand retail trade of computers and its peripheral/parts. Upon information received from\nSales tax department regarding bogus purchases, the AO reopened and issued notice\nto the assessee. The assessee responded as under;-In response to the same the assessee's representative vide letter dated 12-11-2018\n submitted that the assessee has discharged its primary onus of providing the purchase\n details in the form of purchase bills, ledger account, bank details and subsequent sale\n of the products. The assessee further stated that the purchases made from the above\n party was properly recorded in the books of assessee and the payments were made\n through bank accounts. The said purchases were subsequently sold and the same was\n recorded in the sales tax return. The assessee further contended that non-service of\n notice u/s. 133(6) is not a basis for disallowance of purchase. The assessee, therefore,\n contended that the purchases are genuine and no additions on this account is\n warranted.4. However, AO was not satisfied, he put great emphasis on the information from\nsales tax department and non response to notice u/s. 133(6). He proceeded to partly\nreject the book for the said purchases and disallowed the purchases by observing as\nunder:-Under this circumstance, after considering the submissions and perusing the material\n available on record and in view of lack of material deficiencies, I hold that since\n purchase shown by the assessee during the year remained unverifiable, there is a\n leakage of revenue. Therefore, books of account of the assessee is hereby rejected to3IT A N o . 8 8 5 /M / 2 0 2 0\n\n\nthe extent of hawala purchase by invoking the provisions ofSection 145(3)of the I.T.\nAct, 1961,\n As mentioned hereinabove, the purchase rate as mentioned in the alleged purchase\nbill cannot be accepted. Any person indulging in the practice of purchasing goods\nfrom the grey market and obtaining bills of other parties to support the grey\npurchases of the alleged qualification as genuine purchases, would do so for getting\nsome benefit. But what would be the magnitude of the benefit in this type of case.\nThe above noted party become conduit between the assessee and the seller of the\ngoods. Under the circumstances, it was able to inflate the price of goods.\nAccordingly, the purchases made from the above party is treated as non-genuine and\nassessee could not explain these expenses satisfactory beyond1 any doubt and the\nsame is disallowedu/s. 69Cof the Income Tax Act on the following findings:-(i) that the physical delivery of the goods were obtained from the party based in\ngrey market and to give it colour of being a genuine purchase, the bogus bill/\naccommodation bill was obtained from the supplier who declared himself as Hawala\nDealers under MVAT\n•Act, 2002. .(ii) Though the purchase alleged as genuine and shown to have been made by\nmaking payment thereof by an account payee cheque, the cheques have been\ndeposited in bank account ostensibly in the name of the apparent seller. '(iii) The assessee has produced certain details but could not prove beyond doubt\nthat the transactions were genuine. Even though the details of supplier and goods\npurchased are filed it cannot be relied upon as the Sales Tax Registration of the said\nsupplier stood cancelled with effect from 2011. The supplier has intentionally stayed\naway from the confirmation of account as they are aware that the said transactions\nwere not genuine. In the absence of details from the supplier no further enquiry could\nbe made regarding the transfer of money from their account.(iv). Moreover, the party have given affidavit before the Sales Tax\nDepartment that they have not supplied the goods and only bills were issued. They\nhave further confirmed that they have received the cheques against such bogus\npurchase bills. Subsequent to the action by the Sales Tax Department these parties\nhave closed their bank account and left the premises in which bills were issued.These parties were only paper concerns and had no capacity to purchase these items\nand had no facility to store these stocks. They have issued bills for different type of\ngoods which they have not purchased and had no stocks and had no\ninfrastructure to store such items.(v) Reliance is placed in the Supreme Court decision in the case of N.K.Proteins\nwherein it was held that in case of bogus purchases 100% disallowance is required as\nthese parties have been declared bogus. Further, recently the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt has held that disallowance should be made in respect of bogus purchases. It is\nfurther seen that the assessee has shown a meagre net profit . of Rs. 1,98,981 on a\nsales turnover of Rs. 6,60,16,842/- which is quite abnormal in the field of wholesale\nand retails of computer and peripherals in the financial year 2010-11 when there was\ngreat demand for computer and peripherals. The assessee has indulged in the practice\nof bogus purchase to inflate the expenses and reduce the profits. Considering the facts4IT A N o . 8 8 5 /M / 2 0 2 0\n\n\n of the case, I am of the considered opinion that expenses are covered undersection\n 69Cof the Income Tax Act and the expenses incurred in the form of non-genuine\n purchases of Rs. 13,11,393/-from M/s. Globe Impex (India) is disallowed and added\n to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding undersection 271 (l)(c)and\n explanations thereof of the Act are initiated for concealment of income.5. Against the above order, assessee is appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), challenging the\nreopening as well as the merits of the case. Ld.CIT(A) rejected both. On reopening,\nhe has held as under:-"In the course of appellate proceedings he appellant could not substantiate its\n contention. I find from para 3 of the assessment order that reasons for the reopening\n recorded by the AO was provided to the appellant. The onus was the appellant to\n furnish the reasons for the reopening recorded by the AO and substantiate its claim\n raised in the ground of appeal. The appellant has failed to do so. The appellant has\n also failed to produce a copy of the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the AO\n disposing of the objections raised by it the course of the assessment proceedings.6. As regards, Ld.CIT(A)'s order on reopening. I have heard both the parties and\nperused the records. I find that the above order is laconic order without proper\napplication of mind. It is settled law that even administrative orders have to be\nconsistent with rules of natural justice. Hence, I remit the issue to the file of the\nLd.CIT(A) to pass proper speaking order after granting the assessee proper\nopportunity of being heard.7. As regards merits, I note that Ld.CIT(A) has held that part rejection of books of\naccounts as been done by the AO is correct. I find that this limb of\nLd.CIT(A)/adjudication is also not sustainable. As the same books cannot be accepted\nand rejected at the same time. The common law maxim of approbate and reprobate\ndoes not mandate such a view point. Furthermore, the merits of the addition have also\nbeen upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). I note that merely on the basis of return of notice\nissuedu/s. 133(6)as unserved 100% disallowance is not at all sustainable. In this\nregard, the case law from Nikunj Eximp Enterprises( in Writ Petition No.2860, order\ndated 18.06.2014)of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and in the case of5IT A N o . 8 8 5 /M / 2 0 2 0\n\n\nMohammad Hazi Adam & Co in ITA No.1004 of 2006, dated 11.02.2019 of Hon'ble\nHigh Court are germane. These relevant decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nhave not been considered by Ld.CIT(A). Hence, since I have already remitted the\nissue of reopening in the file of Ld.CIT(A), Ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the\nissue on merits afresh keeping in mind, the observations hereinabove.8. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical\npurposes.Pronounced in the open court on 20 .12.2021\n\n\n Sd/-(SHAMIM YAHYA)\n ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nMumbai; Dated :20 /12/2021\nThirumalesh, Sr.PS\n Copy of the Order forwarded to :1. The Appellant2. The Respondent3. The CIT(A)4. CIT5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai6. Guard File.BY ORDER,\n //True Copy//\n\n (Assistant Registrar)\n ITAT, Mumbai

922050f5-59f3-55f3-a8aa-ddb66f3f6530

court_cases

Jharkhand High CourtAnil Gupta @ Anil Kumar vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (In Short M/S ... on 14 December, 2022Author:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyBench:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n W.P.(S) No. 376 of 2020\n\n Anil Gupta @ Anil Kumar, Aged about 34 years, S/o Sri Sachita\n Prasad Gupta @ Sachita Prasad, R/o Bhimkanali Block - 4, P.O. -\n Khanudih, P.S. - Baghmara, District - Dhanbad\n ... ... Petitioner\n Versus\n 1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short M/s BCCL) through Chairman\n cum Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Saraidhela,\n District - Dhanbad\n 2. Chief General Manager (P&IR), Headquarter of M/s BCCL, Koyla\n Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad\n 3. Chief Manager, Estate, Headquarter of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan,\n P.O. & P.S. - Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad\n 4. Estate Manager, Block - II Area of M/s BCCL, AT & P.O. -\n Nawagarh, P.S. - Madhuban, District - Dhanbad\n 5. General Manager, Block - II Area of M/s BCCL, at & P.O. -\n Nawagarh, P.S. - Madhuban, District - Dhanbad.\n ... ... Respondents\n ---CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY---For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Advocate\n For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate\n : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate\n ---\n07/14.12.2022 Heard Mr. Siddhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf\n of the petitioner.2. Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\n the respondents.3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:"(i) For an appropriate action against the respondent no.2 to 5 for\n illegally withhold the leftover 20 employment out of 292 employment approved by\n M/s BCCL in lieu of the acquisition of 22.97 Acres Land and 145 residential\n house at village - Jairamdih Basti for Benedih Open Cast Project under Block -II Area since 2006, considering the fact that the respondents have already\n provided 272 employment to the land / house - premises owners but they are\n discriminating with leftover 20 employment of the land/house- premises owners.(ii) For provide forthwith employment to the petitioner which already\n approved by M/s BCCL in lieu of acquisition of his land/residential house-\n premises at Jairamdih Basti standing over on the Part Plot No.201, Area - 3\n Decimal, Mouza - Jairamdih, P.S. - Baghmara, Khata No. - 3, District -\n Dhanbad for Benedih Open Cast Project under Block - II Area vide Land\n Acquisition Case No.43/1988."4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of\n grandfather of the petitioner was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case\n No.43 of 1988 and vide letter dated 25.04.1994, altogether five persons\n were offered employment including his mother. He also submits that\n pursuant to the said letter, his mother was medically examined along2with others. He also submits that in the year 1994 itself, others were\nprovided the employment, but his mother was left out.5. The learned counsel submits that when no employment was\nprovided to his mother, she filed a representation dated 08.02.2006\nstating that instead of her, the employment be provided to the present\npetitioner.6. Learned counsel has also submitted that there were series of\nnegotiation between the Management and the land losers for providing\nemployment and such negotiations continued till the year 2012 and the\nfather of the petitioner/mother of the petitioner and the petitioner have\nbeen representing for employment to the petitioner. The last\ncommunication which has been annexed in the present case is dated\n18.01.2017 (Annexure - 12) and when no decision was taken in favour\nof the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed on 03.02.2020.7. Learned counsel submits that admittedly, the land was acquired,\nthe mother of the petitioner was offered employment. She was ultimately\nnot granted employment and when she asked the respondents to provide\nemployment to the petitioner, no decision has been taken so far and\naccordingly, the petitioner is entitled for a mandamus upon the\nrespondents to provide employment to the petitioner.8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has\nvehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that at\nthe time of acquisition of land, the petitioner was only two years of age\nand the mother was offered employment as back as in the year 1994 and\nthereafter she kept complete silence for 12 years and filed her\nrepresentation on 08.02.2006 (Annexure - 7). She submits that mere\nfiling of representation does not give fresh cause of action and no\nemployment can be provided to the petitioner. She has also referred to\nthe judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No.703 of\n2018 decided on 20.01.2020 and has referred to page 9 of the aforesaid\njudgment to submit that on account of enormous delay and laches on the\npart of the petitioner/his mother, no relief for appointment be granted to\nthe petitioner.9. Learned counsel has referred to para 19 of the counter-affidavit\nand submitted that question of seeking further employment by the\npetitioner did not arise in the instant case as six number of employments\nwas already provided to the representative of Sri krishna Prasad Gupta3and no employment was further due. She has also submitted that as per\nthe counter-affidavit, the petitioner was only 2 years of age at the time of\nacquisition of land and, therefore, he was not even eligible for being\nconsidered for employment. She has also submitted that even the father\nof the petitioner was in employment with the respondent-company.10. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a\ndetailed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed and the father of\nthe petitioner was in employment before nationalization. The learned\ncounsel has also submitted that providing of six employments as stated\nby the respondents in the counter-affidavit, has also been denied in the\nrejoinder.11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering\nthe facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly\nat the time of acquisition of land, the petitioner was only two years of\nage and it appears that the mother of the petitioner was offered\nemployment as back as in the year 1994, but as per the petitioner, she\nwas not provided any employment. However, she kept complete silence\nand after 12 years, in the year 2006, she filed representation before the\nrespondents stating that her son should be given the employment in her\nplace. It further appears that the petitioner / his mother/ his father has\nbeen filing representation before one or the other authority and have filed\nthis writ petition only on 03.02.2020. The fact remains that the petitioner\nwas only two years of age at the time of acquisition of land and this\nCourt in L.P.A No.703 of 2018 decided on 20.01.2020 has clearly held in\npage 9 as follows:"..................This Court, therefore, is of the view that when in\n the matter of compensation delay of 21 years has not been\n condoned by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the question of providing\n appointment on the ground of acquisition of land to the dependents\n of the displaced raiyat will have to be considered in high pedestal\n in comparison to that of the compensation as because the\n appointment, if provided, to the dependents of the displaced raiyat,\n the same will be by virtue of compassion and it has been settled\n that the appointment either by virtue of compensation in lieu of\n acquisition of land or the appointment on compassionate ground\n due to death of the bread earner, thus the same are contrary to the\n principle laid down underArticle 14and16of the Constitution of\n India and the same is to be treated as an exception. Here, in the\n present case also, the claim is being made after 27 years from the\n date of acquisition. At the time of acquisition of initiation of\n proceeding for acquisition, the petitioners were minor as has been\n discussed at paragraph 10 and 11 hereinabove. However, at the\n risk of repetition the same is reiterated herein that when the land\n was acquired and a proceeding was initiated in the year 1990, the\n age of the appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 was 05 years, 13 years and 084years respectively and so far as the appellant No. 4 is concerned,\n he was not even born at that time."12. It has been held that the appointment, if provided, to the\n dependents of the displaced raiyat, the same will be by virtue of\n compassion and it has been settled that the appointment either by virtue\n of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land or the appointment on\n compassionate ground due to death of the bread earner, thus the same are\n contrary to the principle laid down underArticle 14and16of the\n Constitution of India and the same is to be treated as an exception. In the\n said case, the claim was made after 27 years from the date of acquisition\n and considering the fact that the claimants were minor at the time of\n acquisition of land and some of them were not even born, the claim for\n appointment in lieu of acquisition of land was rejected.13. This Court finds that the petitioner was only 2 years of age at the\n time of acquisition of land and the mother of the petitioner did not take\n any steps for redressal of her grievance, if any, at the relevant point of\n time. She was offered employment as back as in the year 1994, but did\n not take any steps and when the petitioner became major, she filed a\n petition in the year 2006 petition seeking employment for her son - the\n petitioner and the writ petition has been filed on 03.02.2020. This Court\n is of the considered view that with the passage of time and upon attaining\n majority, the petitioner does not acquire any right to employment, who\n was admittedly just 2 years of age at the time of acquisition of land.\n Otherwise also, the present writ petition suffers from enormous delay\n and laches on the part of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid\n judgement passed in L.P.A No.703 of 2018 decided on 20.01.2020 and\n considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is not\n entitled for any relief as prayed for in this writ petition, which is\n accordingly dismissed.14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)\nSaurav/

f8d42dc2-64c4-5e6e-8349-fcf5439fcf09

court_cases

Allahabad High CourtJawahar Alias Babu Ram vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2020Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Anil Kumar-IxHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD\n \n \n\nReserved/AFR\n \nCourt No. - 46\n \n\n \nCase :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4689 of 2009\n \nAppellant :- Jawahar Alias Babu Ram\n \nRespondent :- State of U.P.\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- B.K. Tripathi,Pradeep Kumar\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate\n \n\n \nHon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.( Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J )\n \n This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) Court No. 3, Maharajganj in Session Trial No. 158 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC and Session Trial No. 159 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2004, underSections 25/27of Arms Act, police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- underSection 302IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- underSections 25/27of the Arms Act. In case of default, the appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in both the session trials. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The emanation of facts giving rise to the case of the prosecution are that a written report was handed over by the first informant Hari Narayan, son of Maniraj Chaudhary, village Harkhi Tola police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj to the effect that the complainant is the permanent resident of village Harkhi Tola Nipaniya, police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj. On the fateful day, i.e. (01.9.2004) at about 6.00 AM, when his Samdhi Lalman Chaudhary, son of Ram Kishun (daughter's father-in-law), who resided in the same village, was coming back to his village from Harkhi Miner situated in south-east after attending the call of nature, Jawahar alias Baburam (appellant) who is the son of the first wife of Lalman Chaudhary shot at him at the canal as he was inimical with his father due to litigation in respect of family property. After Lalman Chaudhary fell down, his son (the appellant) hacked him to death with a sharp edged weapon. On hearing the sound of firing Mahendra Gaud, Rakesh, Pauhari and several other persons who were present at the spot rushed towards and tried to chase the accused to nab Jawahar alias Baburam, but he managed to escape towards southern side by taking shelter of paddy and sugar-cane crops. It was further mentioned in the report that dead body is lying at the spot.On the basis of the aforesaid report, which was scribed by Ram Suresh, son of Ugai, village Sonevarsa, the FIR was registered at 8.15 AM on the same day as Case Crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC, police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj.After the registration of the case, the criminal law set into motion and investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-17, SI Kushal Pal Singh, who copied the FIR in the case diary and thereafter left for the place of occurrence along with PW-12, SI B.L. Chaudhary, Constable Sushil Singh, Constable Brij Bhushan Tiwari and Constable Kishun Dev Prasad where Constable Adha Singh, Constable Jagat Pati Mishra, Constable Uma Shanker Yadav and Constable Vishwanath Chaurasia were already present. Complainant and other villagers also reached at the spot where the cadaver of deceased Lalman Chaudhary was lying. The investigating officer after nominating Kapil Dev Shukla, Pauhari, Kanhai, Harakhman and Hari Shanker as witnesses of inquest, conducted the inquest on the cadaver of the deceased Lalman Chaudhary between 9.30 AM to 11.15 AM on 01.9.2004 in accordance with the procedure prescribed and also prepared papers in respect of inquest, photonash, police paper, report of RI, letter to the Chief Medical Officer and sample. He got the dead body of the deceased sealed and handed over to Constable Jagpat Mishra and Constable Brij Bhushan Tiwari for the post mortem examination. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the first informant Hari Narayan and witnesses Mahendra Gaud and Rakesh Gaud and inspected the spot and prepared site plan on the pointing out of the witnesses (Ext. Ka-14 ). He also collected bloodstained and simple earth, one pair sleeper and one steel pot (Lota) and prepared memos thereof. The investigating officer kept the bloodstained and simple earth in two separate containers and got it sealed. On 01.9.2004, the investigating officer recovered the sleeper of left foot of the accused from the paddy field of Mahesh Chaudhary, which was left while he was running away and prepared its memo (Ext. Ka-15). Thereafter, the investigating officer left for village Harkhi Tola Nipania where he recorded the statement of Ram Suresh, scribe of the FIR. Thereafter, the investigating officer ensued the investigation and raided the house of the accused, but he could not be arrested. On 03.9.2004, he again left for the arrest of the accused, but his whereabouts could not be known. On 04.9.2004, 06.9.2004, 07.9.2004 and 10.9.2004 he raided several places, but accused could not be apprehended. On 11.9.2004, on the information of the informer, accused was arrested from Kaptanganj. On interrogation he confessed that due to property dispute, he has committed the murder of his father and narrated the manner in which he committed the murder. The accused got one country made pistol 315 bore, one empty cartridge 315 bore, one live cartridge 315 bore and one household knife with sharp edge, which contained bloodstained, recovered, in the presence of police personnel, which were kept in white polythene and concealed under the ground after removing shrubs and soil near an old well. The accused also got his own sleeper of right foot recovered. The recovered items were sealed vide Exhibit Ka-17. A copy of the memo was also handed over to the accused duly signed by the witnesses. The aforesaid items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow on the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharanganj.After the recovery of country made pistol, cartridges and knife, a case was also registered against the accused-appellant as Case Crime No. 121 of 2004, underSection 25/27of the Arms Act, police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj.The investigating officer prepared the site plan of the place from where weapons of assault and other incriminating articles were recovered on the pointing out of the accused-appellant (Ext. Ka-18.) He also recorded the statement of the accused underSection 161Cr.P.C. and also got the statement of the accused underSection 164Cr.P.C. recorded.In the interregnum period, the post-mortem of the deceased Lalman Chaudhary was conducted on 02.9.2004 at 3.00 PM in the District Hospital by Dr. H.S. Lal Sonkar, PW-14. The investigating officer collected clinching and credible evidence and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant on 18.10.2004 underSection 302IPC (Ext. Ka-20).The investigation of Case Crime No. 121 of 2004, underSections 25/27of the Arms Act was carried out by PW-16, SI Jai Prakash Singh. On 17.9.2004, he recorded the statement of SO Shri Kushal Pal Singh Yadav, PW-17 and on his pointing out he prepared site plan, which he proved as Ext. Ka-7. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Nar Singh, Deena, Harendra Shukla and Ram Adhar Pandey. On 20.9.2004, he sought permission from the District Magistrate for prosecution of the accused-appellant and thereafter submitted charge sheet, which he proved as Ext. Ka-8.As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST Nos. 158 of 2004 and 159 of 2004 and the learned Sessions Judge, Maharajganj vide order dated 22.11.2005 framed the charges against the accused underSection 302IPC in ST No. 158 of 2004 and underSections 25/27of the Arms Act in ST No. 159 of 2004, which were read over and explained to the accused. The accused-appellant abjured the charges by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence the prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence.To bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses, out of whom PW-1, Hari Narayan is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Rakesh, PW-3, Pauhari and PW 6 Mahendra are the witnesses of facts, PW-4, Ram Raksha Singh and PW-7 Kapil Dev Shukla are the witnesses of inquest and recovery of bloodstained earth, PW-5, Ram Suresh is the scribe of the FIR, PW-8, Kanhaiya Singh and PW-10, Hari Shanker are the witnesses of inquest, PW-9, Ram Adhar Pandey, PW- 12, SSI B.L. Chaudhary and PW-13, Surendra Shukla and PW-18, Adya Singh are the witnesses of recovery of weapon of assault, PW-11, Constable-Muharrir R.S. Prasad prepared chik FIR at case crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC, PW-14, Dr. H.S. Lal Sonkar conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased, PW-15, Constable Chandra Bhushan prepared chik FIR of case crime No. 121 of 2004, underSections 25/27of the Arms Act, PW-16, SI Jai Prakash is the investigating officer of case crime No. 121 of 2004, underSection 25/27of the Arms Act, PW-17, SI Kushal Pal Singh, the investigating officer of case crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC, PS Ghughli, district Maharajganj.PW-1, Hari Narayan is the first informant of the case. He has deposed that his daughter was married to another son of the deceased. Accused Jawahar alias Babu Ram is also the son of the deceased and resides in his village. Deceased was killed at 6.00 AM while he had gone to attend the call of nature at Harkhi Miner. When he was coming back, accused Jawahar alias Babu Ram Chaudhary fired at him and as soon as he fell down, accused Jawahar Slashed his throat with the knife. On hearing the fire of country made pistol, several persons hailing to the same village rushed to the spot. He (P.W-1) also rushed to the spot while he was going to attend nature's call and saw that accused slit the neck of the deceased and ran away. He tried to chase the accused, but in vain. He further deposed that he Knew Jawahar alias Baburam, who is standing in the court. The report of the incident scribed by PW-5, Ram Suresh, resident of Sonvarsa and signed by him was handed over at the police station, which he proved as Ext. Ka-1. Ram Suresh had come to the village on the date of incident. Deceased-Lalman had purchased 3 acres and 70 decimal of land in the name of his son Babu Ram alias Jawahar and Janardan. Lalman had two wives. Accused Jawahar and Janardan were the son of Israrwati, the first wife of the deceased. The name of his second wife was Vimla, with whom were three children namely Mahavir, Durgawati and Kumari Sati. Deceased Lalman had given one acre and 87 decimal of land in favour of Mahavir whereas the rest of land was sole in favour of Medhai alias Arjun. He had also given some land to his daughter Durgawati and Kumari Sati but accused-Jawahar was demanding his share from the ancestral land also, due to which accused-appellant Jawahar was angry with the deceased-Lalman. He also deposed that three years ago, Janardan, his wife Rambha, Jawahar alias Babu Ram and his wife, all the four persons had assaulted Lalman and his second wife Vimla. Later on, Vimla succumbed to the injury on the way to hospital. In the murder case of Vimla, deceased-Lalman was doing Pairvi, due to which Jawahar was nurturing animus and grudge, hence eliminated him.In the lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been come out contrary to the examination-in-chief.PW-2, Rakesh has deposed in his examination-in-chief on oath that accused-Jawahar and deceased-Lalman were son and father. Lalman was murdered less than 2 years ago at about 6.00 AM in the morning. Both of them resided in his village. Deceased-Lalman was murdered at the canal of Harkhi Tola. On hearing the sound of fire, when he rushed to the spot, several persons of the village were already gathered at the spot. He saw that the deceased fell down on receiving firearm injuries. He did not see that Jawahar fired at the deceased or hacked the deceased to death. He further deposed that he did not see the occurrence nor he chased the accused Jawahar along with other person. When he reached at the spot, he had seen the dead body of the deceased Lalman. He was already dead. At this stage, PW-2, Rakesh was declared hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. He denied that his statement underSection 161Cr.P.C. was never recorded. He has not seen Jawahar murdered Lalman with firearm weapon. He reached at the spot firstly. Later on, Hari Narayan (PW-1) reached at the spot after half an hour. It was dark when Lalman was decimated .PW-3, Pauhari, in his evidence has deposed that he knew the deceased. Accused-Jawahar was the son of the deceased. Lalman has been killed. On the date of incident at about 6.00 AM, Lalman was coming towards the village after attending the call of nature from west to east, whereas accused Jawahar was going to west towards the canal Harkhi Miner. When they crossed each other, at that juncture accused Jawahar fired at the deceased-Lalman. He saw the accused firing at the deceased. He also heard the sound of fire. On receiving the shot, deceased fell down at the northern side track of the canal. Thereafter accused Jawahar had slit his throat. He rushed to the spot and asked the accused as to what is he doing. Thereupon accused Jawahar ran away through paddy and sugar cane field towards south of the canal. Effort was made to apprehend the accused, but due to fear and trepidation, they did not enter in the field of sugar cane. Deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot and blood was found scattered. He further deposed that two years prior to the incident, there was dispute between accused-Jawahar and deceased-Lalman in respect of farming and litigation was going on in the Court. In the fued, Lalman and wife of deceased Vimla had sustained injuries. Vimla had lost her life for which a case is pending against the accused-Jawahar. He also deposed that police arrived at 9.00 AM at the place of incident. He had divulged to the police that the deceased died as Jawahar had fired at him and slit his throat with sharp edged weapon. Inquest of the deceased was conducted in the presence of witnesses and he also put his thumb impression on the inquest and signed by other witnesses. Thereafter the dead body of the accused Lalman was sealed in his presence and was sent to the mortuary for the autopsy. He was interrogated by the police. PW-3 was put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence to create doubt about his presence at the time of incident.PW-4, Ram Raksha Singh, in his evidence, had deposed that on 01.9.2004 in his presence, the investigating officer has collected bloodstained earth, simple earth and recovered sleeper and one steel water pot (Lota) from the place of occurrence where deceased was killed, memos whereof duly signed by him, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2. In the cross-examination, he showed his acquaintance with the complainant and the family of the deceased.PW-5, Ram Suresh has deposed that he is the Gram Pradhan of village Sonvarsa, district Maharajganj. A day before the occurrence, he had come to his in-laws house at village Harkhi tola Nipaniya. He reached at the place where the cadaver of Lalman was lying. On the request of Hari Narayan, he has written the report in respect of the incident on the dictation of Hari Narayan, which was signed by him. He had identified and proved paper No. 4-Ka-2 as Ext. Ka.1. In this cross-examination, he denied that report was written after he was called upon by the police and after inquest of the dead body.PW-6, Mahendra has deposed that both accused Jawahar and deceased-Lalman are known to him. Deceased was killed prior to two years ago. On the date of occurrence, at about 6.00 AM, while he was going to attend the call of nature at canal Harkhi Miner, he saw that accused Jawahar was standing at the roadside beside the machine of Ramagya and deceased-Lalman was coming back after attending the call of nature. Several persons of the village were attending the call of nature at the canal and some persons were commuting. This witness has further deposed that on hearing the sound of fire, when he turned back and had seen that deceased Lalman after being struck by the bullet, fell down on the pavement of canal and his son accused-Jawahar was hacking his throat with a sharp edged weapon. When this witness along with Rakesh, Pauhari and several other persons rushed to the spot, accused ran away. He has also deposed that when he reached near deceased-Lalman, he was dead. Deceased has been killed due to the enmity between the deceased and the accused over the partition of 1/3rd of the land. Prior to the present occurrence, the accused-Jawahar along with his brother has killed Vimla, wife of deceased-Lalman.PW-7, Kapil Dev Shukla is the witness of inquest of the deceased Lalman and recovery of bloodstained earth. He has deposed that after the occurrence, police reached at the spot. He has further deposed that he along with Ram Raksha Singh and several persons of the village have also reached at the spot. Inquest was conducted by the police in his presence. Ram Raksha Singh and other persons were also present there. During the inquest proceeding, on being questioned by the investigating officer as to how deceased died, he divulged that he was killed by fire made by country made pistol and thereafter by hacking his neck. He proved his signature at paper Nos. 6-Ka/1, 6-Ka/2 and 6-Ka/3.He has further deposed that the investigating officer collected bloodstained and simple earth from the place of occurrence and kept in separate containers. The investigating officer also recovered one pair sleeper and one steel pot and sealed them after keeping in separate clothes and got his signature thereon. The investigating officer also recovered sleeper of left foot of the accused and sealed it and got the same signed by this witness. He proved his signature at paper No. 13-Ka/1 and 13-Ka/2.PW-8- Kanhaiya Singh is the witness of inquest. He has deposed that on hearing about the killing of the deceased, Lalman when he reached the place of occurrence, police and several persons were present there. Inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted in his presence. First informant Har Narayan and Pauhari were also present at the time of inquest. He has further deposed that he put his signature on the inquest report.PW-9 is the witness of recovery of weapon of assault. He has deposed that country made pistol and knife were recovered by the police in his presence. Accused-Jawahar got one country made pistol, two cartridges, and a knife recovered by digging the ground and confessed his crime. The investigating officer sealed country made pistol and cartridges separately and prepared their memos, on which his signature was obtained. This witness proved Paper Nos. 4-Ka/3 and 4-Ka/4 of Case Crime No. 121 of 2004.PW-10, Hari Shanker is the witness of inquest. He has deposed that on the date of incident, he had gone to see the dead body of deceased, Lalman where police and villagers were present. On being questioned by the investigating officer about the death, he told him that deceased was killed and has not died a natural death. The investigating officer got the inquest report prepared and obtained the signature of this witness.PW-11, Constable-Muharrir Ram Suranjan Prasad has deposed that on 01.9.2004, he was posted as Constable-Muharrir at the police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj. On that date, on the basis of the written report of Har Narayan, he prepared chik FIR at case crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC, police Station Ghughli, district Maharajganj, which he proved at Ext. Ka-3.PW-12, S.S.I. Bachchu Lal Chaudhary was the witness of arrest of the appellant and recovery of weapon of assault. He has deposed that on 11.9.2004, on the information of the informer that accused will go via Khuta Maidan, he along with Station House Officer Shri Kushal Pal Singh and his companion rushed to the spot and after keeping the official jeep behind the bushes, they made a siege and waited for the accused to come. At about 12.30 noon, a person was seen coming from the village Kudana and was going towards Kaptanganj. On the indication of the informer that he is the accused Jawahar, he was apprehended. On being interrogated, he disclosed his name as Jawahar alias Babu Ram. The investigating officer SO Kushal Pal Singh arrested him and told him the reasons for his arrest and recorded the statement of the accused. The accused confessed his crime and agreed to get the weapon of the assault recovered, which he has concealed in his village Siwan. Thereafter the accused got recovered one country made pistol 315 bore, one empty cartridge and one live cartridge, one household sharp edged knife, which contained bloodstains. He further deposed that the investigating officer got the aforesaid articles sealed and prepared their memos which was duly signed by him.PW-13, Surendra Shukla is the witness of recovery of weapon of assault. In his evidence, he has deposed that on the date of occurrence, at about 2.30 PM, police of police station Ghughli brought the accused-Lalman to the village. This witness was told by the investigating officer that accused Jawahar wants to get the weapon with which he killed his father, recovered and asked him to accompany him. This witness has further deposed that he along with police personnel, accused and several persons of the village reached at old well situated across the canal Harkhi Miner. Near the well there were bushes and trees. Near the well, some portion of the land was dig from before on which some grasses were lying. Accused took out one plastic bag from there. The bag contained one country made pistol, one empty cartridge, one live cartridge, one household knife having bloodstains on it. The accused admitted that he had fired at his father from the recovered country made pistol and thereafter hacked his father to death by the knife. The investigating officer kept country made pistol and cartridge in one cloth and knife in another and sealed them and prepared memos thereof, which was signed by this witness.PW-14, Dr. H.S. Lal has conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased-Lalman. He has deposed that on 02.9.2004, he was posted as Senior Dermatologist at District Hospital, Gorakhpur. On 02.9.2004 at about 3.00 PM, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, who was brought by Constable CP 568 Jagat Pal and Constable 062 Brij Bhushan of police station Ghughli in a sealed condition. Doctor H.S. Lal, found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:"1. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm bone deep on right side neck underline muscle, vessels, trachea, oesophagus cut.2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the left side back upper part. Metallic shaped shot recovered from surface of lower end of scapula left side . Direction- back to forward, margins inverted, blackening around the wound."In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Doctor further opined that death was caused about one and a half day ago. The death might have been caused at about 6.00 AM on 01.9.2004. He proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka 4.In his cross-examination, PW-14, Dr. H.S. Lal, has further deposed that the large intestine contained faecal matter and gases and stomach contained 3 oz. of fluids. Bladder was empty. It was possible that he had urinated before his death. Looking to the large intestine, it transpired that he did not attend the call of nature. In September generally lower limb rigor mortis passes off between 36 and 48 hours. Doctor further opined that rigor mortis had passed off. Looking to the condition of the body, doctor further stated that the death might have been caused between 12.00 night of 31.8.2004 and 3.00 AM of 01.9.2004.In respect of gun shot wound, Dr. Lal has deposed that he found gun shot wound on the back side of upper part, which had only entry wound and no exit was there. He also recovered one metallic shaped bullet. He further deposed that only expert can ascertain whether it was bullet or not. It was of 'D' shaped. Blackening was present near the wound, which suggested that injury was caused from 1-½ to 6 feet. Charring and Tattooing were not present around the wound.PW-15, Constable Chandra Bhushan has deposed that on 11.9.2004, he was posted as Constable at the police station Ghughli, district Maharajgnj. On that date on the basis of recovery of weapon of assault, he prepared chik FIR against accused Jawahar alias Baburam at case crime No. 121 of 2004, underSections 25/27of the Arms Act, which he proved as Ext. Ka-5. Three sealed bundle of country made pistol, cartridge and knife were kept in Malkhana and accused-Jawahar was kept in lock up. The papers were prepared by him exhibited as Ka-6.PW-16, SI Jai Prakash Singh was the investigating officer of Case Crime No. 121 of 2004, underSections 25/27of the Arms Act, PS Ghughli, district Maharajganj and PW-17 SI Kushal Pal Singh Yadav was the investigating officer of Case Crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC, police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj, and their evidences have already been discussed above.PW-18, Constable C.P. 78 Ram Adya Singh was the witness of recovery of weapon of assault. He has deposed that on 11.9.2004 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Ghughli and was the companion (Hamrah) of the Station House Officer. When accused was arrested, he confessed his guilt and agreed to get the weapon of assault recovered. This witness further deposed that he along with the SHO and other police personnel reached at village Harkhi, from where through the pavement, he reached to an old well situated at Harkhi Tota Nipaniya. At about 2.30 PM, accused took out one plastic bag, which was hid under the earth. The bag contained one country made pistol 315 bore, cartridges and one knife having bloodstains on it. Accused also got recovered his one sleeper of right hand. The investigating officer after keeping country made pistol and cartridges in one cloth and knife and the sleeper in separate cloth, got them sealed and prepared memos thereof, which this witness has proved as Ext. Ka-17.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded underSection 313Cr.P.C., in which he denied the charges levelled against him. He further stated that investigating officer has not conducted the investigation in right perspective and false charge sheet has been submitted against him. He also stated that he has been roped in the present case due to enmity and that nothing has been recovered at his instance. To a specific question by the Court that country made pistol, one live cartridge and a knife were recovered on his pointing out, which were used by him in the commission of crime, the accused has only stated that nothing has been recovered at his instance.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Maharajganj after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above.Hence, this appeal.Heard Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad Tripahi and Shri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajit Ray, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record of the case.Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions:1. The first information report has been lodged ante timed.2. The incident took place in the night as suggested by Dr. H.S. Lal Sonker in his cross-examination and no one has seen the incident and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.3. The statement of the first informant underSection 161Cr.P.C. was recorded belatedly.4. All the witnesses are interested and partisan and no independent witness has been examined.5. Conduct of Mahavir, who is also the son of the deceased in not coming to the place of occurrence and fleeing away, who returned after 16 days of the occurrence, which belies the prosecution story.6. The weapons of assault were not placed before the doctor to derive his opinion as to whether the injuries were caused by the said weapons.7. The recovery memo of weapons does not contain the signature/thump impression of the appellant.8. At the time of obtaining sanction of the District Magistrate, weapons were not produced before him.9. There was no mention in the GD as to when first information report was sent to the Court concerned.10. In the FIR sharp edged weapon has been mentioned, whereas only domestic knife was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant.11. The witnesses of recovery of weapons, i.e. country made pistol, live cartridge and knife are not reliable as they are police official.12. While recording the statement of the accused, all the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused.On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt of the appellant to the hilt. The statements of PWs 1, 3 and 6 are consistent throughout the trial. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that presence of faecal matter in the intestines was only a probability stated by the doctor and its quantity cannot be measured, which cannot negate the ocular testimony. Learned Additional Government Advocate also contended that the appellant was depressed with the act of his father and had earlier committed the murder of his step mother about which a case was also pending before the court below and after being released on bail, he committed the murder of his father.The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the first information report is ante-timed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jai Ram and others Vs. State of U.P., 2015(1) JIC 589 (All). To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the first information report has been lodged after the inquest proceedings and with due deliberation.As per prosecution case, the occurrence in question took place at 6.00 AM and the first information report has been promptly lodged at 8.15 AM. The distance of the police station is 16 kms. PW-1, Hari Narayan, the first informant of the case has stated that after the incident, he got the report scribed by PW-5, Ram Suresh and handed over the same at the police station. In his cross-examination, PW-1, Ram Narayan has deposed that he reached the police station at about 7.15 AM and handed over the written report at the police station and left for the place of occurrence. When he reached the place of occurrence at about 8.15 AM, the investigating officer was present. The inquest on the cadaver was completed at about 9.15 AM. PW-11, who prepared the chik FIR, in his cross examination has stated that he wrote the FIR at 8.15 AM on 01.9.2004 on the basis of written report submitted by the first informant Hari Narayan.In Jai Ram and others Vs. State of U.P (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the incident in question took place at about 1.00 AM (in the night intervening 29/30.10.1979 and the FIR of the incident was lodged at 2.55 AM on 30.10.1979. The contents of the FIR was that aaj beeti raat mein, which goes to suggest that this word was usually used if the FIR was lodged in the morning rather than if it was lodged in the night of the incident itself. Moreover, the post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted after 48 hours on 31.10.1979 at 1.00 PM. In the aforesaid fact, the Court held that the FIR was ante-timed. In the present case the incident in question took place at 6.00 AM and the FIR was promptly lodged at 8.15 AM, the distance of police station was 16 kms. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was ante-timed or doctored one is contrary to the documents on record. We are of the view that it was lodged at the time and date as disclosed by the prosecution.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1994 SCC (5) 188 held thus:"FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FlR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference inquest report. Even though the one with in the, inquest report, prepared underSection 174Cr.P.C., is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante- timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR."The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the incident took place in the night and no one has seen the incident and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the opinion of the doctor that large intestine contained faecal matter and gases. In his cross-examination, doctor further opined that in the month of September generally rigor mortis from the lower limb passes off between 36 to 48 hours. Looking to the condition of the body, doctor further opined that death might have been caused between 12.00 in the night of 31.8.2004 and 3.00 AM of 01.9.2004. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Naim Uddin and others, 2015(3) JIC 929 (All).The medical evidence is only an advisory in character given on the basis of symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the court although, not an expert, may form its opinion on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer, but of the Court.So far as presence of faecal matter in the intestines is concerned, it is to be noted that digestive process differs from man to man. It depends upon several factors. Process of digestion being not uniform and varies from individual to individual. Merely because faecal matter was found in the intestines, it cannot be held that murder was committed in the night.So far rigor mortis is concerned, doctor opined that rigor mortis of the deceased has completely passed off. Doctor further opined that in September process of passing of rigor mortis begins after 18 hours and completely passed off in 36 hours.Passing off rigor mortis depends upon several factor and it cannot be said that in the month of September rigor mortis completely passed off in 36 hours. So far as the opinion of the doctor that death might have been caused between 12.00 in the night of 31.8.2004 and 3.00 AM of 01.9.2004, that does not mean that doctor has fixed the time of death.it is to be noted that this case is based on ocular evidence. It is settled legal proposition that the ocular evidence would have primacy unless it is established that oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence. Further, the ocular testimony of a witness has a greater evidentiary value than medical evidence.A similar issue has cropped up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangu Khan and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1912 wherein the post-mortem report indicated that the death had occurred within 24 hours prior to the post-mortem. In that case, the opinion of the doctor did not match with the prosecution case. Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue elaborately and held that physical condition of the body after death would depend on a large number of circumstances/factors and nothing can be said with certainty. In determining the issue, various factors such as age and health condition of the deceased, climatic and atmospheric conditions of the place of occurrence and the conditions under which the body is preserved, are required to be considered. There has been no cross-examination of the doctor on the issue as to elicit any of the material fact on which a possible argument could be based in this regard. The acceptable ocular evidence cannot be dislodged on such hypothetical basis for which no proper grounds were made.In Baso Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2007 SC 1019, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar issue held that exact time of death cannot be established scientifically and precisely.In Patti Pati Venkatah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1985(4) SCC 80, Hon'ble Apex Court held that medical science is not yet so perfect as to determine the exact time of death nor can the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to accurate to the last second.In State of U.P. Vs. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:"14. It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the `credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.The enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased is admitted as is evident from the FIR as well as from the statement of the accused-appellant recorded underSection 313Cr.P.C, in which the accused has stated that he has been roped in the present case due to enmity. No specific enmity of the accused with the informant has been alleged. However, to a suggestion put to the informant in the cross-examination, he denied that he used to put pressure upon the deceased not to give any property to accused-Jawahar and his brother Janardan, which cannot be a ground for false implication of the accused-appellant leaving the real culprit to go scot free. On the other hand, enmity may be a motive for the appellant to commit the murder of deceased who was doing Pairvi in the murder case of Vimla, wife of the deceased, who was also done to death by the accused-appellant There is eyewitness account coupled with injury report. Evidence of PW-1, Hari Narayan, the informant of the case, PW-3, Pauhari and PW-6, Mahendra is consistent that accused-appellant assaulted the deceased. Although PW-2, Rakesh did not support the prosecution case in toto, but in his evidence he admitted the place of occurrence, time and assault, but he stated that did not see the accused firing a shot from country made pistol and slitting the neck of the deceased.We are not convinced with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that either on account of enmity or relationship, the witnesses are not deposing the correct facts and framed a false case against the appellant leaving the real culprits to go scot free. Moreover, the witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing adverse could be elicited from their evidence to discard the prosecution case.In Arjun and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Suppl (1) SCR 616, it was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that as the parties were on inimical terms and some criminal proceedings were pending between them even at that time when the occurrence took place. Further PW-1 in that case was the brother of the deceased and informant in that case was son of the deceased.The Hon'ble Supreme Court brushed aside the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants therein and has held as under:"We are not convinced by the aforesaid argument that either on account of animosity or on account of relationship, the witnesses did not divulge the truth but fabricated a false case against the appellants. It is needless to say that enmity is a double edged sword which can cut both ways. However, the fact remains that whether the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased victim or on inimical terms with the deceased involved in the crime of murder, the witnesses are always interested to see that the real offenders of the crime are booked and they are not, in any case, expected to leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent persons simply because of the enmity. It is, therefore, not a safe rule to reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the accused persons were on inimical terms. Similarly the evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased."In Hari Obula Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme court has observed thus:" It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony, nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence."The Supreme Court in Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498, has held that the requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double- edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence.The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of delayed recording of the statement of the first informant and the witnesses underSection 161Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016(2) JIC 1(SC).The object and purpose ofSection 161Cr.P.C. is to collect evidence regarding commission of an offence by examining and recording the statements of the witnesses in respect of commission of the offence. In the case in hand, PW-17, SI K.P. Singh Yadav, the investigating officer of the case has deposed that after receipt of the information, he immediately rushed to the spot and after completing necessary formalities, he recorded the statement of the first informant Hari Narayan and witnesses Mahendra Gaud and Rakesh Gaud on the same day and on their pointing out, he sketched the site plan.Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was a case in which the witnesses PW-25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW-24 his driver Mohammad Shakir, who came from Kota to Jhalawar to meet the deceased, allegedly saw the occurrence in which accused inflicted injuries with weapons on the deceased. However, due to fear they hid themselves in the factory and did not inform about the incident to the family or relatives of the deceased. Their statements were recorded after three days of the occurrence for which no explanation was tendered by the prosecution. In the aforesaid background, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay in recording the statements of PW-25, Mirza Majid Beg and PW-24, Mohammad Shakir and their unexplained silence and delayed statement to the police, does not appear to us to be wholly reliable witnesses.In the present case the statements of the first informant and other witnesses present at the spot were recorded on the same day. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was inordinate delay in recording the statement has no leg to stand.The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution had examined only highly interested witnesses and it has not produced any independent witness in support of its case. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 45.Interested witnesses are those who want to derive certain benefit out of the result of the case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim. Generally close relations of the victim are unlikely to falsely implicate anyone. Relationship is not sufficient to discard a witness unless there is motive to give false evidence to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is proved.In Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 288, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:" Merely because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased persons, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that effects the credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. A party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication. However, in such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence."In State of Punjab Vs. Hardam Singh, 2005 SCC (Cr) 834, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily the mere relations of the deceased would not depose falsely against innocent persons so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished, rather the witness would always try to secure conviction of real culprit.Mahavir Singh (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was a case in which the trial court acquitted the accused. However, on appeal by the State, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the conviction of the appellant underSection 148IPC, convicted the appellant therein for the offence underSection 302IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the ground that the trial court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence in the right perspective and ignored the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence of PW-9 as he was an independent witness. However, records depicts that PW-9 had already deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that too against the same accused for the deceased and, therefore, he was termed as a pocket witness by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.In the present case, the incident took place in village at 6.00 AM. PW-1, Hari Narayan, who is the first informant of the case is the resident of Harkhi Tola Nipaniya. The deceased was also resident of the same village. At the time of occurrence, his presence at the scene of offence appears natural. The first information has been lodged by PW-1 without any delay. No such fact could emerge in his cross examination so as to create any doubt about his presence at the spot. The evidence of PW-1, Hari Narayan is consistent with the FIR as well as with his statement recorded during investigation. In view of these facts and circumstances, merely because PW-1, Hari Narayan is related to the deceased, it cannot be a ground to discard his testimony. As indicated above, it is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded on the sole ground that they are interested, but their evidence should be subjected to a close scrutiny. Interested witness are not necessarily false witnesses. Evidence of interested witness cannot be equated with that of a tainted witness. There is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. In view of the evidence on record, the evidence of PW-1, Hari Narayan cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he is Samdhi of the deceased.PW-3, Pauhari and PW-6, Mahendra are also resident of Harkhi Tola Nipaniya. Their presence at the spot was also natural. Both the witnesses have consistently deposed against the appellant. The witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination, but no major contradiction or infirmity could be elicited from their evidence.Therefore, contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution has only produced interested witnesses has no leg to stand.Learned counsel for the appellant has also attacked the conduct of Mahavir, who is the son of deceased, who went away after the incident and returned after 16 days of the occurrence, which makes the entire prosecution story doubtful that a son after hearing the demise of his father did not come to the place of occurrence and left the home and returned after the 16 days of the occurrence. Learned Trial Court has specifically mentioned that from the evidence of witnesses it is clear that deceased had two wives. Jawahar and Janardan were born out of the wedlock of first wife, whereas from the other, one son namely Mahavir and two daughters were born. In connection with property dispute, the accused-appellant, his wife and brother Jarandan and his wife had beaten to death second wife of the deceased namely Vimla, for which a case of murder was pending against them in the lower court. At the time of incident, Mahavir was aged about 15 years and hence, he was very much apprehensive and therefore, he did not come to the place of occurrence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the Mahavir being the son of the deceased should have lodged the FIR, has no leg to stand.Next submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver was not shown the weapon of assault to elicit his opinion as to whether injuries on the deceased could have been caused with such weapon or not. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1976 CAR 381 (SC), Pritam Nath and other Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 AAR 147 (SC) and Machindra Vs. Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb and others, (2018)1 SCC (Cri) 381.The ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is that it is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, should be shown to the doctor, who has conducted autopsy on the cadaver and his opinion be invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration in the course of justice.In the instant case PW-14, Dr. H.S. Lal, Senior Dermatologist, who conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased appeared before the trial court as medical witness. He has stated that while conducting the autopsy, he found the following injuries:"1. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm bone deep on right side neck underline muscle, vessels, trachea, oesophagus cut. \n \n 2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the left side back upper part. Metallic shaped shot recovered from surface of lower and of scapula left side . Direction- back to forward, margins inverted, blackening around the wound."Injury No. 1 noted in the post-mortem examination of the deceased was caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as knife, whereas injury No. 2 was caused by country made pistol. Eyewitnesses in their deposition stated that first of all the accused-appellant fired at the deceased and when the latter fell down, he was hacked with knife. Thus, there was no inconsistency with the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The fact that weapon was not shown to the doctor nor in the cross-examination attention of the doctor was invited towards the weapon is not of much consequence in the fact of the present case where there was clear medical evidence that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by knife and country made pistol respectively. Moreover, both knife and country made pistol were recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory knife contained disintegrated blood whereas the fire was made by the country made pistol as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that memo of recovery of weapon does not contain the signature/thumb impression of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decisions of Supreme Court in Jaskaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC (Cri) 651.In Jaskaran Singh (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the absence of the signature or the thumb impression of the accused on the disclosure statement recorded underSection 27of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement.In Jaskaran Singh (Supra), there was dispute regarding the ownership of a revolver and the cartridge recovered therein. The prosecution in that case was unable to lead evidence to show that the crime weapon belonged to the said appellant and, therefore, the observation was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that context. In the instant case, both knife and country made pistol belonged to the appellant and therefore, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaskaran Singh (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.However, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram, AIR 1999 SC 1776, Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the said issue at length and considered the provisions ofSection 162(1)Cr.P.C, which reads that a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation done, if reduced to writing, be not signed by the person making it. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid provision that there is a prohibition in peremptory terms and law requires that a statement made before the Investigating Officer should not be signed by the witness. The same was found to be necessary for the reasons that a witness will then be free to testify in court, unhampered by anything which the police may claim to have elicited from him. In the event that a police officer ignorant of the statutory requirement asks a witness to sign his statement, the same could not stand vitiated. At the most the Court will inform the witness, that he is not bound by the statement made before the police. However, the prohibition contained inSection 162(1)Cr.P.C. is not applicable to any statement made underSection 27of the Indian Evidence Act as explained by the provision underSection 162(1)Cr.P.C. The Court further held as under:"The resultant position is that the investigating officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered bySection 27of the Evidence Act. But if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it.In Galakonda Venkateshwara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2003, SC 2846, Hon'ble Supreme Court has again considered the entire issue and held that merely because the recovery memo was not signed by the accused, will not vitiate the recovery itself as every case has to be decided on its own facts. In the event that the recoveries are made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, then despite the fact that statement has not been signed by him, there is certainly some truth in what he said, for the reason that the recovery of the material objects was made on the basis of his disclosure statement.The Court further held thus:"The facts that the recovery is in consequence of the information given is fortified and confirmed by the discovery of wearing apparel and skeletal remains of the deceased which leads to believe that the information and the statement cannot be false."In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that weapon of assault, i.e. country made pistol and knife were recovered on the pointing out of the accused-appellant, merely because the recovery memo does not bear the signature or thumb impression of the accused-appellant shall not vitiate the recovery. All the articles were sent to Forensic Science Labortory, Lucknow. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 4.2.2005, the recovered knife contained disintegrated blood. Moreover, the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow vide its report dated 13.4.2005 has also confirmed that recovered empty cartridge was fired from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused-appellant.Now, so far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of obtaining sanction of the District Magistrate, weapons of assault were not produced before him also does not have any substance. The country made pistol, cartridges and knife were recovered at the instance of the accused and the memos thereof were prepared, which was signed by the accused and the witnesses of recovery. Further, PW-16, SI Jai Prakash Singh, the investigating officer of Case Crime No. 121 of 2004, underSection 25of the Arms Act has deposed in his cross examination that when he took up the investigation, the recovered country made pistol, cartridges and knife were kept in the Maalkhana. He further deposed that on 20.9.2004 when he produced the aforesaid weapons before the District Magistrate, the same were in sealed condition. He also stated that he kept the sealed bundle containing country made pistol, cartridges and knife in the office of the District Magistrate and he could not say as to whether the District Magistrate has seen them or not as the sealed bundle was produced before the District Magistrate by his office clerk. He received the aforesaid bundle with the seal of the District Magistrate. He also deposed that the office clerk of the District Magistrate has handed over him the prosecution sanction along with the sealed bundle.In view of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that the recovered country made pistol, cartridges and knife were not produced before the District Magistrate for obtaining the sanction.So far as the other contention of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of non-mentioning of the date and time in the GD for sending the report to the court is concerned, it is to be noted that PW-11, Constable Ram Suranjan Prasad, who has prepared the chik FIR of case crime No. 115 of 2004, underSection 302IPC against the accused appellant has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he prepared chik FIR at 8.15 AM 01.9.2004 on the basis of written information handed over by the first informant Hari Narayan, which he proved as Ext. Ka-3. He further stated that as to on what date, the Circle Officer has put his signature on the FIR, he did not know as he did not write the general diary. In the general diary, it was mentioned that special report shall be sent to the officer concerned at the earliest and information whereof is being given to the superior officer concerned on R.T. set. This case rests on the eyewitness account coupled with medical evidence and merely because of non-mention of time in the general diary, the whole prosecution story cannot be thrown out as it might have been an oversight. Moreover, pursuant to the first information report, the investigation of the case started immediately and inquest proceedings have been concluded within an hour of lodging of the first information report.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1972 (2) SCC 640 has held that delay in forwarding the first information report to the court is not fatal in a case in which investigation has commenced promptly on its basis.In Rabindra Mahto and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 (10) SCC 432, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in every case mere delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate, the Court would not conclude that the FIR has been recorded much later in time than shown. It is only extraordinary and unexplained delay, which may raise doubts regarding the authenticity of the FIR.The next point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the FIR sharp edged weapon was mentioned, but only a domestic knife was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant.It may be noted that the place where the deceased was done to death and the place from where the informant had witnessed the occurrence is about 150 steps. The word described in the first information report is only sharp edged weapon. PW-14, Dr. H.S. Lal, who has conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased has noted the following injuries:"1. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm bone deep on right side neck underline muscle, vessels, trachea, oesophagus cut.2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the left side back upper part. Metallic shaped shot recovered from surface of lower and of scapula left side . Direction- back to forward, margins inverted, blackening around the wound."Perusal of injury No. 1 suggest that it was caused by sharp edged weapon. Even if, the knife, which was used in the commission of the crime, was of domestic use, but it was very much sharp edged and merely because it was mentioned in the FIR that accused-appellant slit the neck of the deceased by sharp edged weapon and the recovered knife was for domestic use, does not make any difference.The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that witnesses of recovery of weapons of assault are not reliable as they are police personnel. PW-9 Ram Adhar Pandey is an independent witness, who resides in village Harkha Pyas, police station Ghughli, district Maharajganj. He has deposed that country made pistol and knife were recovered by the police in his presence. Accused-Jawahar got one country made pistol, two cartridges, and a knife recovered by digging the ground and confessed his crime. The investigating officer sealed country made pistol and cartridges separately and prepared their memos, on which his signature was obtained. PW-13, Surendra Shukla is also an independent witness, who resides at Harkhi Tola Nipaniya, police station Ghughli. In his evidence, he has deposed that on the date of occurrence, at about 2.30 PM, police of police station Ghughli brought the accused to the village. This witness was told by the investigating officer that accused Jawahar wants to get the weapons from which he killed his father, recovered and asked him to accompany him. This witness has further deposed that he along with police personnel, accused and several persons of the village reached old well situated across the canal Harkhi Miner. Near the well there were bushes and trees. Near the well, some portion of the land was dig from before on which some grasses were lying. Accused took out one plastic bag from there. The bag contained one country made pistol, one empty cartridge, one live cartridge, one household knife having bloodstained on it. The accused admitted that he has fired at his father from the recovered country made pistol and thereafter hacked his father to death by the knife. The investigating officer kept country made pistol and cartridge in one cloth and knife in another and sealed it and prepared memos thereof, which was signed by this witness. In Addition to the aforesaid two independent witnesses, PW-12, SSI B.L. Chaudhary and PW-18, Adya Singh, who were also the witnesses of recovery, have fully supported the prosecution case and have stated that accused got the weapons from which he killed his father recovered in their presence.It is fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused and the document is prepared by the investigating officer on the basis of recovery must necessarily be attested by the independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article, it is for the investigating officer to take the signature of any persons present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition of law that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. In the instant case, the document of recovery prepared by the investigating officer was attested by two independent witnesses, i.e. PW-9, Ram Adhar Pandey and PW-13, Surendra Shukla and, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel that there is no independent witness of the recovery has no substance. Moreover, the evidence of the police personnel cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police official.In Tahir Vs. State of (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:"In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."In State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another, (2001) SCC 652, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.The last contention voiced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that while recording the statements of the accused underSection 313Cr.P.C., all the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Sukhjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 76, Ranvir Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (2009)3 SCC (Cri) 92 and Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, 2018(3) JIC 752.In Sukhjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on a studied scrutiny of the questions put to the accused underSection 313Cr.P.C. in entirety, we find that no incriminating material has been brought to the notice of the accused while putting questions.The ratio laid down in Ranvir Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) was that when the incriminating materials have not been put to the accused underSection 313Cr.P.C., it tantamounts to serious lapse on the part of the trial court convicting the accused, which is vitiated in law.In Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, the Court is duty bound to consider the same and if the same is not considered, the conviction may stand vitiated.The provisions ofSection 313Cr.P.C. clearly states that it is obligatory for the Court to question the accused on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and circumstances against him so as to enable him to explain it. However, it would not be enough for the accused to contend that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular fact or circumstances, instead he must show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice. In other words, in the event of an inadvertant omission on the part of the trial court to question the accused on any incriminating circumstance cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that some material prejudice was caused to the accused by the omission of the Court.A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wasim Khan Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 400, and Bhoor Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that every error or omission in compliance of the provisions ofSection 342of the oldCr.P.C. does not necessarily vitiate the trial. The accused must show that some prejudice has been caused or was likely to have been caused to him.In State (Delhi) Administration Vs. Dharampal (2001) 10 SCC 372, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:"Thus it is to be seen that where an omission, to bring the attention of the accused to an inculpatory material has occurred that does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings. The accused must show that failure of justice was occasioned by such omission. Further, in the event of an inculpatory material not having been put to the accused, the appellant court can always make good that lapse by calling upon the accused to show that explanation the accused has as regards the circumstances established against the accused but not put to him.This being the law, in our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court were wrong in concluding that the omission to put the contents of the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, could only result in the accused being acquitted. The accused had to show that some prejudice was caused to him by the report not being put to him. Even otherwise, it was the duty of the Sessions Judge and/or the High Court, if they found that some vital circumstance had not been put to the accused, to put those questions to the counsel for the accused and get the answer of the accused. If the accused could not give any plausible or explanation, it would have to be assumed that there was no explanation. Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court have overlooked this position of law and failed to perform their duties and thereby wrongly acquitted the accused."In Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State through CBI, (2010)9 SCC 747, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:" The provisions inSection 313Cr.P.C., therefore, make it obligatory on the court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstance appearing against him so as to apprise him the exact case which he is required to meet. But it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular circumstance but he must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice. In other words in the event of any inadvertent omission on the part of the court to question the accused on any incriminating circumstance appearing against him, the same cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to him."In the case in hand, it may be noted that no such point was raised and no such objection seems to have been advanced before the trial court and it is being raised for the first time before this Court, which appears to be an afterthought. Secondly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was unable to place before us as to what in fact was the circumstances, which was not put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.In view of the above, the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that while recording the statement of the accused underSection 313Cr.P.C., all incriminating materials were not put to the accused, has no leg to stand.Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is to regulate and control the activities within the society. Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, i.e. safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individual at large so that such crime would not be committed by anyone. Taking a lenient view of a serious offence will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful co-existence and welfare of the society. In the instant case, the accused appellant has brutally assassinated his father initially by firing a shot and thereafter hacking him to death. The accused-appellant is also involved in the commission of murder of his step mother Vimla for which trial is pending in the court below. This is a case of patricide where the accused-appellant has not only committed the murder of an innocent old and feeble person, but also slurred the relation of father and son.In view of what has been indicated herein above, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) Court No. 3, Maharajganj does not call for any interference by this Court.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.The appellant Jawahar alias Babu Ram is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the sentence as awarded to him by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by us.Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Court below for information and compliance.(Anil Kumar-IX, J) (Naheed Ara Moonis, J)\n \nDated: 17.01.2020\n \nIshrat

2918c81e-1b35-5a73-ad36-61b99effa158

court_cases

Uttarakhand High CourtWPPIL/228/2018 on 1 September, 2020Author:Ravi MalimathBench:Ravi Malimath,R. C. KhulbeWPPIL No.228 of 2018\nWith\nWPPIL No.33 of 2019\nWith\nWPPIL No.67 of 2019\nHon'ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.\nHon'ble R. C. Khulbe, J.Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for\nthe petitioner.Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned special\ncounsel along with Shri Pradeep Joshi,\nlearned standing counsel for\nState/respondent nos.1, 4, 5 and 9.Shri Sandeep Tandon, learned\nstanding counsel for the C.B.I.\n Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned\nsenior counsel for the Head of the SIT.Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned\ncounsel for the intervener.Learned counsel for the petitioner\nsubmits that CLMA No.18827 of 2018\ndoes not survive for consideration any\nmore. Hence, it is disposed off.At the request of learned counsel for\nthe intervener, who has filed CLMA\nNo.19960 of 2018 is disposed off.Misc. Application No.445 of 2019\nfiled by the State is allowed.Rejoinder affidavit (IA No.2084 of\n2019) filed by learned counsel for the\npetitioner is taken on record. Misc.\napplication made, therefor, stands\ndisposed off.Misc. Application No. 3129 of 2019\nfiled by the State is allowed.Supplementary affidavit (IA No.4486\nof 2019) filed by learned counsel for the\nState is taken on record. Misc.\napplication made, therefor, stands\ndisposed off.Misc. Application No. 5867 of 2019\nfiled by the State is allowed.Misc. Application No. 13205 of 2019\nfiled by the State is allowed.At the request of learned counsel for\nthe intervener, who has filed CLMA\nNo.14852 of 2019 is disposed off.Misc. Application No. 16004 of 2019\nfiled by the State is allowed.Compliance affidavits (IA No.564 of\n2020 & IA No.565 of 2020) filed by\nlearned counsel for the State are taken\non record. Misc. applications made,\ntherefor, stand disposed off.Misc. Application No. 3044 of 2020\nfiled by Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned\ncounsel for the applicant is allowed.Exemption application (CLMA\nNo.4811 of 2020) is allowed for the\npresent.Urgency Application (IA No.6145 of\n2020) filed by learned counsel for the\npetitioner is disposed off.Application for condonation of delay\nin filing the counter affidavit is allowed.\nThe delay is condoned and counter\naffidavit is taken on record in WPPIL\nNo.33 of 2019.Counter affidavit (IA No.10381 of\n2019) filed by learned counsel for the\nState is taken on record. Misc.\napplication made, therefor, stands\ndisposed off.Counter affidavit (IA No.14389 of\n2019) filed by learned counsel for the\nState is taken on record in WPPIL No.67\nof 2019. Misc. application made, therefor,\nstands disposed off.Call on 14.09.2020 at the request of\nlearned counsel for the State.(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.)\n 01.09.2020\nBS/SS

6623dcaf-7fd3-554f-b048-ab533e65fe9a

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nNational Company Law Appellate Tribunal\nB.M Gandhi vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors on 11 January, 2024\nAuthor: Ashok Bhushan\nBench: Ashok Bhushan\n NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI\n\n Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2024\n &\n I.A No. 66, 123 of 2024\n\nIN THE MATTER OF:\nDr. B.M. Gandhi ...Appellant\n\nVersus\n\nRakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents\n\nPresent:\nFor Appellant : None\n\nFor Respondent : None\n\n ORDER\n (Hybrid Mode)\n\n11.01.2024 There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal, order\n\nimpugned was passed on 15.03.2022, Appeal have been filed on 20.07.2023.\n\nOur jurisdiction to condone the delay in only 15 days as per Section 61(2) of\n\nthe Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in ordinate delay in filing the\n\nappeal cannot be condoned. Delay condonation application is rejected. Memo\n\nof Appeal also rejected.\n\n\n [Justice Ashok Bhushan]\n Chairperson\n\n\n\n [Mr. Barun Mitra]\n Member (Technical)\n\n\n\n [Mr. Arun Baroka]\n Member (Technical)\npks/nn

6993aeca-eb51-5f72-94ea-e38cbd4e4cce

court_cases

Delhi High CourtSantosh Trust & Anr. vs National Medical Commission & ... on 13 October, 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n Reserved on: 11th October, 2022\n Pronounced on: 13th October, 2022\n\n + W.P.(C) 13435/2022 & CM APPL. 40785-40786/2022\n SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. ..... Petitioners\n\n Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate\n with Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Abhishek\n Agarwal, Ms. Kanicka Mittal and Mr.\n Abhishek Singh, Advocates.\n\n versus\n\n NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. ..... Respondents\n\n Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Bhanu Gulati,\n Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms.\n Michelle B. Das and Ms. Ramanpreet\n Kaur, Advocates for R-1 & 2.\n Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Ms.\n Geetanjali Tyagi and Mr. Shivam\n Raghuwanshi, Advocate for R-3.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA\n JUDGMENTSANJEEV NARULA, J.:1. The present petition underArticle 226of the Constitution of India\n assails communications dated 02nd September 2022, 03rd September 2022\n and 31st August 2022 [hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impugned\n Letters"] issued the Respondent No. 2/ Medical Assessment and Rating\n Board ["MARB"] of Respondent No. 1/ National Medical Commission\n ["NMC"], whereby, in response to applications seeking increase in seats in\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 1 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n certain post-graduate medical courses in Petitioner No. 2/ Santosh Medical\n College and Hospital ["Petitioner-College"], MARB has: (i) Disapproved\n increase in seats in MS (ENT) from 4 to 7 Seats; (ii) Disapproved increase\n in seats in MS (Ophthalmology) from 5 to 8 Seats; and (iii) Partially allowed\n increase in seats in MD (Respiratory Medicine) from 2 to 4 instead of 2 to 5.2. Petitioner-College has been offering various UG and PG courses since\n 1995. In November 2021, it applied to NMC for starting a new post-\n graduate course as well as for increasing seats for certain PG courses, under\n Section 26(1)(a)(b), 26(1)(c) and 28(1)(f) of the National Medical\n Commission Act, 2019. Surprise inspections were carried out by assessors\n (separately for each course); assessors' reports found the college to be\n adequate in certain aspects. Petitioners state that no other inspection was\n carried out and no hearing was held. Later, on the basis of such assessors'\n reports, MARB passed the Impugned Letters. The status of\n application/request for increase in seats is as follows:(i) (ii) (iii) (ii) + (iii) (v) (ii) + (v)\n Course Existing Additional Total Additional seats Total seats for\n seats seats applied expected allowed by MARB academic\n for seats year 2022-23MD (Respiratory 02 03 05 02 04Medicine)\n Vide 'Letter of\n Intent' dated 31st\n August 2022MS 05 03 08 0 05(Ophthalmology)\n Vide 'Letter of\n Disapproval' dated\n 02nd September2022MS (ENT) 04 03 07 0 04Vide 'Letter of\n Disapproval' dated\n 03rd September2022Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 2 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:233. Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel for Petitioners, prays for urgent\n relief, as counselling for academic year 2022-23 has already begun. He\n argues that the second round of counselling begins on 14 th October, 2022,\n and if relief is not granted by such time, the student intake of Petitioner-\n College will be adversely impacted and relief sought would be rendered\n infructuous.4. The broad grounds of challenge to the Impugned Letters are as under:\n a. MARB has taken new grounds of rejection, which do not form part of\n the assessors' reports [being alleged auction by DRT at the behest of\n HUDCO due to default in loan repayment by Petitioners]. This\n approach is impermissible as held by this Court inSantosh Trust v.\n NMC,1 wherein the instant Petitioners assailed similar letters issued by\n NMC whereby they had rejected increase in seats for MBBS, MS\n (Orthopaedics) and MS (Ob.-Gyn.) courses.b. No deficiency was found by the assessors in their surprise inspections,\n as evident from their reports; in absence thereof, the Impugned Letters\n are bad in law.c. The assessors are experts in the field, and when there is no allegation of\n bias or malafide made against them, there is no reason to discard their\n reports, and instead it should be treated as sacrosanct. 21Judgment dated 15th March 2022 in WP(C) 1958/2022.2Reliance placed on: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India, 2013 10 SCC 60, at paragraph no.\n 27; andMedical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, 2016 11 SCC 530.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 3 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n d. Without prejudice, since the statute provides for rectification in case\n deficiency was found by the assessors, an opportunity should have been\n afforded to Petitioners to explain their stand or remedy the same.\n e. No hearing was given to Petitioner-College before the Impugned\n Letters were issued, nor any other form of opportunity given to explain\n and/or correct the alleged deficiencies.f. Petitioner-College provided adequate, correct and complete data, as per\n the standard form supplied by NMC itself. In the assessor's reports, no\n deficiencies or inadequacy of data have been noted, and the Petitioner\n College has been found to be eligible for the aforesaid increase in\n intake capacity.g. Considering that Petitioner-College was designated as a 'Covid\n Hospital',3 many of its regular facilities were halted during such time.\n This aspect has not been considered by MARB in its Impugned Letters.\n In fact, this factor has immensely weighed with co-ordinate bench of\n this Court which allowed a writ petition of a similarly placed medical\n college.4\n h. In case of minor deficiencies, no-reinspection is required and\n permission can be granted by the Court itself. 53Petitioner-College states that it was declared as a 'Covid-19 Hospital' and acquired from 28th March\n 2020 by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, vide orders No. 354/JudicialAssistant-2nd/Coronavirus/2020\n dated 28th March 2020. Subsequently, the Hospital was designated and retained as L3 Covid-19 Hospital\n by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide its Order No.-172/Five-5-2021 dated 01st February 2021 due to\n second surge of Covid-19 patients It was retained as level-3 dedicated Covid Hospital vide UP Govt. Order\n ME-1/2021/1525 dated 09th April 2021 till 31st August 2021. It was then allowed to operate its regular\n OPD / IPD, Surgeries, procedures and Investigations for non-Covid patients from 01st September 2021.4Reliance placed on:Dr. M.K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India, 2022 SCC\n OnLine Del 938.5Reliance placed on:Rajiv Memorial Academic Welfare Society & Anr. v. UOI & Anr., 2016 11 SCC 522,\n at paragraphs 17-19.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 4 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:235. Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel for NMC and MARB, at the outset, states\n that there is grave inadequacy in the data provided by the Petitioner-College.\n He states that column 8 of the Standard Assessment Form, which is filled by\n the assessors in their reports on the date of inspection, requires data for past\n three calendar years, whereas, Petitioner-College has provided data for only\n one and a half years. No data has been provided for the so-called Covid\n period, i.e., from 21st March 2020 to 31st August 2021, citing the Petitioner-\n College's declaration as a 'Covid-19 Hospital' by the Government of Uttar\n Pradesh. The data provided for first 3 months of 2020, and last three months\n of 2021, is unreliable at best, and suspicious at worst, and is wholly\n insufficient to draw a conclusion that seat augmentation requested by\n Petitioner-College is warranted. He further states that the Standard\n Assessment Forms for the three disciplines have been filled on the date of\n the inspection i.e., 20th August 2022, 26th August 2022 & 29th August 2022,\n whereafter the same were transmitted to MARB. It is the Petitioner-College\n that is solely responsible for insufficient data provided to MARB. In\n response to the allegation of lack of hearing provided to the Petitioner-\n College, Mr. Singhdev states that no opportunity is required under the Act,\n and this has also been recognized by the Supreme Court. 66Reliance placed on: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India, 2013 10 SCC 60, at paragraph no.\n 19, which reads as under:"19. MCI, while deciding to grant permission or not to grant permission, is not functioning as a\n quasi-judicial authority, but only as an administrative authority. Rigid rules of natural justice are,\n therefore, not contemplated or envisaged. Rule 8(3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College\n Regulations (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Part II), provides for only an "opportunity and time to rectify\n the deficiencies". Compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed\n out were rectified or not. If the MCI is not satisfied with the manner of compliance, it can conduct a\n surprise inspection. After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is\n contemplated, nor further opportunity of being heard, is provided."Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 5 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:236. Mr. Vikas Singh, in rejoinder, explains that the plea of alleged\n inadequacy of data is misconceived. In the intervening time period,\n Petitioner-College could not admit non-Covid patients as it was declared as\n a 'Covid-19 Hospital' and beds in such hospitals were to be reserved for\n treatment of Covid patients. Thus, it was not performing the full breadth of\n its regular functions and the data of such time period, could be\n misconstrued. For example, very few major or minor surgeries would have\n been undertaken during Covid times in the ophthalmology department.\n Thus, only data of non-Covid times, when the Petitioner-College was\n operating at its full functioning, has been provided. He also highlights that\n none of the three assessors raised any objection to the data so provided at the\n time of inspection, and moreover, the column-headings were filled in by the\n assessor or on their instructions, which cannot, now, be interpreted against\n the Petitioner-College.ANALYSIS:7. Section 28(1) of the NMC Act, 2019 provides that prior permission\n from MARB is required for increasing number of seats in a medical course.\n An application in this regard is made under Section 28(2), which is either\n approved or disapproved under Section 28(3) in reference with the criteria\n specified. Section 29(b) provides for adequate academic faculty and other\n necessary facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college.\n Section 29(c) further provides for adequate hospital facilities. Inspection\n reports form the basis for MARB's decision making process. During the\n course of inspections, an assessor gathers information which is put down in\n\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 6 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n a standardized form prescribed by MARB/NMC. The first page of the\n Standard Assessment Form details instructions for the Dean/ Principals of\n the medical colleges and Assessors. Clause 2 stipulates that the form has to\n be filled completely and Clause 7 states that the Dean/ Principal is\n responsible for filling up the data in the form.8. In an attempt to justify/ nullify the action of MARB, as the case may\n be, counsels for both sides have painstakingly taken this Court through\n minute details of the assessors' reports which are contained in Assessment\n Forms in each of the three disciplines - MD (Respiratory Medicine), MS\n (Ophthalmology) and MS (ENT). However, this Court cannot place itself in\n the shoes of MARB and decide each of such technical aspects which are best\n left to the judgment of experts. The Supreme Court, too, has categorically\n held in a catena of judgments, that when an expert team of assessors, after\n inspection, certifies an inspection report, then it is not for the courts to sit in\n appeal over it. Thus, at the outset, it must be clarified that interference of\n this Court must be circumspect, and present judgment shall not get into the\n correctness or details of the data laid out in the assessors' reports, as\n tempting as such interference may be. It needs no reiteration that that it is\n only in rare cases, when the decision of an executive authority is so arbitrary\n or contrary to the facts at hand, and demonstrably, ex-facie wrong, should\n the court check such exercise of arbitrary power and assume the role of such\n authority for the purpose of granting substantive final relief. 7 In this light,\n the court has considered following factors in coming to a conclusion.7See:Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 at paragraph\n no. 10.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 7 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n A. MD (Respiratory Medicine)9. MARB, vide Letter of Intent dated 31st August 2022, increased the\n seats from 2 to 4, instead of 2 to 5, citing the following reasons: "(1.)\n Teaching unit is not complete, no appointment letter for Sr. Resident, he has\n work as Assistant Professor for 1 year and 8 months in the same college.\n (2.) Special equipments in Pharmacology and Radiology are\n inadequate."(sic). However, assessor's report dated 20th August 2022, to the\n contrary, categorically remarks that the infrastructure, faculties and clinical\n material at Petitioner-College is adequate; no deficiency has been recorded.10. Mr. Singhdev also points out that the Petitioner-College was granted a\n hearing by MARB on 14th September 2022, whereafter a 'final Letter of\n Disapproval' was issued by MARB on 14th September 2022.B. MS (Ophthalmology)11. MARB, vide 'Letter of Disapproval' dated 02nd September 2022, did\n not allow any increase in seats in MS (Ophthalmology), citing the following\n reasons: '(i) Specialty clinics have less cases (surgery), EB registration still\n pending. Specialty work specially surgery need to increase. (ii) No surgical\n facilities. (iii) OPD attendance overall has not yet increased to original\n values since 2019. (iv) Diagnostic tests in Microbiology are inadequate. (v)\n Eye bank is not established, nor corneal surgery and specialty work is very\n less.' With respect to this discipline, assessor's report dated 26th August\n 2022, categorically remarks that "There are adequate machine and\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 8 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n equipment but the various special clinics run with few surgical cases. Eye\n bank is registered with EVAI, registration with state govt is pending and still\n under commissioning."12. Petitioners, in rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, have affirmed on\n affidavit that the 'Eye Bank' registration has now been obtained. To that\n extent, the deficiency pointed out by MARB stands cured.C. MS (ENT)13. In respect of the above course, Mr. Singhdev has highlighted\n MARB's primary objection qua inadequacy of data on clinical materials.\n Vide 'Letter of Disapproval' dated 03rd September 2022, it did not allow any\n increase in seats in MS (ENT) citing the following reasons: "(i) Huge drop\n in clinical load over 3 years. (ii) Surgeries has become halved. (iii) IP and\n OP cases have also been reduced." (sic) With respect to this discipline,\n assessor's report dated 29th August 2022, categorically remarks that:\n "Assessment of ENT Department done on 30/08/2022. Adequate clinical\n material, equipment, Infrastructure & faculty available on inspection."14. Additionally, Mr. Singhdev has averred that even in this case, the\n Letter of Disapproval dated 03rd September 2022 was only provisional in\n nature. Petitioner-College was granted a hearing by MARB on 14th\n September 2022, whereafter a final Letter of Disapproval was issued by\n MARB on 14th September 2022.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 9 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n D. On mismatch between assessor's reports and Impugned Letters15. Noticing that in most cases, there is an apparent mismatch between\n the assessor's report and Impugned Letters sent by MARB, to the effect that\n the assessors' reports indicate no inadequacy whereas MARB has taken a\n contrary stand, Mr. Singhdev was queried regarding Respondents' stand on\n this issue. He contends that the assessor is only an agent of MARB, who\n carries out a field visit, but the decision-making authority rests with MARB,\n which takes into consideration the inspection report as well as other\n considerations to arrive at its decision, and thus the comments made by the\n assessor are superfluous and non-binding.16. This submission is vehemently opposed by Mr. Vikas Singh, who\n states that the prerogative is of the assessor to seek additional data at the\n time of inspection, and not of MARB at a later date. He states that MARB\n must consider the reports of the assessor, which are final in all respects, and\n this is the consistent practice and procedure followed by NMC in respect of\n all such applications for increase in intake capacity.17. The Court is not convinced with the Respondents' stand qua lack of\n credibility of assessors' reports. MARB may be the final decision-making\n authority, but that does not mean that the assessors' reports, based on actual\n physical inspection of the college and verification of records, is to be\n brushed-aside whimsically. MARB assigns this crucial function of\n inspection to the assessor, who has to report on critical aspects that would\n ultimately form the basis for MARB taking an informed decision on the\n\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 10 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n application of medical colleges. The assessors are senior medical\n professionals of reputed medical facilities. They are aware of the norms and\n regulations, and are also aided by their knowledge of and experience in the\n medical field. In the absence of any demonstrable error in the report, which\n has indeed not been shown by the Respondents, the remarks made by an\n assessor qua adequacy of infrastructure, faculty, etc., as noted above, must\n be given due regard and weightage.18. Keeping the above in mind, it can be noticed that insofar as the\n discipline of MD (Respiratory Medicine) is concerned, the decision of\n MARB is not sustainable. The only two cogent reasons discernible from the\n impugned communication are ex-facie contradicted by the assessor's report\n dated 20th August 2022, wherein no deficiency was found.19. Further, the Court is unconvinced by the reasoning put forth to justify\n the restricted increase in intake capacity. Mr. Singhdev has argued that a\n certain faculty member - Dr. Mahendran - has been working as an Assistant\n Professor but was downgraded to a Senior Resident just 4 days before the\n inspection. This was labelled as suspicious by Mr. Singhdev, on the ground\n that it casts a doubt on the adequacy of faculty members and accuracy of\n data obtained. However, the assessor has observed in no unequivocal terms\n that the faculty is adequate. Contrary to the decision of MARB, the annexure\n to the assessor's report shows that the requirement of senior resident is\n adequately fulfilled, as Dr. Mahendran, at the fifth row of said table, meets\n the criterion. There is merit in Petitioners' argument that, notwithstanding\n whether his current position is of an Assistant Professor or a Senior\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 11 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n Resident, it is an undisputed fact that since former position is senior to the\n latter position, it cannot be said that a senior resident is lacking, and thus the\n norms for adequacy of faculty are satisfied.20. Further, the objection of inadequacy of special equipment in\n Pharmacology and Radiology is belied by the assessor's clear finding that\n the infrastructure is adequate. As the assessor has found that Petitioner-\n College meets the requisite criteria prescribed in the regulations, MARB\n could not, on its own whims and fancies and without any further reasoning,\n grant permission for a lesser number of seats. The adequate infrastructure\n and clinical material, as per the assessor's guide and regulations, entitled the\n Petitioner-College to the increase in intake capacity that it had applied for.21. Apart from the two reasons cited in the impugned letter, Respondents\n in their counter-affidavit, have taken the lack of clinical data as another\n ground to oppose the request. This objection, having not been raised earlier,\n cannot be allowed to be urged at this stage to deny Petitioner-College's\n request. Petitioner-College is thus entitled to increase in seats for MD\n (Respiratory Medicine), as applied for.22. As regards the other two disciplines, the Court finds gross violation of\n principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. When MARB received\n positive assessor's reports upon a surprise inspection, Petitioners could not\n have been suddenly slapped with disapproving orders, containing reasons\n that are being pointed out for the first time. Adequate opportunity should\n have been offered to the college to explain or make good the insufficiencies/\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 12 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n deficiencies if the same were noticed by MARB.E. On inadequacy of data for the past 3 years23. That said, Mr. Singhdev has laid considerable stress that the truncated\n data for three months (01st January 2020 to 20th March 2022) for Year 2, and\n four months (01st September 2021 to 31st December 2021) for Year 3, does\n not fulfil the requirement of the Standard Assessment Form. He attributes\n this lacuna/deficiency to the Petitioner-College, arguing that the Standard\n Assessment form makes no distinction between Covid and non-Covid times.\n In the opinion of the Court, this objection is not merited. Though ultimate\n responsibility of the data would obviously be of the College, but the\n assessors are aware of the requirements of the form and the Act, as well as\n the criteria for determining the application for increase in intake. The\n assessors could have asked for the complete data, including for the period\n when the Petitioner was a 'Covid-19 Hospital', at the time of conducting\n inspection, if indeed such data was so germane. No objection or non-\n cooperation on the part of Petitioners has been recorded in the reports to this\n effect. Requisite data could also have been easily requisitioned for by\n MARB, if the data provided to the assessors did not fulfil its requirement for\n making an assessment. Further this deficiency could also have been rectified\n at a stage if/when the Petitioner was given a hearing. Mr. Singhdev has tried\n to explain this breach by arguing that there was practically no time available\n for granting an opportunity to rectify deficiencies to the medical colleges in\n the country, as the NEET PG-2022 had already taken place on 21st May\n 2022; result was declared on 02nd June 2022 and the counselling for\n\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 13 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n admission to postgraduate courses was to commence shortly thereafter. He\n relies upon Notice dated 29th August 2022 issued by the Directorate General\n of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of\n India, informing that that the counselling for admission to postgraduate\n courses which was to commence from 01st September 2022, had been\n postponed since the MARB was in the process of issuing letters of\n permission for start/increase in intake in postgraduate courses, which were\n to be concluded by 15th September 2022. Mr. Singhdev also argues that\n processing of all applications seeking increase in seats in postgraduate\n courses had been concluded by MARB till 15th September 2022 and as such,\n no fresh process can be undertaken at this stage, which shall stall and\n prolong the ongoing counselling process.24. The above factors would still not discern the fact that MARB has\n deviated from the statute, and this cannot be countenanced. The opportunity\n of rectification ought to have been provided. While a hearing may not be a\n statutory right engraved in black letter, the argument does bear merit that if\n MARB found the assessor's report to be inadequate, it ought to have given\n an opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional data which was not\n asked for by the assessor. Indeed, it is not MARB's case that the assessor\n asked for, but was denied, access to data for a certain period. In fact, no\n adverse observation is made in the assessor's report to this effect. Thus, the\n inadequacy of data collected by the assessor, is a result of failure on part of\n the assessor, which cannot be attributable to Petitioner-College. However, as\n discussed above, admittedly the medical college was operating prior to the\n onset of Covid-19 pandemic at least since 01st September 2021. Indeed, in\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 14 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is categorically mentioned that Petitioner\n was permitted to operate its regular OPD, IPD, Surgeries, Procedures &\n Investigation for non-Covid patients from 01st September 2021, till the date\n of inspection. It is also admitted that it has not even provided the data of the\n Covid patients handled by it. Therefore, the proper course of action would\n be in directing the Petitioner to provide the clinical data for the covid period,\n to MARB, to enable them to scrutinize the same when other parameters have\n been met, and the reference data justifies increase in intake, there should be\n no reason to deny the request.F. Alternate Efficacious Remedy25. Lastly, the Court must also deal with the objection regarding the\n maintainability of the petition raised by Respondents, inasmuch as they\n contend that Petitioner-College has not availed the remedy provided under\n Section 28(5) of the Act of preferring an appeal to NMC, and thereafter, of a\n second appeal to the Central Government, under Section 28(6) of the NMC\n Act, 2019. This objection is well-founded and has considerable merit.\n However, given the circumstances and the urgency expressed by the\n Petitioners, this Court is of the view that the same shall not be efficacious in\n the stringent timelines available, as by the time such appeal hearings are\n completed, the relief sought would have been rendered infructuous. In fact,\n this court has also perused the decision of a coordinate bench dated 01 st\n April 2022 titledDr. M.K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v.\n Union of India,8 whereby, the Court has struck down similar impugned82022 SCC OnLine Del 938.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 15 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n communications and, instead of remanding the matter back to the\n Respondents for issuance of a fresh order, directed NMC to forthwith issue\n letters of permission to the concerned college so that it does not miss out on\n the next round of counselling. Thus, in light of peculiar factual\n circumstances, an exception is made in the present matter to entertain the\n petition despite existence of alternate remedy.26. In coming to the directions laid out below, the following reasoning\n adopted by a coordinate bench of this Court in judgment dated 15 th March\n 2022 in W.P.(C) 1958/2022 titledSantosh Trust v. NMC, also weighs with\n this Court:"No doubt the respondents cannot be asked to lower the standards\n prescribed under the regulations however, simultaneously, in a situation\n like the present, when it is found that an institute like the petitioner which\n has been running for the last more than 20 years is not lacking in any\n infrastructure and has also rectified the deficiencies which were found at\n the time of initial inspections, that too when the said deficiencies were\n only on account of the Covid pandemic, it would also be against public\n interest to deny permission to the petitioner to increase the seats. At a time\n when the ratio of medical profession as vis-a-vis the population of the\n country is abysmally low, an increase in the number of PG and UG seats\n would certainly contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the medical\n infrastructure of the country."DIRECTIONS:27. For the foregoing reasons, all the Impugned Letters are quashed. The\n Letters of Disapproval, both dated 14th September 2022, in respect of MS\n (ENT) and MD (Respiratory Medicine) courses, issued pursuant to\n Impugned Letters, are also consequently struck down.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 16 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:2328. Qua MD (Respiratory Medicine), permission is granted to Petitioner-\n College to increase seats from 2 to 5, instead of 2 to 4. MARB shall issue\n the necessary approval to allow Petitioner-College to participate in\n counselling for Academic Year 2022-2023 forthwith.29. As regards, MS (Ophthalmology) and MS (ENT), most of critical\n aspects necessary for grant for approval stand verified, and the only detail\n that remains to be seen is the adequacy of reference data relating to the\n Covid period (i.e., from 21st March 2020 to 31st August 2021). Accordingly,\n it is directed that Petitioner-College shall submit complete data in respect of\n clinical material for the past three calendar years included the\n abovementioned Covid period, to MARB, immediately, and not later than 3\n days from the date of this judgment. Keeping in mind that the Petitioner-\n College has missed first round of counselling, and second round of\n counselling is to commence from 14th October 2022, any further delay\n would prevent it from participating even in the remaining rounds, thus, no\n re-inspection is being ordered. It is directed that the data furnished by\n Petitioner-College for the abovementioned period shall be examined by\n MARB, which shall take a fresh decision thereon within 48 hours of receipt\n of the data.30. MARB shall take into consideration the observations made\n hereinabove, and keep in view assessors' reports in respect of the above-\n referred two disciplines, while taking fresh decisions.31. If Petitioner-College fulfils the criteria, MARB shall proceed to issue\n\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 17 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23\n permission/approval, and allow them to forthwith participate in the on-going\n counselling. If the decisions are against Petitioner-College, it shall be at\n liberty to assail the same, in accordance with law.32. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of, along with\n pending applications.SANJEEV NARULA, J\n OCTOBER 13, 2022\n nk\n\n\n\n\nSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed W.P.(C) 13435/2022 Page 18 of 18By:NITIN KAIN\nSigning Date:13.10.2022\n21:10:23

019027fe-9a6d-5779-91b5-c9a6db4ee642

court_cases

Manipur High CourtShri Chaoba Kamei vs Shri Poubi R. Naga on 19 July, 2022Author:Sanjay KumarBench:Sanjay KumarItem No. 3\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR\n AT IMPHAL\n\n CRP(C.R.P.Art.227) No. 36 of 2019\n\n 1. Shri Chaoba Kamei, aged about 61 years, S/O (L)\n Gaikulung Kamei of Maha Kabui (Namching) Village, P.S.\n Patsoi, P.O. Langjing, Kangpokpi District, Manipur -\n 795129.\n 2. Rajanglung Gangmei, aged about 76 years, S/O (L) Aton\n Gangmei, Khunpu of Maha Kabui (Namching) Village, P.S.\n Patsoi, P.O. Langjing, Kangpokpi District, Manipur -\n 795129.\n 3. Poupoklung Kamei, aged about 57 years, S/O (L)\n Gaikulung Kamei of Maha Kabui (Namching) Village, P.S.\n Patsoi, P.O. Langjing, Kangpokpi District, Manipur -\n 795129.\n 4. Lantan Gangmei, aged about 74 years, S/O (L) Aton\n Gangmei of Maha Kabui (Namching) Village, P.S. Patsoi,\n P.O. Langjing, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795129.\n ...Petitioners\n - Versus -\n 1. Shri Poubi R. Naga, aged about 63 years, S/O (L) Alemba\n Kabui of Maha Kabui (Namching) Village, P.S. Patsoi, P.O.\n Langjing, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795129.\n 2. Shri Mangal R. Naga, aged about 55 years, S/O (L)\n Alemba Kabui of Maha Kabui (Namching) Village, P.S.\n Patsoi, P.O. Langjing, Kangpokpi District, Manipur -\n 795129.\n ...Respondents\n\n B EF O R E\n HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR\n\n For the petitioners : Mr. T. Rajendra, Advocate\n For the respondents : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate,\n for R-1;\n Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Advocate,\n for R-2\n Date of order : 19-07-2022\n\nCRP(C.R.P.Art.227) No. 36 of 2019 Page 1 of 3\n ORDER[1] Judl. Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 was filed in Original (Probate) Suit\n\nNo. 1 of 2012/3 of 2012 by the petitioners herein to revoke the Probate Order\n\ndated 19-07-2012 passed in the said suit as well as the Probate Certificate\n\ndated 19-07-2012 issued by the learned Addl. District Judge, Manipur West.\n\nRespondent No. 1, herein being respondent No. 1, in the said miscellaneous\n\ncase, filed his written objections thereto on 02-07-2018. In response, the\n\npetitioners filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 23 of 2018 seeking leave to file a\n\nreplication to the written objections. The same was allowed by the learned\n\nDistrict Judge and the replication dated 25-10-2018 filed by the petitioners\n\nwas taken on record. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 filed rejoinder/additional\n\nwritten objections dated 30-01-2019 to the replication of the petitioners. As\n\nno leave/permission was sought from the Court by respondent No. 1 to do\n\nso, the petitioners filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 14 of 2019 (Ref: Judl. Misc.\n\nCase No. 10 of 2018) praying that the said rejoinder/additional written\n\nobjections dated 30-01-2019 filed by respondent No. 1 be rejected.\n\nHowever, by order dated 21-05-2019, the learned District Judge, Senapati,\n\ndisposed of the miscellaneous case holding that the case was at the initial\n\nstage as issues were not yet framed and, therefore, no prejudice was\n\ncaused to the petitioners by consideration of the subsequent pleadings filed\n\nby respondent No. 1. The prayer of the petitioners was accordingly turned\n\ndown. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.\n\n\n[2] No interim order was granted in this revision. While so, this Court\n\nis now informed that Judl. Misc. Case No. 10 of 2018 filed by the petitioners\n\nwas dismissed by the learned District Judge, Senapati, on 24-05-2021 and\n\naggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed FAO No. 1 of 2021 before this Court.CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 36 of 2019 Page 2 of 3The said appeal is stated to be pending. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior\n\n counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, would assert that in the light of this\n\n development, this revision is rendered infructuous.[3] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioners, would\n\n however contend that the challenge to the filing of a rejoinder to the\n\n replication, without obtaining leave, would still survive for consideration. This\n\n Court finds merits in the said submission. However, it would not be\n\n necessary to keep this revision pending for that purpose as an appeal has\n\n already been filed by the petitioners against the rejection of their revocation\n\n application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 10 of 2018. It would be open to them to\n\n raise therein all such primary and incidental grounds as may be available to\n\n them in law. Consideration of the contents of the rejoinder filed by\n\n respondent No. 1 to the petitioners' replication, without seeking leave, would\n\n be one of the grounds available to them for being raised in the appeal, if not\n\n already raised. As this Court does not propose to go into that issue in this\n\n revision, it is left open to the petitioners to raise that ground also in the\n\n pending FAO No. 1 of 2021, by way of an appropriate application, if not\n\n already raised.With this liberty, the civil revision petition is disposed of.\n\n\n In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.CHIEF JUSTICE\n\n Victoria\n\n\n\nNINGOM Digitally signed\n by NINGOMBAM\nBAM VICTORIA\n Date: 2022.07.19\nVICTORIA 16:11:39 +05'30'CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 36 of 2019 Page 3 of 3

8aaefca5-5d70-5337-ad50-ade68724349c

court_cases

Jammu & Kashmir High CourtM/S Simplex Agri Infra Services vs Imran Goni And Another on 28 April, 2023Author:Wasim Sadiq NargalBench:Wasim Sadiq NargalSr. No. 106\n\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT JAMMU\n CM(M) No. 71/2023\n\nM/S Simplex Agri Infra Services .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)\nPvt. Ltd.\n\n Through:- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG\n\n V/s\n\nImran Goni and another .....Respondent(s)\n\n Through:-\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE\n ORDERThe petitioner through the medium of the present petition is invoking\n\nsupervisory power of this Court as enshrined underArticle 227of the\n\nConstitution of India and is seeking quashment of order dated 10.04.2023\n\npassed by the court of learned Munsiff Hiranagar in File No. 04/2023, in\n\ncase titled Imran Goni and another Vs. M/S Simplex Agri Infra Services Pvt.\n\nLtd., whereby, SHO Police Station Rajbagh was directed to implement\n\nrestraining order dated 18.09.2022 with respect to Khasra No. 831\n\ncomprising of 19 marlas of land situated at village Tandyari Hiranagar.\n\n Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently\n\nargued that the learned trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that the\n\npetitioner (defendant therein) had filed a written statement on 02.11.2019\n\nstating the true factual position with respect to the functioning of the FCI\n\ngodown and till date, the learned trial court has not commenced the hearing\n\non the application filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and in a way\n\ndeciding the application for implementation of ex parte interim order, which\n\nis an abuse of the process of court.2 CM(M) No. 71/2023Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG submits that the learned trial court in a\n\nway has modified its own order and that too on his back without providing\n\nhim opportunity of being heard.Learned counsel further points out that in the year 2019, vide order dated\n\n23.09.2019, the trial court has already ordered for implementing the order\n\ndated 18.09.2019 in its letter and spirit through Incharge Police Station,\n\nRajbagh and even at that stage, there was no occasion for the trial court to\n\nhave issued such directions. By virtue of order impugned and that too at the\n\nback of the petitioner under the garb of implementing the said order, the\n\ninterim order has been modified, which has caused severe prejudice to the\n\nrights of the petitioner and the same is not permissible under law.\n\n Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.\n\n Prima facie case for indulgence is made out.Issue notice to the respondents. Steps for service of the respondents\n\nwithin one week. Subject to petitioner taking steps, Registry to issue notice\n\nto the respondents, returnable within four weeks.\n\n\n List on 05.06.2023.In the meantime, subject to objections and till next date of hearing, order\n\nimpugned dated 10.04.2023 passed by the court of learned Munsiff,\n\nHiranagar shall remain stayed.(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)\n JUDGE\n\n\nJammu\n28.04.2023\nVishal

a52de4db-998c-5d50-b940-056a9ca41f87

court_cases

Kerala High CourtVinod P.B vs District Collecor on 9 November, 2020Author:N.NagareshBench:N.NagareshIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\n PRESENT\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH\n\nMONDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020/18TH KARTHIKA,1942\n\n WP(C).No.5703 OF 2014(K)\n\n\nPETITIONERS:\n\n 1 VINOD P.B.,S/O.P.K.BHASKARAN,\n AGED 33 YEARS,PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 2 K.K.SADANANDAN, S/O.KUNJAN,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,AGED 48 YEARS,\n GANAPATHIKADU,NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 3 C.N.SURESH, S/O.NARAYANAN,\n AGED 45 YEARS,\n CHAKKUMKALPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 4 SARASU SREEDHARAN,\n W/O.SREEDHARAN,\n AGED 67 YEARS,\n PUTHENCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 5 VINOD KUMAR C.S.,\n S/O.SREENIVASAN,\n AGED 36 YEARS,\n CHAKKUMKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 2\n\n\n\n 6 C.N.SULOCHANA, D/O.NARAYANAN,\n AGED 63 YEARS,\n CHAKKUMKALPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 7 K.E.CHINNAN, S/O.EESUKUTTY,\n AGED 45 YEARS,\n KURISUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 8 A.A.SEBASTIAN, S/O.ANTONY,\n AGED 46 YEARS,\n ALUMKAL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 9 P.K.SURESHBABU,\n S/O.KUMARAN,\n AGED 37 YEARS,\n PUTHENCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 10 V.L.SANDHYAVU, S/O.LONAN,\n AGED 66 YEARS,\n VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n 11 P.K.SREEDHARAN,S/O.KUNJAN,\n AGED 67 YEARS,\n PUTHENCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 12 K.T.KOCHUPENNU, W/O.VELUTHA,\n AGED 62 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE,\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 3\n\n\n\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 13 BEENA SURENDRAN,\n W/O.SURENDRAN,\n AGED 37 YEARS,\n ARAYIRIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 14 RENJINI BABU, W/O.BABU,\n AGED 36 YEARS,\n ARAYIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 15 CHADRALEKHA SURESH, W/O.SURESH,\n AGED 39 YEARS,\n CHAKKUMKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 16 K.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.THEVAN,\n AGED 67 YEARS,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 17 RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O.SADANANDAN,\n AGED 45 YEARS,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 18 M.S.VASANTHAKUMAR, S/O.SREENIVASAN,\n AGED 34 YEARS, MAVUNKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 19 K.T.VELUTHA,S/O.THEVAN,\n AGED 75 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE,\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 4\n\n\n\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n 20 RATHIKA AJAYAGHOSH,\n W/O.AJAYAGHOSH,\n AGED 33 YEARS,\n PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 21 P.K.BHASKARAN, S/O.KAKAN,\n AGED 65 YEARS,\n PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 22 P.K.SUDARSANAN, S/O.KUMARAN,\n AGED 40 YEARS,\n PUTHENCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 23 P.B.SUNIL, S/O.BHASKARAN,\n AGED 31 YEARS,\n PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 24 K.A.MATHEW, S/O.ANTHO,\n AGED 53 YEARS,\n KALIPPRAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 25 CHEERAMMA BHASKARAN,\n AGED 61 YEARS,\n PUTHENKALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 5\n\n\n\n\n 26 K.V.HARIHARAN, S/O.VELUTHA,\n AGED 45 YEARS,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 27 SANITHA GIREESH,\n W/O.GIREESH,\n AGED 33 YEARS,\n PURANCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 28 PARVATHIKUMARAN,\n W/O.KUMARAN,\n AGED 73 YEARS,\n PURANCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 29 PARIMALA SUDHARSHANAN,\n W/O.SUDARSHANAN,\n AGED 30 YEARS,\n PURANCHIRAYIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 30 PRAVEENKUMAR K.G.,\n S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,\n AGED 32, KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 31 K.T.MURALEEDHARAN,\n S/O.THEVAN,\n AGED 64 YEARS,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 6\n\n\n\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 32 RAJAMMA MURALEEDHARAN,\n W/O.MURALEEDHARAN,\n AGED YEARS,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 33 SHEELA SEBASTIAN,\n W/O.SEBASTIAN,\n AGED 40 YEARS,\n ALUNGAL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 34 KOCHUPENNU ISHNATHI,\n W/O.ISHNATHI,\n AGED 75 YEARS,\n KALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 35 AJAYAGHOSH P.B.,\n S/O.P.K.BHASKARAN,\n AGED 37 YEARS,\n PUTHANKALATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 36 M.M.RAJU, S/O.MADHAVAN,\n AGED 42 YEARS,\n MAVUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 37 M.N.LAKSHMANAN, S/O.NAGU,\n AGED 74 YEARS,\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 7\n\n\n\n MAVUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 38 M.L.MOHANDAS, S/O.LAKSHMANAN,\n AGED 49 YEARS, MAVUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 39 T.X.JOLLY, S/O.XAVIER,\n AGED 48 YEARS, THAIKOODATHIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU,NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 40 A.K.BABU,S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS,\n ARAYIRIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 41 A.L.GOPALAN, S/O.LAKSHMANAN,\n AGED 62 YEARS, ARAYIRIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 42 A.G.SURESHBABU, S/O.GOVINDAN,\n AGED 37 YEARS, ARAYIRIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 43 M.R.GOVINDAN, S/O.RAMAN,\n AGED 65 YEARS, MAVUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 44 K.V.JACOB CHALS, S/O.VARGHESE,\n AGED 43 YEARS, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 45 A.H.RATHEESH, S/O.HANUMANTHAN,\n AGED 42 YEARS, ARACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 8\n\n\n\n\n 46 A.X.JOHNY, S/O.XAVIER, AGED 44 YEARS,\n AZHINACKAL HOUSE, GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n 47 A.H.BALAMANI, S/O.HANUMANDAN,\n AGED 47 YEARS, ARACKAPARAMBU HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 48 K.F.ANTONY, S/O.FRANCIS, AGED 41 YEARS,\n KURUSUPARAMBU HOUSE, GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n 49 GEETHA SUBRAHMANYAN, W/O.SUBRAHMANYAN,\n AGED 48, ARAYIRIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU, NORTH CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n 50 A.K.MOHANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 51 YEARS,\n ARAYIRIPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE, GANAPATHIKADU,\n NORTH CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n BY ADVS.\n SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH\n SMT.ANNIES MATHAI\n SRI.P.J.YESUDAS\n\nRESPONDENTS:\n\n 1 DISTRICT COLLECOR,\n ERNAKULAM 682 011.\n\n 2 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,\n ERNAKULAM 682 035.\n\n 3 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,\n FORT KOCHI 682 001.\n\n 4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n KANNAMALI POLICE STATION,\n KOCHI 682 010.\n\n 5 INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES,\n NEAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 9\n\n\n\n ERNAKULAM 682 031.\n\n 6 K.I.RAJENDRAN, SECRETARY,\n GANAPATHIKADU 'A' BLOCK,\n PADASEKHARA KARSHAKA SANGHOM,\n REG.NO.ER.1561/90, GANAPATHIKADU NORTH,\n CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n 7 C.N.MOHANDAS, SECRETARY,\n GANAPATHIKADU B BLOCK PADASEKHARA\n NELLULPADHAKA KARSHAKA SANGHOM,\n REG.NO. ER.156/10, GANAPATHIKADU NORTH,\n CHELLANAM POST, KOCHI 8.\n\n 8 PAUL CHARLES, S/O.CHARLES,\n LENTHAPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n GANAPATHIKADU NORTH, CHELLANAM POST,\n KOCHI 8.\n\n R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. POOJA\n SURENDRAN\n R6 BY ADV. SRI. SREELYKUMAR K.S.\n R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.BINOD\n R6 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH\n R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU\n BY ADV. SMT.M.C.SANITHA\n BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA\n R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN\n\n THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY\nHEARD ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY\nDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n WP(C)No.5703/2014\n\n 10\n\n\n\n\n JUDGMENTDated this the 9th day of November, 2020\n\n\n\n The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Denizen\n\nKomath seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition.The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Sd/-N. NAGARESH\n JUDGE\nncdWP(C)No.5703/201411APPENDIX\nPETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE\n REGISTERED TRADE UNION WHEREIN THESE\n PETITIONERS ARE MEMBERS.EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED\n BY SOME OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE\n THE 4TH RESPONDENT SUB INSPECTOR OF\n POLICE, DATED 25/03/2013.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED\n BY THE PETITIONERS THROUGH THEIR\n TRADE UNION BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1\n TO 3 HEREIN DATED 26/08/2013.EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED\n 03/01/2014 PREFERRED BY THE\n PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1\n TO 3 AND 5 HEREIN.

5b16c747-b5a2-599a-a59d-9cc3ca9a9ca9

court_cases

Central Information CommissionRadhe Shyam Jangid vs High Court Of Other States on 15 February, 2021के ीयसूचनाआयोग\n Central Information Commission\n बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका\n Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n नई द ली,\n नई द ली New Delhi - 110067\n\nि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCOST/A/2018/156230\n\nShri Radhe Shyam Jangid ... अपीलकता /Appellant\n VERSUS/बनाम\n\nPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent\nRajasthan High Court Jaipur\n\nDate of Hearing : 09.02.2021\nDate of Decision : 15.02.2021\nChief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on : 04.04.2018\nPIO replied on : -\nFirst Appeal filed on : 10.05.2018\nFirst Appellate Order on : -\n2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.09.2018\n\nInformation soughtand background of the case:The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2018 seeking following\ninformation on 04 points:-1. 16710 पर राज थान के यालाय म केस चल रहा है सन 2012. इसके बाद म 2018 को सीता\n दे वी बैरवा w/o िजते द बैरवा के आंगन बाड़ी काय$कता$ पद पोि टं ग दे ने कारण बताओ|2. केस 16710 कब फाइल हुआ उसक, फोटो को भी भेज|े3. सन 2012 से सन 2018 तक क, .या .या काय$वाह/ क, उसक, फोटो कॉपी भेज|े4. 1दनाँक 03.09.2012 क, 3ाम सभा म मे4बर के सामने 5कसी का 6नण$य नह/ं 7लया था उसक,\n म8 दस मे4बर9 के ह ता:रो क, फोटो कॉपी भेजता हू| तो अपने इसके बारे म .या याय 1दया है\n उसक, =6त भेजे|\n\nHaving not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First\nAppeal dated 10.05.2018 which remained unheard.Feeling aggrieved over non receipt of information, the Appellant approached the\nCommission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 1 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic,\nCOVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the\nparties.The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.The Respondent is represented by Shri Vishal Meghwal, Advocate and Shri Gauri\nShankar Sharma, Registrar, Rajasthan High Court through video conference. Shri\nMeghwal referred to their written submission dated 04.02.2021 wherein it was\nstated that as per their record they did not receive either of the RTI applications\ndated 22.02.2018 and 04.04.2018, the second one being part of the present\nsecond appeal. The Appeal dated 10.05.2018 was filed with the heading "Jaipur\nVikas Pradhikaran, Jaipur" addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Rajasthan\nHigh Court. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High\nCourt and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006, it was found that the said appeal\nwas not in the prescribed form G, D or E and was not presented with the memo of\nAppeal and the requisite fees to file the appeal. In view of the deficiencies, the\nrecord relating to the file of the Appellant was not called from SPIO and the\nAppellant was called for personal hearing on 12.06.2018. The FAA vide order\ndated 20.06.2018 noted that the Appeal did not comply with the Rajasthan Right\nto Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006.Decision:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the\nRespondent and in the light of the fact that neither was the Appellant present\nduring the hearing nor did he raise any contention regarding the action taken by\nthe Respondent in his second appeal, no further intervention of the Commission\nis required on his Second Appeal. Nonetheless on closer perusal of the Rajasthan\nRight to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006, the\nCommission observes that Rule 7 (1) (b) of the Rules stipulates that for the\npurpose of filing of a first appeal, a fee of Rs. 100/- has to be deposited by the\nAppellant in the form of non-judicial adhesive stamp duly affixed or through\nDemand Draft/ Banker's Cheque in the name of the Appellate Authority.The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of charging\nof exorbitant fee for filing of RTI applications prescribed that as a normal rule the\ncharge for application underRTI Actshould not be more than Rs. 50/-. The\nrelevant extract of the decision inCommon Cause vs HighCourt of Allahabad and\nAnr WP (Civil) No 194 of 2012 decided on 20.03.2018 isas under:"We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application\n should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be\n more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with\n differently. This will not debar revision in future, if situation so demands."Although the issue of charging fee for admitting first appeals as per the sub-\nordinate rules was not under consideration in the above matter, it is worthwhile\nto consider that even for filing of RTI applications, the Apex Court prescribed aPage 2 of 3maximum fee of Rs 50/- whereas in the present instance a fee of Rs. 100/- is\ncharged from Appellants.On closer examination of theRTI Act, 2005it is evident that there is no enabling\nprovision in the principal Act i.e.,RTI Act, 2005for Rajasthan High Court to\ncollect fees while admitting first appeals. UnlikeSection 6(1)which clearly\nprovides for collection of an application fee there is no mention of any fee payment\ninSection 19of the principal Act which relates to filing of first and second\nappeals. Similarly,Section 28(2)which empowers the Rajasthan High Court to\nnotify Rules for implementing the principal Act also makes no reference to\ncollection of fees at the first appeal stage. Clearly, Parliament's intention was to\nmake provisions for fee payment only at the application and information\ndisclosure stage and not at the appeals stage. Given this scheme of fee payment\nin the principal Act, the general power of rule-making given inSection 28(1)of the\nprincipal Act should not be invoked to impose a new kind of fee on the applicant\nwhich is not provided in theRTI Act, 2005.Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of UP & Ors vs Renusagar\nPower Co and Ors1988 AIR 1737 decided on 28.07.1988 held as follows:"If the exercise of power is in the nature of subordinate legislation, the\n exercise must conform to the provisions of the statute. All the conditions of\n the statute must be fulfilled."A perusal ofSection 19of the RTI Act, 2005 indicates that there is no provision\nfor depositing fee for filing First Appeals before the concerned Public Authority.\nHence, Rule 7 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court and\nSubordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 as amended upto 24.07.2020 clearly appears to\nbe in contravention of the parent statute. Therefore, in exercise of its powers\nunderSection 25 (5)of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission recommends to the\nRegistrar, Rajasthan High Court to put up the instant decision before the\ncompetent authority to take a considered view regarding amending the Rajasthan\nRight to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 in view of\nthe abovementioned observations.With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off\naccordingly.Y. K. Sinha (वाई.वाई. के . िस हा)\n Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )\n\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)\n\nS. K. Chitkara (एस. के. Aचटकारा)\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26186535Page 3 of 3

5a8f3dbf-9f38-5c10-8cce-412410b46de9

court_cases

Chattisgarh High CourtYuvraj @ Santosh Patail vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2021Author:Rajani DubeyBench:Rajani Dubey1\n\n NAFR\n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n MCRC No. 2241 of 2021\n  Yuvraj @ Santosh Patail S/o Puranlal, aged 32 years, R/o\n village Chaple, Tehsil Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.)\n ---- Applicant\n Versus\n  State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station Kharsia,\n District Raigarh (C.G.)\n ---- RespondentFor Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.\nFor Respondent/State : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Dy. G.A.\n\n\n Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey\n Order on Board\n12/05/2021\n\n\nProceeding through video conferencing.\n\n The accused/applicant has moved this bail application underSection 439of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing\n\n him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime\n\n No.128/2021 registered at Police Station Kharsia, District\n\n Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable underSections 34\n\n (2)and59 (A)of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915.\n\n It is the case of the prosecution that 15.000 bulk liters of illicit\n\n country made liquor was seized by the police from the\n\n custody of applicant and thereby committed the offence.\n\n Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant\n\n has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He\n\n further submits that as the applicant is in custody since\n\n 07.03.2021 and the trial is likely to take some time for its\n\n final disposal, he may be released on bail.2 On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail\n\n application. Taking into consideration the condition incorporated inSection 59-A(ii)of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915, and bearing in\n\n mind the principles of law laid down inBanti Singh v. State\n\n of Chhattisgarh (M.Cr.C. No.6846of 2014), decided on\n\n 05.01.2015), if the facts of present case are examined, it is\n\n apparent that only 15.000 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been\n\n seized from him which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk\n\n liters, but looking to the fact that the applicant is in custody\n\n since 07.03.2021, case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate\n\n First Class, trial is likely to take some more time and further\n\n taking into account the nature and gravity of offence and\n\n plea raised by the applicant that he has falsely been\n\n implicated in case, I am of the opinion that present is the fit\n\n case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular\n\n bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that on\n\n furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with\n\n one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the\n\n concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed,\n\n the applicant shall be released on bail, subject to following\n\n conditions: That, the applicant shall furnish a specific, undertaking\n that while on bail, he will not commit any excise\n offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to\n be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution\n during trial. That, the accused/applicant shall make himself3available for interrogation before the concerned\n Investigating Officer as and when required and the\n accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make\n any inducement, threat or promise to any person\n acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade\n him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to\n any police officer. That, the accused/applicant shall not act, in any\n manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and\n expeditious trial. I.A.No.02/2021, for hearing during summer vacation\n\n stands disposed of.Certified copy, as per rules.Sd/-(Rajani Dubey)\n Vacation Judge\n\nPKD

0a9ffe2e-de84-5c27-8797-efd57f7b3de1

court_cases

Supreme Court - Daily OrdersArvind Parasramka vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 12 March, 2021IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n Civil Appeal No 809 of 2021\n\n\n Arvind Parasramka .... Appellant(s)\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors ....Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n ORDER1 Since the appellant has already instituted proceedings before the National\n\n Company Law Tribunal which are pending before it, the Securities Appellate\n\n Tribunal1 held that “at the moment” there was no reason for it to entertain the\n\n appeal at the behest of the appellant. The appellant is also not a present\n\n shareholder of the company.2 It is evident from the above observations that at the present stage the SAT has\n\n declined to entertain the appeal also having regard to the fact that the appellant\n\n is in praesenti not a shareholder of the company.\n\n\n 3 The appeal is accordingly dismissed.…………...…...….......………………........J.\n [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]\n\n\n\n\n …..…..…....…........……………….…........J.\n [M R Shah]\nSignature Not Verified\n\nDigitally signed by\nSanjay Kumar\nDate: 2021.03.18\n11:00:46 IST\n\n New Delhi;Reason:March 12, 2021-S-1 “SAT”\nITEM NO.19 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\n\n Civil Appeal No(s).809/2021\n\nARVIND PARASRAMKA Appellant(s)\n\n VERSUS\n\nSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)Date : 12-03-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM :HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\nFor Appellant(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR\n\nFor Respondent(s)\n\n\n UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n\n1 The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.\n\n\n2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)\n AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER(Signed order is placed on the file)

c778079c-ed3e-5f08-80c6-2179074a92e5

court_cases

Securities Appellate TribunalGeofin Comtrade Ltd vs Sebi on 5 October, 2021BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n MUMBAI\n\n Date: 5.10.2021\n\n Appeal No.214 of 2019\n\nGeofin Comtrade Ltd ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\n\nMr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.217 of 2019\n\nPhillip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\nMr. Neville Lashkari , Advocate with Mr. Prakash Shah,\nAdvocate i/b. Prakash Shah & Associates and Mr.\nAlauddin Shaikh, Authorised Representative of the\nAppellant.\n\nMr. Fredun De Vitre, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocate i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.218 of 2019\n 2\n\n\n\n\nIIFL Commodities Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\nMr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanmayi\nRajadhakshya, Mr. R.S. Loona, Mr. Ankur Loona, Ms.\nAparna Wagle and Ms. Swapna Roopavate, Advocates\ni/b. Alliance Law for the Appellant.\n\nMr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.288 of 2019\n\nAnand Rathi Commodities Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\n\nMr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.289 of 2019\n\nMotilal Oswal Commodities Broker P. Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n 3\n\n\n\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\n\nMr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.567 of 2019\n\n\nNational Spot Exchange Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\n\nMr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Arnav Misra and\nMr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for\nthe Respondent no.1.\n\nMr. Prakash Shah, Advocate i/b. Prakash Shah &\nAssociates and Mr. Alauddin Shaikh, Authorized\nRepresentative for the Respondent No.2.\n\n\n With\n Appeal No.568 of 2019\n\nNational Spot Exchange Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n 4\n\n\n\n\nMr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Arnav Misra and\nMr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for\nthe Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.569 of 2019\n\n\nNational Spot Exchange Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\nMr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Arnav Misra and\nMr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for\nthe Respondent no.1.\n\n With\n Appeal No.570 of 2019\n\nNational Spot Exchange Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\nMr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\nMr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanmayi\nRajadhakshya, Mr. R.S. Loona, Mr. Ankur Loona, Ms.\nAparna Wagle and Ms. Swapna Roopavate, Advocates\ni/b. Alliance Law for the Respondent no.2.\n 5\n\n\n\n\n With\n Appeal No.571 of 2019\n\nNational Spot Exchange Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India &\nAnr. ...Respondents\n\nMr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh,\nAdvocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.\n\nOrder:\n\n1.List on 22nd October, 2021.2. Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hours\n\n before the date fixed to find out as to whether the\n\n hearing would take place through video conferencing\n\n or through physical hearing.3. The present matter was heard through video\n\n conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it\n\n is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a\n\n certified copy of this order could be issued by the\n\n registry. In these circumstances, this order will be\n\n digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of\n\n the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act6on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will\n\n act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax\n\n and/or email.Justice Tarun Agarwala\n Presiding Officer\n\n\n\n Justice M.T. Joshi\n Judicial Member\n RAJALA\n5.10.2021 KSHMIDigitally signed byRAJALAKSHMI H NAIRDate: 2021.10.0814:13:30 +05'30'RHN H NAIR

087cf8fb-7199-5732-a68c-190f0385cad6

court_cases

Allahabad High CourtManoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2023Bench: Umesh Chandra SharmaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH\n \n \n\n\nNeutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58639\n \n\n \nIn Chamber\n \n\n \nCase :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1062 of 2002\n \n\n \nAppellant :- Manoj Kumar\n \nRespondent :- State of U.P.\n \nCounsel for Appellant :- Sunder Lal,Rakesh K. Tripathi\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate\n \n\n \nHon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.1. Heard Sri Rakesh K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This appeal has been preferred by the convict-accused-appellant Manoj Kumar against the judgment and order dated 24.7.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 432 of 1994 arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 1991 under Section 307 read with Section 34 andSection 506I.P.C., Police Station -Majhila, District- Hardoi.3. In brief, facts of the case are that the informant Nirmal Singh lodged a complaint that he was chaukidar/watchman at a liquor shop. Two days earlier, Manoj of his village had come there and asked for a liquor pouch which was denied by him. Thereafter in the night of 4.5.1991 on account of aforesaid enmity, accused Manoj with a rifle, Rati Ram with a gun, Shambhu with stick and Chotey Bhaiya @ Babu Singh with a countrymade pistol came there and asked to open the shop, when he refused to open the shop and give liquor, the accused persons proceeded to open the shop and when he objected, accused Manoj with intention to kill him shot from the rifle which hit on his chest. Hearing his scream, owner of the shop Ramswaroop and his son Ramsagar reached there and saved him, they were also beaten by the accused persons. Hearing the commotion, when Naresh and other people of the village came there, the accused persons threatening to kill them, ran away towards south.4. On the basis of above written complaint, a case underSection 307,504and506I.P.C. was registered at crime no. 142 of 1991 and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the I.O. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, accused Shambhu died, hence, the case against him was abated.5. Following witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused:PW-1\n \nNirmal\n \nPW-2 \n \nRam Swaroop\n \nPW-3 \n \nNaresh\n \nPW-4 \n \nRameshwar\n \nPW-5 \n \nRam Sagar\n \nPW-6 \n \nDr. S.K.Rastogi\n \nPW-7 \n \nR.B.Singh, I.O.6. Following documentary evidence were relied on by the prosecution:Ex. Ka.-1\n \nWritten complaint\n \nEx. Ka.-2 \n \nX-ray report\n \nEx. Ka.-3 & 4, \n \nChik F.I.R. and Kayami G.D\n \nEx. Ka.-5, \n \nSite plan place of the incident\n \nEx. Ka-6 \n \nRecovery memo of bottle lamp\n \nEx. Ka.- 7\n \nRecovery memo of empty cartridge\n \nEx. Ka.-8 \n \nRecovery memo X-ray plate\n \nEx. Ka.-9\n \nCharge-sheet7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused u/s 313Cr.P.Cwas recorded wherein he outrightly denied all the charges and incriminating evidence against him and claimed to be innocent.8. In brief, evidence of the witnesses is reproduced hereinbelow:(a) P.W.-1, Nirmal, informant, has reiterated the version of the complaint Ex. ka-1 and has proved it.This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that it was a dark night, the liquor shop is opened in the morning and it would get shut at 10:00 'O' clock in the night. Due to threat of loot by the accused persons, the liquor shop had been closed in the noon on the date of occurrence. Such threat was given before Ramswaroop, Ramsagar and Sunder. Ram Bharose used to work as salesman at the liquor shop. Accused persons had already chased him away. This witness admitted that in the election of Gram Pradhan, Ramawatar, accused Babu Singh and Rajkumar were the candidates. Ramawtar had won the election. This witness has further admitted that a case of arsoning was lodged against him, elder brother of Kripal Singh and Chottey by the village Pradhan Ramawatar. The matter was settled amicably. A case of theft was also lodged against him, Vishnu and Rajpal. This case was also amicably settled. He does not know as to whether accused Babu Singh was a witness in arsoning case or not. At the time of incident he was lying on the cot. Due to fear injured Ramswaroop and Ram Sagar were also lying 10 steps away to the east from floor mill. As soon as the accused reached there, Manoj pointed the rifle at him, he caught it. Manoj fired from rifle at him which hit his stomach below the right rib. Accused Manoj was having gun, Shambu had country made pistol and Rati Ram had stick. As soon as he made noise, owner Rameshwar and his son Ram Sagar ran to save him but they were also beaten by sticks. Accused persons fled to the south after threatening to kill him. The witness recognized his thumb impression on the written complaint which was exhibited as Ex.Ka-1.(b) P.W.-2- Ram Swaroop, shop owner, has not supported the prosecution version and had been declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecution in which he admitted that he had seen the injuries sustained by Ram Sagar and Nirmal on the date of incident. According to this witness, at the time of incident he was in garden, when he reached at the place of occurrence, he had not seen the accused persons there.(c) P.W.-3, Naresh, has not supported the prosecution version. He has admitted that on the date of occurrence at about 11:00 P.M., Nirmal had sustained fire-arm injury but he did not see anyone firing upon him as it was a dark night. In cross-examination this witness admitted that upon hearing noise of altercation and scuffle, he and Nanhe went there and saw that Rameshwar and Ram Sagar were saving Nirmal. He had neither seen any accused assaulting Nirmal nor had heard the sound of fire. This witness denied his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.(d) P.W. 4, Rameshwar, has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 11:00 P.M. accused were abusing Nirmal, hearing which he and his son Ram Sagar went to resolve the dispute. In the meantime, a fire was shot which hit Nirmal and he fell down. He and his son Ram Sagar had not gone to save Nirmal. At the time of incident he was taking dinner. Accused persons present in the court had not hit Nirmal. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution in which he admitted that he and his son Ram Sagar had received injuries in the occurrence and they were treated in District Hospital, Hardoi. In the cross-examination by defence, this witness has deposed that it was a dark night and the assailants had masks on their faces due to which he could not recognise anyone.(e) P.W.-5, Ram Sagar, refused from taking oath, therefore, the Court concluded him to be incompetent witness.(f) P.W.-6., Dr. S.K. Rastogi, deposed that on 6.9.1991 he had examined injured Rameshwar and had conducted X-ray of his left fore-arm. According to this witness, lower part of the soft of radius bone was fractured. This witness has admitted his signature on X-ray report, Ex. Ka-2, and has also proved X-ray plate as M. Ex.-1.In cross-examination this witness admitted that if injured falls on a hard object from the right hand side, the bone may break.(g) P.W.-7. R.B. Singh, I.O, has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he was posted as S.O., Police Station Majhila. This witness has proved Chik F.I.R. and Kayami G.D. Ex. Ka-3 and Ka-4 which was written by constable V.K. Shukla.This witness has deposed that he started investigation on 5.9.1991, copied the chik F.I.R. and Kayami G.D., recorded the statement of informant and the injured Nirmal, Rameshwar and Ram Sagar, reached on the spot and recorded the statements of the witness Ram Swaroop and on his pointing prepared site plan Ex. Ka-5 in his handwriting and signature thereafter recorded the statement of Brij Kishor and Shiv Ram. He took bottle lamp in his possession and prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka-6. Recovered empty cartridge of 315 bore, sealed it and prepared recovery memo Ex Ka-7, recorded the statement of Smt. Mallo, wife of Nirmal. Received the medical report of injured Ram Sagar and endorsed it in the case-diary. He recorded the statements of Nanhe and Naresh and arrested the accused Shambhu on 20.9.1991 and also accused Chottey @ Babu Singh. He recorded the statements of accused persons. He obtained X-ray report and endorsed in case-diary, took X-ray plate into his possession and prepared its fird Ex.Ka-8. He recorded the statement of accused Rati Ram, witness of fird Ram Kumar and head constable Raj Kumar Sharma.On 26.11.1991, he sent the country made rifle, recovered from the possession of accused Manoj Kumar and empty cartridge sent for F.S.L. report. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet Ex. Ka-9 against all the four accused.9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded underSection 313Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations and charges levelled against them and has stated that the witnesses have given false evidence on account of enmity.10. After closure of the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Manoj and acquitted the rest of the accused persons. Being aggrieved convict Manoj has preferred this appeal.This appeal is decided as under:-11. According to the FIR, the incident had occurred at about 11 P.M. in the dark night of 4/5.9.1991. A charge underSection 307read withSection 34IPC had also been framed mentioning that the offence had occurred at about 11 p.m. but in the statement, the injured informant Nirmal has deposed that the offence had occurred at about 8 p.m. thus there is vast variation in the statement of the injured informant PW-1 and the contents of the FIR. Contrary to the statement of P.W.-1, according to P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, the offence had taken place at about 11 p.m. These three witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version in their testimony. There is no evidence of any doctor to suggest that the occurrence could have occurred at about 8 P.M. or 11 P.M. on 4/5.9.1991.12. According to the prosecution story the occurrence took place at about 11 p.m. in the night of 4/5.9.1991 while according to the injured informant P.W.-1 Nirmal it had occurred at about 8 p.m. The FIR had been lodged next day on 5.9.1991 at about 7.50 a.m. The injured PW-1 has given unrealistic statement at page-8 that after the incident he remain there whole night which appears to be impractical as if any person receives fire-arm injury below the rib on and over the stomach he would be immediately admitted to the hospital for treatment. According to the FIR, PW-2, 3 & 4 were present on the spot and PW-2, Ram Swarup and P.W.-4, Rameshwar had also received injuries but P.W.-1 has deposed that at the time of incident except he and his wife, none else was present in his house.13. According to injury reports, Ram Sagar, Rameshwar and Nirmal had received injuries. These injury reports were on record but the same had not been proved by the concerned doctor. Even these injury reports have not been proved by way of secondary evidence therefore these injury reports cannot be read in evidence. Though only X-Ray report and X-Ray plate with regard to injured Rameshwar have been proved by PW-6 Dr. S.K. Rastogi but in absence of proof, the injury reports of the injured persons cannot be looked into. Though the learned trial court has blamed the Government Advocate for not proving the same but by saying so, the learned trial court cannot escape from his liabilities. In a criminal trial the Sessions Judge or the Magistrate cannot sit as silent spectator. He has to play active role during the course of trial. There is no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial court has committed manifest error in not summoning the concerned witnesses for proving the relevant documents and medical reports etc. There is another adverse circumstance that injured witnesses P.W.-2, Ram Swaroop and P.W-.4, Rameshwar have not accepted that in connection of the present incident they had also received injuries.14. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Manoj hit the injured PW-1 by rifal or gun. There are variations in the evidence regarding weapon alleged to have been used by the appellant. According to FIR accused Manoj was having rifle in his hand and informant PW-1 has also given similar statement in his evidence but the same witness has deposed at page-6 that accused Manoj had gun in his hand from which he shot at him. Even at page-8 and 9 in the cross-examination this witness has deposed that he was shot by gun. Thus, it has not been clearly established that which weapon was used by appellant Manoj. However, the learned trial judge has tried his best to explain this point saying that since the informant PW-1 is a villager, therefore, he was not knowing the difference between a rifle and a gun. According to this Court, this explanation cannot be accepted when the informant has clearly mentioned in his FIR that accused Manoj was having rifle in his hand and rest of the accused persons were having country made pistol in their hands. Though the informant PW-1 is a villager but it is also noteworthy that he is claiming himself to be owner of half of the liquor shop. A liquor shop is such a place where generally rifle, gun, revolver and pistol holders used to visit and a simple villager knows the difference and can differentiate the same easily. The alleged weapons were not the foreign articles and the holder of these arms are often seen in village areas.15. It is also noteworthy that according to IO he had sent blood stained and plain soil, empty cartridge alleged to be recovered from the place of occurrence and the alleged gun recovered from the possession of the appellant Manoj but none of the reports is on record. No armorer's report is on record. Injury and injury reports with regard to the informant PW-1 have not been proved, therefore, it cannot be safely connected with this incident and it cannot be concluded that the injuries caused to the informant PW-1 had been occurred from the rifle/gun of the appellant Manoj.16. It is also noteworthy that it was a dark night and only a country made lamp is said to have lighted. The place of occurrence is not a small covered room where a bottle made lamp would provide enough light to recognize the accused persons scattered in a large area.17. It is also a case of defence that there were several enmies of the informant as he was running a liquor shop and the informant PW-1 has admitted in his evidence that there was also enmity on account of village Pradhan Election and he had also been accused in cases of arsoning and theft. At this score it is pertinent to mention that none of the lady family member of the injured PW-1 has been examined and PWs-2, 3 and 4 have not supported the prosecution version. PW-2, Ram Swarup has deposed that at the time of incident he was not present on the spot when he reached on the spot, none of the accused was present there, only 10-15 persons were present there. Even he denied the presence of Rameshwar son of Ram Sagar there. Though this witness has admitted that Rameshwar and Nirmal were seen in injured state. PW-3, Naresh has admitted that in the night at about 11 p.m., Nirmal received fire arm injuries but he had not seen the assailants as it was a dark night. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the State in which he stated that Rameshwar and his son Ram Sagar were defending Nirmal but he has not seen the accused person attacking upon the injured Nirmal. According to him he had also not heard the sound of fire and had not seen any person using the fire arm.18. PW-4, Rameshwar has given self-contradictory statement that accused persons were abusing the injured Nirmal meanwhile there was a fire which hit him and he fell down. Further this witness has clearly deposed that accused persons had not hit the injured Nirmal.19. In this case material exhibits were not produced in the court and the same have neither been proved nor exhibited.20. According to the informant injured P.W.-1, Nirmal he remain admitted for one month in the hospital for his treatment but neither such medical report in this regard has been submitted nor proved. It has already been mentioned that his medico legal report has not been proved.Thus on the basis of above discussion, it is concluded that neither the medical report nor the FSL report and the material exhibits have been proved. All the three witnesses of fact except the injured witness PW-1 have turned hostile. It was a dark night incident and the injured informant PW-1 had also criminal antecedents. Thus it could not be proved that accused Manoj had caused fire arm injury to the informant P.W.-1. In the aforesaid circumstances benefit of doubt goes in favour of the convict appellant. According to this Court there are no sufficient evidence on record to hold the accused Manoj guilty. The learned Additional sessions Judge has failed in appreciating the evidence in right perspective. The prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the prosecution case against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal succeeds and is liable to be allowed.Order\n \n The appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentencing dated 24.07.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Hardoi, is set aside. If the appellant is in jail, he would be set free immediately.A copy of this judgment alongwith lower court records be sent back to the concerned court for consignment.Order Date: 6.9.2023\n \nS.Verma/Shehroz\n \n \n \n\n \n (Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.)

cf344d3d-4e2f-5d86-b7df-d8f34314894b

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nJharkhand High Court\nM/S Mukesh Kumar Singh vs The Commissioner (Appeals) on 31 January, 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n W.P (T) No. 1524 of 2021\n\n M/s Mukesh Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner\n Versus\n 1. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services\n Tax & C. Ex., Ranchi\n 2. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C. Ex., Division-I, Jamshedpur\n --- --- Respondents\n ---\n CORAM: Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan\n ---\n For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate\n For the Resp.-CGST: M/s P.A.S. Pati, Ranjana Mukherjee, Advocates\n ---\n06 / 31.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n 2. Writ petition was preferred with the following prayer (s).\n a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,\n directing upon the Respondents, morefully Respondent No. 1 to\n show cause as to how the Appeal of the petitioner could be\n dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of mandatory pre-deposit,\n after having heard the Appeal on merits and without providing\n any instructions / assistance to the petitioner for making pre-\n deposit, when admittedly the petitioner is a non-registered dealer\n under the Service Tax Act.\n b. Consequent upon showing cause, if any, and on being satisfied\n that the Respondent No. 1 could not have dismissed the Appeal of\n the petitioner, without providing any instruction / assistance to\n the petitioner for making pre-deposit, when admittedly the\n petitioner is an unregistered dealer, the order dated 12.02.2021\n (Annexure-8), passed by the Respondent No. 1 be quashed and\n set aside.\n c. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,\n directing upon the Respondents to revive the appeal of the\n petitioner and decide it on merits, after issuing necessary\n instructions / assistance, to facilitate the petitioner to make\n mandatory pre-deposit.\n IN THE ALTERNATIVE\n d. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,\n quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-\n 4), passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST &\n Central Excise, Jamshedpur, whereby and where under the said\n authority has been pleased to impose service tax to the tune of Rs.\n 1,87,392/- along with interest on the confirmed demand, as also, a\n penalty of Rs. 1,87,392/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act,\n 1994, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the said Act,\n a separate penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(1)(a) and a\n penalty of Rs. 87,600/- under Section 77(1)(c)(ii) of the said Act,\n for the financial year 2014-15, which was communicated to the\n petitioner vide Order No. 18/S.Tax/Div-I/2020.\n\n 3. Petitioner, a non-registered dealer / Government contractor engaged in\n providing construction services to the State Government, on an impression that\n it is exempted from levy of service tax as per Entry No. 12/12A of Notification\n 2.\nNo. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-1), did not pay the service tax\nliability, as a result of which, he was faced with a proceeding under show-cause\nnotice dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure-2) issued by the Assistant Commissioner,\nCentral GST & CX, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 2). Petitioner participated in\nthe proceeding, but by Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2020, petitioner was\nsaddled with the liability of service tax to the tune of Rs. 1,87,392/- with\ninterest and penalty, treating the same as income of the petitioner (Annexure-\n4). The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner\n(Appeals), CGST & C. Ex on 11.09.2020 has been dismissed on the sole\nground of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit.\n4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was\nunregistered dealer, it was unable to make online payment of pre-deposit of\ninterest / penalty. Petitioner was bearing an impression that since he is a\nGovernment contractor and services are exempted, he is not liable to take\nregistration under the Act. However, since the appeal was dismissed only on\nthe ground of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax\nliability, he has preferred the instant writ petition.\n5. However, during course of the proceeding, learned counsel for the writ\npetitioner submitted that since the petitioner was unaware of the facility of\nmaking online payment through RBI Portal, he may be also allowed to make\npre-deposit so that appeal can be heard on merits. Petitioner did not have any\nintention to avoid making pre-deposit, but being unaware of RBI Instruction\nNo. RBI/2008-09/165 dated 05.09.2008, he could not make online payment of\npre-deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the other\ngrounds on merits of Order-in-Original.\n6. Learned counsel for the Respondents has objected to the plea relating to\nnon-payment of pre-deposit under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is\nsubmitted that the petitioner's plea of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit of\n7.5% of the Duty has been dealt with at paragraph-15 and 17 of the counter\naffidavit. It is submitted that dismissal of the appeal on the ground of non-\npayment of pre-deposit is not arbitrary, rather in accordance with law.\nHowever, learned counsel for the Respondents has placed before this Court\nFAQ issued by the CBIC in response to the query no. 5 and 6 making the\nfollowing answers:\n 3.\n (5) I don't have a PAN based registration, but I want to make a\n payment towards my old arrears. Can I make the payment\n without having to get myself registered?\n It is necessary to have a valid registration number from the\n Central Excise/Service Tax Department for making any payment.\n If you are not a regular assesse with the department but needs to\n effect e-payment, you can obtain registration as "Non-assessee"\n by logging into http://www.aces.gov.in and choosing the option\n "CENTRAL EXCISE" or "SERVICE TAX".\n (6) How will a non-assessee without a registration number pay\n any arrears or make any miscellaneous payment?\n Any person who wants to make payment of Central Excise duty\n or Service Tax but is not a registered assessee will have to get\n registered as 'non-assessee' under ACES at\n http://www.aces.gov.in. The Reserve Bank had issued instruction\n no. RBI/2008-09/165 dated 05.09.2008 to the banks to accept\n payments by such registered 'non-assessees'.\n\n 7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties\n and taken into account the relevant material facts placed from the pleadings on\n record in the light of the limited relief now being pressed by the petitioner.\n Admittedly, petitioner is an unregistered dealer. His appeal has been dismissed\n on the ground of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit. It does not appear that\n there was intent on the part of the petitioner to avoid payment of pre-deposit\n @7.5% as provided under the amended section 35F of Central Excise Act,\n 1944. Respondents have also adverted to the facility provided under the RBI\n Instruction for making such pre-deposit by unregistered dealer / registered non-\n assessees. In those circumstances, interest of justice would be met if the matter\n is remanded to the Appellate Authority. Petitioner is required to make pre-\n deposit within a period of four weeks from today.\n 8. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated\n 12.02.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST\n & CX, Ranchi (Respondent No. 1) is set aside. If the petitioner makes the\n mandatory pre-deposit within a period of four weeks, as indicated above,\n appeal shall be heard on merits.\n 9. Writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated\n hereinabove. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the\n case of the parties.\n (Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J)\n\n\n (Deepak Roshan, J)\nRanjeet/

e83f0053-a17a-5ffe-963d-fd35619b59a2

court_cases

Delhi High Court - OrdersSubhash Chander & Ors vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 October, 2023Author:Amit BansalBench:Amit Bansal$~50\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n + W.P.(CRL) 3131/2023 & CRL.M.A. 29053/2023 (stay)\n\n SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS. ..... Petitioners\n Through: Mr.Rishi Malhotra, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) with\n Mr.Jasraj Singh Chhabra, Mr.Amit\n Peswani and Ms.Anuka Bachawat,\n Advocates.\n SI Ajay Kumar, PS Jama Masjid.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL\n ORDER% 20.10.2023\n CRL.M.A. 29052/2023 (Exemption)1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The application is disposed of.CRL.M.A. 29054/2023 (Exemption from lengthy list of dates)3. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed.4. The application is disposed of.W.P.(CRL) 3131/20235. The present petition has been filed on behalf of 12 petitioners who\n have been convicted for various offences and have undergone substantial\n time in custody, details of which are reproduced below:-i) Petitioner No.1/Subhash Chander has already undergone total\n sentence of 18 years as on date in FIR No.175/2001 underW.P.(CRL) 3131/2023 Page 1 of 4This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:47:04Sections 307/343/120-Bof the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)\n andSections 25/27Arms Act, 1959(Arms Act) registered at\n Police Station (PS) New Ashok Nagar, Delhi;ii) Petitioner No.2/Mohd. Anwar has already undergone total\n sentence of 34 years as on date in FIR No.279/1992 underSection 302/307/34of the IPC andSections 25/27/54/59of the\n Arms Act andSection 5of the TADA (P) Act, 1987 registered at\n PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi;iii) Petitioner No.3/Chander Prakash has already undergone total\n sentence of 20 years as on date in FIR No.859/2004 underSection 302/201/34of the IPC andSection 25/54/59of the Arms\n Act registered at P.S. Sangam Vihar, Delhi;iv) Petitioner No.4/Jamir Ahmed @ Jamiruddin has already\n undergone total sentence of 18 years as on date in FIR\n No.216/1994 underSections 302/452/323of the IPC registered\n at PS Jama Masjid, Delhi;v) Petitioner No.5/Shamsher Singh has already undergone total\n sentence of 18 years as on date in FIR No.454/2008 underSection 376of the IPC registered at PS Narela, Delhi;vi) Petitioner No.6/Vijay Pal has already undergone total sentence of\n 24 years as on date in FIR No.119/2004 underSections\n 302/392/394/34of the IPC registered at PS Rohini, Delhi;vii) Petitioner No.7/Raju has already undergone total sentence of 19\n years as on date in FIR No.1196/2007 underSections\n 302/307/452/34of the IPC registered at PS Sultan Puri, Delhi;viii) Petitioner No.8/Jagbandhu Dass @ Tinku @ Tukku has alreadyW.P.(CRL) 3131/2023 Page 2 of 4This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:47:04\n undergone actual sentence of 20 years as on date in FIR\n No.111/2006 underSections 302/394/34of the IPC registered at\n PS Sri Niwas Puri, Delhi.ix) Petitioner No.9/Mohd. Salauddin has already undergone total\n sentence of 17 years as on date in FIR No.66/2009 underSections 376/506of the IPC registered at PS Shahdara, Delhi;x) Petitioner. No.10/Kulwant Singh @ Bittu has already undergone\n total sentence of 28 years as on date in FIR No.277/1992 underSection 302of the IPC registered at PS Tilak Nagar, Delhi;xi) Petitioner No.11/Ombir Singh has already undergone total\n sentence of 28 years as on date in FIR No.928/2003 under\n Sections 324/325/342/376(2)F of theIPCregistered at PS Uttam\n Nagar, Delhi;xii) Petitioner No.12/Manish has to surrender on or before 27th\n October, 2023 and has already undergone total sentence of 20\n years as on date in FIR No.50/2008 underSections\n 302/364/392/394/201/34of the IPC andSection 25of the Arms\n Act registered at PS Palam Airport, New Delhi6. The following prayers are made in the present petition: -"A. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of\n Mandamus to the Respondents to consider the case of the\n Petitioners for pre-mature release under the policy dated\n 16.7.04;B. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of\n Mandamus to the State Government and direct the release\n ·of the petitioners under the policy of premature release dated\n 16.7.04 forthwith;"W.P.(CRL) 3131/2023 Page 3 of 4This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:47:057. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners only presses prayer (A)\n above. He submits that none of the petitioners have been considered for\n premature release by the respondent/State as per its policy dated 16th July,\n 2004. Further, he has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 17th\n October, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court, whereby while dismissing the\n petition underArticle 32of the Constitution of India, liberty has been given\n to the petitioners to approach this Court and the furloughs granted to the\n petitioners have been extended for a period of four weeks.8. Issue notice.9. Notice is accepted by the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the\n State.10. Let a Status Report be filed with details on each of the 12 petitioners.11. The furlough granted to the petitioners by the Supreme Court stands\n extended till the next date of hearing.12. List on 6th December, 2023.AMIT BANSAL, J.OCTOBER 20, 2023\n rtW.P.(CRL) 3131/2023 Page 4 of 4This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:47:05

bbfeaea3-6f83-5dfe-abee-1c8e32f0a1cd

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nJharkhand High Court\nDharmendra Prasad Sahi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 February, 2022 1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n Cr.M.P. No. 2270 of 2021\n\n Dharmendra Prasad Sahi, son of late Ramanuj Shahi, aged about 55\n years, resident of village Gandhanpura, P.O. Nowama, P.S. Sakurabad,\n District-Jahanabad.\n ...... Petitioner\n Versus\n\nThe State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party\n ---------\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI\n ---------\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate\nFor the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.\n\n\n04/Dated: 09/02/2022\n Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and\n\nMr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.\n\n2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of\n\nthe guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to\n\nCOVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical\n\nsnag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.\n\n3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal\n\nproceeding as well as order dated 10.08.2020 passed by the learned Sub-\n\nDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case\n\nNo. 02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 05/2017(A) whereby\n\ncognizance has been taken, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional\n\nJudicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.\n\n4. The F.I.R. was instituted stating therein that on 02.01.2017 at\n\nabout 4.50 P.M., search was made by the informant with the help of other\n\npersonnel of the Jail, wherein one mobile with SIM and battery was recovered\n\nfrom under trial prisoner namely Aman Sao who is notorious criminal and\n\nhaving nexus with Maoist organization.\n\n5. Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits\n 2\n\nthat the petitioner is a warden. He submits that there is no material against\n\nthe petitioner but inspite of that case has been lodged against him and\n\ncognizance has been taken. He further submits that cognizance order is not in\n\naccordance with law.\n\n6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in\n\nthe impugned order.\n\n7. The Court has perused the materials on record. Chargesheet has\n\nbeen submitted and in the chargesheet the name of the petitioner has been\n\nfigured. How the mobile in question entered into the jail premises, is the\n\nsubject matter of investigation. It has been found to be true in the\n\nchargesheet. It was the duty of the warden not to allow such thing enter in jail\n\npremises. Chargesheet has already been submitted. What are materials in the\n\nchargesheet that is not before this Court. The concerned court after going\n\nthrough the material on record has taken cognizance. Reference may be made\n\nto the case of "Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P." reported in (2021) 9 SCC\n\n35 wherein para 9.1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:\n\n "9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case\n the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has\n quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147,\n 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the\n High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the\n criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording\n the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and\n collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking\n statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the\n accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned\n Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and\n 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From\n the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it does not\n appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected\n during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the\n petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the\n allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and\n whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be\n considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded,\n evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the\n investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court\n is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the\n investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court\n in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the\n merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the\n 3\n\n High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the\n trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel in order to\n examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable\n offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency\n nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed\n and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view,\n the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.\n At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw\n its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is\n further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It\n is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the\n investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to\n examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such\n material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such\n material."\n\n 8. Mens-rea cannot be decided at the stage of issuing summons.\n\n When prosecution relies upon the materials, strict standard of proof is not to be\n\n applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable\n\n defence which the accused may take all that the Court is required to do is to\n\n satisfy as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding before\n\n summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they\n\n appear on the very face of it for issuance of process against the accused, it\n\n has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against\n\n the accused and the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of\n\n materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the\n\n charge-sheet and evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient\n\n ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits\n\n and demerits of case and not to determine the adequacy of evidence for\n\n holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the\n\n possible defences. The possible defences need not be taken into consideration\n\n at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex facie defence such as a\n\n legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable, all these are subject matter of the\n\n trial. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal\n\n miscellaneous petition is dismissed.\n (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)\nSatyarthi/

e3dde7b2-7b72-5eef-9bfe-d7f83e23900b

court_cases

Supreme Court - Daily OrdersAmanpreet Singh vs Republic Of India on 6 May, 2021IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 468/2021\n [@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3399/2021]\n\n\n AMANPREET SINGH Appellant(s)\n\n VERSUS\n\n REPUBLIC OF INDIA Respondent(s)\n\n O R D E RLeave granted.It cannot be disputed that the prosecution did not seek the\n\n interrogation of the appellant on or before filing of the charge\n\n sheet. Charge sheet has been filed. This being the position,\n\n learned counsel for the appellant confines the relief only to\n\n appear before the Trial Court and apply for regular bail and he be\n\n not arrested in that period of time.In the given factual situation, we grant protection to the\n\n appellant for a period of 8 weeks, within which he may apply for\n\n regular bail before the Trial Court and obtain necessary orders.The criminal appeal stands disposed of.\n\n Pending application, if any, stands disposed of...........................,J.[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]\n\n\n ..........................,J.[HEMANT GUPTA]\n NEW DELHI;Signature Not Verified\n\n\n MAY 06, 2021\nDigitally signed by\nMEENAKSHI KOHLI\nDate: 2021.05.07\n17:38:43 IST\nReason:1ITEM NO.18 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-B\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\n\nCriminal Appeal No(s). 468/2021 @ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)\nNo(s). 3399/2021\n\nAMANPREET SINGH Appellant(s)\n\n VERSUS\n\nREPUBLIC OF INDIA Respondent(s)(FOR I.R. and IA No. 52814/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL\nDOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)\n\nDate : 06-05-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today.\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA\n\nFor Appellant(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.Mr. Ajay Khanna, Adv.Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR\n Ms. Ankita Kedia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG\n Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR\n\n UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n\n O R D E R\n\n Leave granted.The criminal appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed\n\norder.Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.\n\n\n\n(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (R.S. NARAYANAN)\nASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER\n [Signed order is placed on the file]2

c471006e-986d-53f0-a7d4-ec6b69a1335e

court_cases

Madras High CourtShanawaz Khan vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 June, 2022Author:T.RajaBench:T.RajaW.P.No.11642 of 2022\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n DATED : 06.06.2022\n\n CORAM\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA\n AND\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KABALI KUMARESH BABU\n\n W.P.No.11642 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.11112 of 2022\n\n Shanawaz Khan .. Petitioner\n\n -vs-\n\n 1. The Secretary to the Government,\n Housing and Urban Development,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai - 600 009.\n\n 2. The Member Secretary,\n Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,\n Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,\n No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,\n Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.\n\n 3. The Senior Planning Officer,\n Enforcement Cell,\n CMDA North Divison, Zone-7,\n Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,\n No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,\n Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents\n Prayer: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India,\n praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the\n\n 1/12\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n W.P.No.11642 of 2022\n\n records from the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned de-occupation\n notice issued in letter No.EC/N-II/13099/2017 dated 05.01.2022 and quash\n the same and further direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to take any further\n action till the revision filed by the petitioner dated 29.11.2021 is disposed\n by the 1st respondent.\n For Petitioner :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for\n Mr.R.Rajaram\n\n For Respondents :: Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar\n Special Government Pleader\n for R1\n\n Mr.R.Sivakumar,\n Standing Counsel for\n CMDA/R2 & R3\n\n ORDER(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)\n\n This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the\n\n impugned de-occupation notice dated 05.01.2022 issued pursuant to the\n\n locking and sealing and demolition notice dated 03.11.2021 issued by the\n\n Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short, “the CMDA”), the\n\n second respondent herein, to quash the same with a consequential direction\n\n to respondents 2 & 3 not to take any further action till the revision filed by\n\n the petitioner dated 29.11.2021 is disposed of by the first respondent.2/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 20222.Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner\n\n submitted that when the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, “the\n\n LIC”) advertised in the newspaper in the year 1993 inviting applicants for\n\n the purchase of single, double and three bedroom flats at Jeevan Bhima\n\n Nagar, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai, the petitioner purchased the\n\n respective flat. Thereafter, when he started occupying the flat, he was\n\n shocked to find out that there were no basic civil and social amenities\n\n provided in the entire complex. After finding out the defective and sub-\n\n standard construction, which are full of deficiencies in more than one way,\n\n he had given representation to rectify the defects. The Jeevan Bhima Nagar\n\n Flat Owners Welfare Association also approached the LIC urging them to\n\n rectify the defects on a war footing so as to safeguard the lives and\n\n properties of the residents. Unfortunately, there was no response and they\n\n disowned their liability altogether. Therefore, the Welfare Association\n\n approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New\n\n Delhi by filing a petition underSection 21of the Consumer Protection Act\n\n seeking a direction to the LIC to rectify all the defects in the construction\n\n and also to strengthen the beams and columns wherever deep and long3/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022cracks were visibly found. Considering the case of the Association, the\n\n National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission took up the Original\n\n Petition No.155 of 1996 and during the course of trial, by order dated\n\n 8.11.2002, appointed a Professor from the Civil Engineering Department,\n\n IIT, Madras to inspect the colony and submit a report and the\n\n Commissioner, after inspecting the entire colony and all the 800 flats,\n\n submitted his report in April, 2005 to the National Consumer Disputes\n\n Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Thereafter, on the request of the LIC,\n\n the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission again appointed\n\n one Mr.Subramanian, the then Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes\n\n Redressal Commission, Chennai as a Commissioner to inspect all the flats\n\n and submit a report, vide order dated 17.02.2006. Accordingly, the\n\n Commissioner submitted his report certifying that there were cracks more\n\n visible in the staircases, portico and all the RCC pillars ranging from earth\n\n to terrace and the connecting cross beams were full of cracks explicitly\n\n visible. But the LIC did not carry out any repair. Therefore, the Association\n\n again went back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,\n\n New Delhi on the inaction shown by the LIC for carrying out the work of4/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022strengthening the buildings. Finally, the National Consumer Disputes\n\n Redressal Commission, vide order dated 10.01.2007, asked the Joint\n\n Registrar of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to visit\n\n the colony and submit a report. Again, when the report dated 09.02.2007\n\n was submitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a\n\n direction was issued to the LIC on 02.01.2013 to carry out the work of\n\n strengthening the buildings and also imposed costs of Rs.5 lakhs. But the\n\n LIC failed to rectify the defects.3.Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also\n\n submitted that finding no positive response, the Association also lodged a\n\n criminal complaint on 14.07.2007 before the V3, J.J.Nagar Police Station.\n\n In the meanwhile, the second respondent-CMDA issued the locking and\n\n sealing and demolition notice dated 03.11.2021 underSection 56(2)(iii)and\n\n (2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971requiring discontinuation\n\n of the usage of the deviated/un-authorised building and also to restore the\n\n construction in compliance with the planning permission granted underSection 49of the Act. Challenging the same, Appeal/Revision under5/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022Section 80-Aof the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act has been\n\n filed before the first respondent and the same is pending. When the\n\n petitioner/resident of Jeevan Bhima Nagar is belonging to the middle class\n\n and he has also purchased the flat by spending his hard earned money,\n\n which is found to be with all defects, if he is forced to vacate the premises,\n\n he would be put to face irreparable loss. Therefore, he was advised to come\n\n to this Court. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the\n\n petitioner submitted that the petitioner was misled by the promoter/LIC, as\n\n though he had constructed the building as per the standards prescribed by\n\n law without leaving any room for raising any complaint whatsoever. When\n\n the petitioner is innocent and bona fide purchaser of the flat, the impugned\n\n action initiated by the CMDA is unjustified. Therefore, he had filed\n\n appeal/revision before the first respondent. In the meanwhile, if the building\n\n in question occupied by the petitioner, belonging to middle class and\n\n purchased with the hard earned money is demolished, the loss to be suffered\n\n by him cannot be assessed, hence, the impugned notice is liable to be set\n\n aside.6/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 20224. Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader\n\n appearing for the first respondent, relying upon the status report,\n\n emphatically submitted that when it is the admitted case of the petitioner\n\n that challenging the locking and sealing and demolition notice dated\n\n 03.11.2021, the petitioner had filed appeal/revision underSection 80-Aof\n\n the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, as per the well settled\n\n legal position, the petitioner cannot maintain two proceedings, one before\n\n the appellate authority underSection 80-Aof the Act and the other before\n\n this Court invokingArticle 226of the Constitution of India. Continuing his\n\n arguments, he submitted that the invocation of the writ jurisdiction underArticle 226is normally denied, on the premise that if the petitioner is\n\n having an effective and alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition should\n\n be dismissed directing him to approach the appellate authority for suitable\n\n relief. Again drawing our notice to paragraph-4 of the status report,\n\n Mr.Sajeev Kumar stated that there are 214 violators, out of them, 180\n\n appellants including the present petitioner, have filed the revision petitions\n\n underSection 80-Aof the Act for the subject buildings in question. When\n\n the petitioner had filed individual appeal before the statutory appellate7/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022authority, the appellate authority is bound to dispose of the appeal, on\n\n merits and as per law, after receipt of the report from the CMDA. Therefore,\n\n the petitioner cannot approach this Court when his appeal/revision underSection 80-Aof the Act is pending before the appellate authority for\n\n disposal, on merits and in accordance with law.5.Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for\n\n respondents 2 & 3 submitted that after filing the appeals under Section 80-A\n\n of the Act, 120 members of the Association have also responded to the\n\n CMDA by giving detailed representations and the same also have been\n\n forwarded to the appellate authority where the appeals are pending. Learned\n\n counsel also informed this Court that the individual applications filed underSection 113-Cof the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act will also\n\n be dealt with by the second respondent in the manner known to law, after\n\n the outcome of the appeal filed underSection 80-Aof the Act,\n\n expeditiously.8/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 20226. Since the status report dated 9th April, 2022 filed by the Additional\n\n Secretary to Government (Technical), Housing and Urban Development\n\n Department, Chennai shows that the petitioner had already approached the\n\n appellate authority, the first respondent herein by filing statutory appeal\n\n underSection 80-Aof the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and\n\n the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent\n\n also informed this Court that his appeal, after receipt of the report from the\n\n CMDA, will be disposed of, on merits and as per law, in the light of the\n\n averments made in paragraph-8 of the status report that at present around\n\n 2444 revision petitions have been filed and in several cases, appeals are\n\n being disposed of in compliance of the time bound orders that are being\n\n passed by this Court, we hereby direct the first respondent, namely, the\n\n Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department to\n\n consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits and dispose of the same\n\n in accordance with law expeditiously. Since the petitioner had also moved\n\n stay application and the authority has not taken up the stay application, we\n\n also direct respondents 2 & 3 and the petitioner to maintain status quo, till\n\n the appeal/revision is disposed of by the first respondent, on merits and as9/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022per law expeditiously. We also place on record the submission made by the\n\n learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 that the\n\n individual applications filed underSection 113-Cof the Tamil Nadu Town\n\n and Country Planning Act will also be dealt with by the second respondent\n\n in the manner known to law, after the outcome of the appeal/revision filed\n\n underSection 80-A, expeditiously.7. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is\n\n disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.M.P.No.11112 of 2022 is closed.\n\n However, there is no order as to costs.Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,J.) (K.B.,J.)\n Index : yes/no 06.06.20222/3vga10/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022To\n\n 1. The Secretary to Government\n Housing and Urban Development Department\n Fort St.George\n Chennai\n\n 2. The Member Secretary\n Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority\n Thalamuthu Natarajan Building\n No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road\n Egmore, Chennai 600 008\n\n 3. The Senior Planning Officer\n Enforcement Cell\n CMDA North Divison, Zone-7\n Thalamuthu Natarajan Building\n No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road\n Egmore, Chennai 600 00811/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.No.11642 of 2022T.RAJA, J.\n and\n KABALI KUMARESH BABU,J.\n\n vga\n\n\n\n\n W.P.No.11642 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.11112 of 2022\n\n\n\n\n 06.06.20222/312/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

e77ca617-1a46-5049-9231-bb31089da858

court_cases

Madras High CourtN.Ramar vs The Principal Accountant General on 7 October, 2021Author:S.S.SundarBench:S.S.SundarW.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014\n\n\n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n DATED: 07.10.2021\n\n CORAM\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR\n\n W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014\n and\n M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014\n N.Ramar ... Petitioner\n vs.\n\n 1.The Principal Accountant General,\n (Accounts and Entitlements)Tamilnadu,\n Accountant General Office,\n 281, Annasalai, Chennai.\n\n 2.The Director,\n Elementary Education,\n Directorate of Elementary Education,\n College Road, DPI Campus, Chennai.\n\n 3.The District Elementary Education Officer,\n Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.\n\n 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer,\n Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents\n\n PRAYER: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records\n relating to the Government letter for PEN 18/3/416, dated 13.12.2012,\n passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the\n\n 1/18\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014\n\n\n respondents to revise and refix the petitioner's pension as per the\n petitioner's correct increment from 01.07.2008.\n\n For Petitioner : Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome\n for Mr.S.Alagusundar\n For R-1 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran\n For R2-R4 :Mr.M.Linga Durai\n Government Advocate\n *****\n\n\n ORDERThis Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\n\n Mandamus, to quash the Government letter issued by the first\n\n respondent, dated 13.12.2012, and to direct the respondents to revise and\n\n refix the petitioner's pension, as per his correct pay by taking into\n\n account the correct increment from 01.07.2008.2.Heard Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, learned Counsel\n\n appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Counsel\n\n appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned\n\n Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 to 4.3.The petitioner is a retired Teacher, who retired on 31.08.2008.2/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014He originally joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1975 at\n\n Thombakulam, Srivilliputtur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner\n\n was then promoted as Headmaster and posted at Nallakamalapuram on\n\n 05.07.1995. Subsequently, on 27.09.1995, he was promoted as Middle\n\n School Headmaster (Graduate cadre). It is admitted that on 14.08.2002,\n\n the petitioner was promoted as Additional Assistant Elementary\n\n Education Officer and posted at Radhapuram Range in Tiruneveli\n\n District.4.While in service, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo\n\n under Section-17B of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal)\n\n Rules. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended\n\n with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months\n\n without cumulative effect. The order of punishment, dated 15.04.2008,\n\n was just four months before the petitioner's retirement.5.The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ\n\n Petition stated that his next increment date falls due on 01.07.2008.\n\n Since the punishment was stoppage of increment for a period of three3/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014months ie., from 01.07.2008 to 01.10.2008 and the petitioner retired on\n\n 31.08.2008, it is stated that the order of punishment, dated 15.04.2008,\n\n has been interpreted to deny the petitioner's benefit of increment that fell\n\n due on 01.07.2008. It is stated that the fourth respondent by order, dated\n\n 21.07.2008, directed the stoppage of increment for three months and to\n\n re-deposit the amount towards third month in Government account.6.The grievance of the petitioner is that he is receiving pension\n\n calculating the increment that was given to the petitioner upto 2007.\n\n Though the increment for the month of August 2008 was not given due to\n\n the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner submitted that\n\n the annual increment, which was due from January 2008 or from\n\n 01.07.2008, cannot be neglected for the purpose of calculating pension.7.Earlier, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court to\n\n revise and refix his pension, as per the increment that was due to the\n\n petitioner from August 2008. By an order, dated 24.04.2012, the Writ\n\n Petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court with a\n\n direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the4/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014petitioner, dated 25.07.2011, and pass appropriate orders on merits.\n\n Thereafter, the second respondent has forwarded the proposal to the first\n\n respondent, who in turn, passed the impugned order holding that the\n\n petitioner is not eligible for the increment, which fell due from\n\n 01.07.2008. Stating that the petitioner was admitted in hospital due to\n\n his illness, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only in 2014.8.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that\n\n the impugned order of first respondent is violative ofArticle 14of\n\n Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice. The\n\n learned Counsel then relied upon the proceedings of the fourth\n\n respondent, dated 21.07.2008, which is extracted below:“=tpy;ypg;Gj;J}h; xd;wpak;> ,dhk;fhpry;Fsk;> Cuhl;rp\n xd;wpa eLeiyg; gs;spj; jiyik Mrphpah; jpU.eP.,uhkh;>\n vd;ghUf;F jpUney;Ntyp khtl;lk;> ,uhjhGuk; $Ljy; cjtp\n njhlf;f fy;tp mYtyuhfg; gdpahw;wpa fhyj;jpy;> md;dhh;kPJ jkpo;ehL FbKiwg; gzpfs; (xOq;F kw;Wk;\n Nky;KiwaPL) tpjpfspy;17(gp)d;gb xOq;F eltbf;ifNkw;nfhz;L> mt;tpjpapd; fPohd Fw;wr;rhl;L> jd;dpiy\n tpsf;fk;> tprhuiz mwpf;if Mfpait njhlf;f\n fy;tp ,af;Feh; mth;fshy; Ma;T nra;ag;gl;L md;dhhpd;\n mLj;J tUk; xU Cjpa cah;tpid %d;W khj fhyj;jpw;F\n epWj;jk; nra;a KbT nra;ag;gl;L mt;thNw md;dhhpd;\n mLj;J tUk; Cjpa cah;it jpuz;l gadpd;wp %d;W\n khjk; epWj;jk; nra;J (stoppage of one increment for three\n months without cumulative effect) ghh;itapy; fhZk;\n nray;Kiwfspy; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.md;dhhpd; mLj;j Cjpacah;T ehs; 01.01.2008.md;dhh; Xa;T ngWk; ehs; 31.8.08 (gpwe;j Njjp 24.8.50)5/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014vd;gjhy;> md;dhh; ,uz;L khj fhyNk gzpapy; ,Uf;f\n Ntz;ba epiy cs;sJ.vdNt> ghh;itapy; fhZk; ,af;Feh; mth;fspd;nray;Kiwfspy; fz;l cj;jutpd;gb> md;dhuJ mLj;j\n Cjpa cah;tpid (01.07.08) ,uz;L khj fhyj;jpw;F epWj;jp\n itj;Jk;> %d;whtJ khjj;jpw;Fhpa Cjpa cah;Tj;njhifapid chpa gbfSld; muRf; fzf;fpy; jpUk;gr;nrYj;jp mjw;fhd mry; nrYj;Jr; rPl;bid\n cldbahf ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itf;fTk;\n cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.”9.The fact that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,821/- in lieu of\n\n punishment for stoppage of increment for three months is not in dispute.From the communication of the fourth respondent, dated 21.07.2008, the\n\n learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's next\n\n increment was due from 01.01.2008. Though the fourth respondent by\n\n this order directed the petitioner to pay the increment that was due for the\n\n three months before retirement, it is contended that the petitioner has\n\n paid a sum of Rs.1,821/- towards the increment for three months.\n\n Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents for disbursement of\n\n pensionary benefits. By the impugned order, the first respondent directed\n\n the second respondent to note that no revision of pensionary benefits is\n\n admissible to the petitioner and that therefore, the pension proposals and\n\n service register are returned for further action by the second respondent.\n\n From the narration of events and the discussion, this Court is able to see6/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014that the first respondent has recorded the following facts.“a)The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer has\n\n forwarded the revised proposals for revision of pensionary benefits after\n\n awarding an increment for 01.07.2008. It is specifically noted that\n\n increment fell due on 01.07.2008 was not awarded to the petitioner on\n\n account of imposition of penalty of stoppage of increment for three\n\n months without cumulative effects.b)The second respondent interpreted the rules to mean that the\n\n recovery of monetary value is not an independent punishment by itself\n\n and it can be resorted to, when the main punishment covered by Rule\n\n 8(iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, cannot\n\n be given effect to.c)The recovery of equivalent monetary value is not a substitution\n\n for main punishment. In all such cases, where increment should not be\n\n drawn and in addition, the monetary value should also be recovered for\n\n the unexpired portion of the punishment.10.From the above, it is seen that the second respondent has\n\n rejected the proposal for revision of pensionary benefits to the petitioner7/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014mainly on the interpretation of the rules. It is pointed out by the learned\n\n Counsel for the petitioner that the rule, which was quoted in the order of\n\n second respondent, is not the relevant rule. However, he admitted that\n\n the same rule is found in Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline\n\n and Appeal) Rules. It is relevant to extract Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu\n\n Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which read as follows:“8.The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason\n and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon every person who is a\n member of the civil service of the State and every person holding a\n civil post under the State specified in rule 2, namely :-(i) Censure;(ii) Fine (in the case of persons for whom such penalty is\n permissible under these rules) ;(iii) Withholding of increments or promotion ;* Provided that the penalty of withholding of increment shall\n not be imposed on a Government servant, if the said penalty cannot be\n given effect to fully while in service :Provided further that incases where the penalty of withholding\n of increment cannot be given effect to fully for any contingency that\n arose after the penalty of withholding of increment is imposed, the\n monetary value equivalent to the amount of such increments that can\n not be given effect to shall be recovered from the person : Provided\n also that in cases of withholding of increment with cumulative effect,\n the monetary value equivalent to three times the amount of increments\n ordered to be withheld shall be recovered.( vide G.O.Ms.No.113, Personnel and Administrative Reforms\n (N) Department dated 2.8.2006) ( with effect from 2.8.2006)(iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower\n post not being lower than that to which he was directly recruited,\n whether in the same service or in another service, State or\n Subordinate, or to a lower time-scale, not being lower than that to\n which he was directly recruited, or to a lower stage in a time-scale ;Provided that in cases where the punishment of reduction to a\n lower stage in a time-scale cannot be given effect to fully, the monetary\n value equivalent to the difference in emoluments as a result of\n reduction to such lower stage in the time-scale for the unexpired8/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014period of the punishment shall be recovered from the person.(v) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary\n loss caused to the State Government or the Central Government or to\n any Government Company or Organisation or Local Authority or to a\n Local Body, while on deputation, by negligence or breach of orders;(vi) Compulsory retirement;(vii) Removal from the Civil Service of the State Government;(viii) Dismissal from the Civil Service of the State Government;\n and(ix) Suspension, where a person has been suspended under rule\n 17(e), to the extent considered necessary by the authority imposing the\n penalty.The penalties mentioned in items (i) to (iii), (v) and (ix) shall be\n deemed to be minor penalties and those in items (iv) and (vi) to (viii)\n shall be deemed as major penalties.The penalties mentioned in items (vi),(vii) or (viii), as the case\n may be, shall be imposed on a Government servant for the violation of\n rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1973.Explanation-I .- The discharge,-(i) of a person appointed on probation before the expiry or at\n the end of the prescribed or extended period of probation ; or(ii) of a person engaged under contract, in accordance with the\n terms of his contract ; or(iii) of a person appointed, otherwise than under contract, to\n hold a temporary appointment on the expiration of the period of the\n appointment, does not amount to the removal or dismissal within the\n meaning of this rule.Explanation-II.- The following shall not amount to a penalty\n within the meaning of this rule, namely :-(i) withholding of increments of pay of a Government servant\n for his failure to pass any Departmental examination in accordance\n with the rules or orders governing the Service to which he belongs or\n post which he holds or the terms of his appointments;(ii) non-promotion of a Government servant, whether in a\n substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case, to a\n service, grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible;(iii) reversion of Government servant officiating in a higher\n service, grade or post to a lower service, grade or post, on the ground\n that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or\n post or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct;(iv) reversion of a Government servant, appointed on probation\n to any other service, grade or post, to his permanent service, grade or\n post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with\n the terms of his appointment or to the rules and orders governing such9/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014probation;(v) replacement of the services of a Government servant, whose\n services had been borrowed from a State Government or the Central\n Government or an authority under the control of a State Government\n or the Central Government at the disposal of the State Government or\n the Central Government or the authority from which the services of\n such Government servant had been borrowed; and(vi) compulsory retirement of a Government servant in\n accordance with the provisions relating to superannuation or\n retirement.Explanation-III .- The removal of a person from the civil\n service of the State Government shall not disqualify him for future\n employment but the dismissal of a person from the Civil Service of the\n State Government shall ordinarily disqualify him for future\n employment”11.From the way in which the second respondent interpreted the\n\n Rule 8(iii), this Court is of the view that the second respondent has\n\n interpreted Rule 8(iii) quite opposite to the object and the meaning, that\n\n was conveyed by the Rule itself. Rule 8(iii) refers to withholding of\n\n increments or promotion as one of the punishments. The first proviso\n\n clearly says that the punishment of withholding of increment shall not be\n\n normally imposed on a Government servant, if the penalty cannot be\n\n given effect to fully while in service.12.In the present case, the petitioner was imposed with a\n\n punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months10/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014without cumulative effect. The order of punishment was dated\n\n 15.04.2008, and taking that the punishment was in force for a period of\n\n three months from 15.04.2008, the punishment was over before the date\n\n of retirement. In other words, the punishment was to commence from\n\n 15.04.2008 and it will end on 15.07.2008, that is before retirement.\n\n However, on the basis of previous communication, the respondents as\n\n well as the petitioner presumed that the punishment commenced from\n\n 01.07.2008. Therefore, it is a case where such punishment cannot be\n\n imposed, as per the first proviso.13.The second proviso squarely applies to the case on hand\n\n explaining the situation and provides the only option that is given to the\n\n employer. The second proviso now recommends a punishment of\n\n recovery from the person, when the penalty of withholding of increment\n\n cannot be given effect to. Therefore, the petitioner, who retired on\n\n 31.08.2008, can be imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for\n\n a period, which would continue after his retirement. However, there can\n\n be recovery of a sum, which is equivalent to the monetary value of\n\n increment for three months. In this case, if the punishment was on the11/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014basis of second proviso, there cannot be a further punishment than\n\n recovery of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments\n\n for three months.14.Very strangely, the second respondent by the impugned order\n\n came to the conclusion that the punishment that was suggested by second\n\n and third proviso to Rule 8, is only additional and that the person, whose\n\n increment is due from 01.07.2008, cannot be given the benefit of\n\n increment, as the punishment of stoppage of increment will be over only\n\n after the period of retirement. This is not only arbitrary but also illegal\n\n and not supported by the Rule. In the impugned order, Rules 8(iii) and\n\n 8(v)(b) of Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is quoted. Hence,\n\n the impugned order is based on a Rule, which is not applicable, as no\n\n Rule 8(v)(b) is found in Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and\n\n Appeal) Rules.15.The learned Counsel for the first respondent relied upon a\n\n judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal\n\n Accountant General and another vs C.Subbarao reported in 2005 (2)12/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014ALD 1, wherein, the point framed for consideration was whether a\n\n Government servant, who retires on the last working day of the\n\n proceeding month and whose annual increment falls due on the first of\n\n the succeeding month, is entitled for sanction of annual increment for the\n\n purpose of pension and gratuity. That was a peculiar case, where, the\n\n Government servant retired on the last day of the previous year, whereas,\n\n his next increment falls due on the first day of next year. Though it was\n\n contended by the Government servant that he had worked for the whole\n\n year and earned for the next increment, the High Court, based on the\n\n interpretation of Rules and regulation, rendered a specific finding that\n\n from the date of retirement, the petitioner therein ceased to be\n\n Government servant and that a Government servant, who retires on his\n\n last working day would not be entitled to any pay or any other benefits\n\n connected to his pay. Since annual increment payable to a Government\n\n servant will accrue from the date following the date on which it is\n\n earned, it is further held that the Government servant would get a right\n\n for annual increment only after completion of the year and that therefore,\n\n on the date when the increment falls due, it would not become payable.13/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 201416.The issue or question that arose before the Andhra Pradesh\n\n High Court has nothing to do with the present case, which revolves\n\n around a different factual and legal basis. The Andhra Pradesh High\n\n Court has held that the Government servant, who retired on the last\n\n working day of the month, shall be ceased to be a Government employee\n\n with effect from the mid night of that day and immediately after\n\n commencement of next day, that is after mid night, he becomes\n\n pensioner. It was further held that the Government servant, who was\n\n paid pension after his retirement, shall not be deemed to be on duty and\n\n therefore, annual increment cannot be sanctioned to the retired\n\n Government servant after his service.17.In the present case, the only factual issue that was raised by the\n\n the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that the increment fell due\n\n only on 01.07.2008 and that the punishment of stoppage of increment for\n\n three months should commence from 01.07.2008. It was also submitted\n\n that the increment fell due from 01.07.2008. The submissions of the\n\n learned Counsel for the first respondent is without any factual\n\n background. In this case, the increment was due from 01.01.2008. Even14/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014in the communication of the fourth respondent, dated 21.07.2008, it is\n\n stated that the next annual increment was due for the petitioner from\n\n 01.01.2008. The first respondent also in the impugned communication\n\n has observed as follows:“It is now seen that the Additional Assistant Elementary\n Educational Officer, Srivilliputhur has forwarded revised\n proposals for revision of pensionary benefits after awarding an\n increment for 1.7.2008 which was originally not awarded to him\n on account of the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of\n increment for 3 months without cumulative effect.”18.From the reading of affidavit and the communications with\n\n reference to the service register, as acknowledged by the respondents,\n\n this Court has no hesitation to hold that the annual increment to the\n\n petitioner was due from 01.01.2008 and it was not given to him in view\n\n of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Assuming that the\n\n petitioner has admitted that the next increment will fall only from\n\n 01.07.2008, by virtue of the interpretation given by this Court to first and\n\n second proviso to Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and\n\n Appeal) Rules, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of increment\n\n for the year 2008, which fell due before his retirement. As observed by\n\n this Court earlier, the first respondent has passed the impugned order on15/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014a wrong interpretation of Rule 8 and his attempt was to deny the benefit,\n\n which was sought to be preserved by the State by the Rule itself.19.For the above reasons, this Court is unable to sustain the order\n\n of first respondent, dated 13.12.2012 and hence, the same is set aside and\n\n the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise and\n\n refix the petitioner's pension by calculating the petitioner's next\n\n increment, which he is entitled to, either from 01.01.2008 or from\n\n 01.07.2008, within a period of twelve weeks from date of receipt of a\n\n copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous\n\n petition is closed.Index :Yes / No 07.10.2021\n Internet :Yes\n\n tmg/cmr16/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014To\n\n 1.The Director,\n Elementary Education,\n Directorate of Elementary Education,\n College Road, DPI Campus, Chennai.2.The District Elementary Education Officer,\n Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer,\n Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.17/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2014S.S.SUNDAR, J.tmg/cmr\n\n\n\n\n Order made inW.P.(MD)No.13102 of 201407.10.202118/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

d21ddee5-5755-5062-9ad5-3e38aa3e88da

court_cases

Central Information CommissionAshwani Kumar Avasthi vs High Court Of Other States on 10 April, 2020केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग\n Central Information Commission\n बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका\n Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nद्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HCOST/A/2019/639217-BJ\n\nMr. Ashwani Kumar Avasthi\n ....अपीलकताग/Appellant\n VERSUS\n बनाम\nCPIO\nRegistrar (A/c) In-Charge\nAllahabad High Court\nAllahabad - 211017\n ...प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent\nDate of Hearing : 24.03.2020\nDate of Decision : 10.04.2020\n\nDate of RTI application 01.09.2018\nCPIO's response 01.11.2018\nDate of the First Appeal 10.02.2019\nFirst Appellate Authority's response Not on Record\nDate of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil\n\n ORDERFACTS:The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copies of file\nnoting and daily progress report of action taken on the applications dated 07.05.2017 and\n31.07.2017 submitted by him before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court.The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.11.2018, stated that the grievance raised by the Applicant had\nbeen placed before the Hon'ble Recruitment Committee in its meeting dated 04.10.2018. The\nHon'ble Committee had considered the grievance and rejected the same. Furthermore, the\ncertified copies of the file noting and daily progress report of action taken on the applications\ncould not be provided in the light of Order XL, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,\n1952. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of\nthe FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Avasthi through TC;Respondent: Absent;Page 1 of 3In view of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, the Appellant was heard on phone who\ninformed that the information sought had been received by him.The Commission referred to the definition of informationu/s 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 which is\nreproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n law for the time being in force."Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract ofSection 2 (j)of the RTI Act,\n2005 which reads as under:"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which\n is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC\n497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor\n required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to\n 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only\n refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public\n authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to\n the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation\n under theRTI Act."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative\nOfficer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010)\nhad held as under:6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n law for the time being in force."This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under\n law. Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions,\n advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such\n opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not\n before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. UnderSection 6of\n the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed\n by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answersPage 2 of 3sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority\n nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged\n to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was\n before him."DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and the replies\navailable on record, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.(Bimal Julka) (बबमल जुल्का)\n (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त)\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रनत)\n\n\n\n\n(K.L. Das) (के.एल.िास)\n(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26186535/[email protected]दिनांक / Date: 10.04.2020Page 3 of 3

ef612f4e-577f-56ba-9556-d36f46b73471

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nNational Green Tribunal\nDr. P.S. Vetriselvam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 December, 2020\nAuthor: K. Ramakrishnan\nBench: K. Ramakrishnan\nItem Nos.9 to 34\n\n\n BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL\n SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI\n Original Application No. 181 of 2015(SZ)\n (Through Video Conference)\nIN THE MATTER OF:\nDr. P.S. Vetriselvam ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 13 of 2016(SZ)\nV.Kalaiselvan ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(\n Original Application No. 15 of 2016(SZ)\nV. Duraisamy ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 17 of 2016(SZ)\nRamkumar ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 37 of 2016(SZ)\nA.Selvaraj, Valappadi ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 38 of 2016(SZ)\nS. Jayapal ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n\n 1\n Original Application No. 39 of 2016(SZ)\nK. Sudhakar ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 40 of 2016(SZ)\nS. Selvakumar ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 41 of 2016(SZ)\nM. Palanisamy ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n Original Application No. 42 of 2016(SZ)\nC. Marimuthu ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 43 of 2016(SZ)\nA.Rajendran ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 44 of 2016(SZ)\n\n\n 2\n R. Anandhan ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 45 of 2016(SZ)\nA.Ravanan ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 46 of 2016(SZ)\nP.Thirugnana ... Applicant(s)\n\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 57 of 2016(SZ)\nR.P. Ramakrishnan ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n Original Application No. 58 of 2016(SZ)\nMr. V. Godhanda Raman ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 59 of 2016(SZ)\nA.Kasi Vishwanathan ... Applicant(s)\n\n 3\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 60 of 2016(SZ)\nMr. P. Muthukrishnan ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 89 of 2016(SZ)\nK. Dhanasekar ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 90 of 2016(SZ)\nS. Muniraj ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n Original Application No. 91 of 2016(SZ)\nG. Rukkumani ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 92 of 2016(SZ)\nP. S. Rathinam ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\n 4\n The Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\n\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 93 of 2016(SZ)\nT. Kandasamy ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n\n Original Application No. 94 of 2016(SZ)\nA.Singaravel ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ..Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 95 of 2016(SZ)\nS. Shanmuga Sundaram ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\n Original Application No. 101 of 2016(SZ)\nP. Sabareesha Raja ... Applicant(s)\n Vs\n\nThe Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai and others ...Respondent(s)\nDate of hearing: 16.12.2020\nCORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER\nFor Applicant(s): Mr. M. Vaidyanathan\nFor Respondent(s): Mr. S.R. Rajagopalan,\n Additional Advocate General along with\n Mr. M. Mani Gopi for R1 to R6\n\n\n\n\n 5\n ORDER\n When the matter came up for hearing through Video\n\nConference, Mr. M. Vaidyanathan appeared for applicant in all these\n\ncases. Mr. Mani Gopi represented Mr. S. R. Rajagopalan, Additional\n\nAdvocate General who is appearing for respondents.\n\n\n 2. It is a part-heard matter and posted today for further hearing on\n\nthe side of the respondents.\n\n\n 3. Mr. Mani Gopi who is representing the learned Additional\n\nAdvocate General Mr. S.R. Rajagopalan submitted that he could not\n\ncome today due to some urgent official commitment with Hon'ble Chief\n\nMinister and wanted a short adjournment.\n\n\n 4. The matters are of the year 2015 and 2016. With much\n\nreluctance, we adjourn the cases to tomorrow for further hearing.\n\n\n For further hearing, post on 17.12.2020\n\n\n ...................................J.M.\n\n\n (Justice K. Ramakrishnan)\n\n\n\n .......................................E.M.\n (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta)\nO.A. Nos.181/2015 etc.16.12.2020-Kkr\n\n\n\n\n 6

d736a350-6e81-50e2-8864-d80cb9f4e90d

court_cases

Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurRatan Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 2021Bench:Akil Kureshi,Sudesh BansalHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n JODHPUR\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5920/2021\n\nSantosh Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n Connected With\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 391/2020\nKailash Mangaliya\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan, Though The Principal Secretary,\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1645/2020\nSewa Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Raj.\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2652/2020\nMadanlal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5763/2020\nManohar Singh Rajput\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13018/2020\nDilip Kumar Gyanchandani\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (2 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508/2021\nDharmendra Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5273/2021\nMahesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5275/2021\nSunita\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5277/2021\nBhupender Kumar Beniwal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5279/2021\nSuman Bala\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5281/2021\nRatan Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5284/2021\nButa Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (3 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5389/2021\nMunshi Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5392/2021\nSatyveer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5395/2021\nJagdish Prasad\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5396/2021\nRaj Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5397/2021\nVaheguru\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5398/2021\nLaxmi Narayan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5399/2021\nDalbeer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (4 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5400/2021\nKum. Praveen\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5401/2021\nKeshar Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5402/2021\nDharam Pal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5405/2021\nMahender Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5407/2021\nKoshalya\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5409/2021\nSukhveer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5410/2021\nJagdish Chandra\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (5 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5411/2021\nMohan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5413/2021\nRam Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5414/2021\nBrij Kishor\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5416/2021\nSant Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5419/2021\nKalu Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5421/2021\nDilbag Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5424/2021\nPradeep Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (6 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5425/2021\nRaj Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5492/2021\nSubhash Chander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5498/2021\nNarendrapal Kour\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5499/2021\nPraveen Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5501/2021\nReena\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5504/2021\nRajender Prasad\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2021\nBhanwar Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (7 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5715/2021\nSukhchain Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5729/2021\nShubkaran\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5740/2021\nDariya Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5744/2021\nRaj Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5748/2021\nRamswroop\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5751/2021\nNop Chand\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5752/2021\nSandeep Khinda\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (8 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5754/2021\nRajender Prasad\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5756/2021\nRajender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5828/2021\nBhoop Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5829/2021\nLaxmi Narayana\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5831/2021\nAngrej Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5833/2021\nHarmel Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5834/2021\nBhim Sain\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (9 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5835/2021\nKuldeep Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5836/2021\nAnant Kour\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5841/2021\nRoshni\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5843/2021\nBanshi Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5845/2021\nDheer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5847/2021\nLaxman Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5849/2021\nDaya Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (10 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5852/2021\nSher Singh Bhambhu\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5853/2021\nSubhash Chander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5854/2021\nKishore Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5855/2021\nPappu Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5935/2021\nSanjeev Pareek\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/2021\nSubhash Chander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5948/2021\nBala Kumari\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (11 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5951/2021\nPawan Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5952/2021\nDilbag\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6025/2021\nManohar Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6026/2021\nShyam Sunder\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6027/2021\nRajender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6028/2021\nVijender Kumar Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6029/2021\nHari Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (12 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6030/2021\nAtma Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6031/2021\nRoop Singh Brar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6033/2021\nSuresh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6034/2021\nGurmel Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6036/2021\nRamesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6037/2021\nNaseeb Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6038/2021\nMeera\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (13 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6040/2021\nMahender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6041/2021\nRajwant Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6042/2021\nRajesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6043/2021\nBhoop Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6044/2021\nSombir\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6046/2021\nJaswant Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6129/2021\nMukhatyar Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (14 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6131/2021\nRaghuveer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6276/2021\nMalkeet Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6278/2021\nBhura Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6280/2021\nRajveer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6282/2021\nVijay Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6283/2021\nAjeet Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6285/2021\nBalkaran Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (15 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6286/2021\nSubhash Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6287/2021\nRam Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6288/2021\nNaveen Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6290/2021\nOmprakash\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6293/2021\nVirender\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6294/2021\nOm Prakash\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6295/2021\nSubhash Chandar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (16 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6296/2021\nRaj Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6297/2021\nRajesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6298/2021\nChameli Meena\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6299/2021\nDarshna\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6302/2021\nHarfool Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6303/2021\nChotu Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/2021\nShamshad Ali\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (17 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6529/2021\nMaya\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6601/2021\nOm Nath\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6604/2021\nGanesha Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6606/2021\nJaswant Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6608/2021\nAmar Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6609/2021\nBaldev Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6610/2021\nSubhash Chander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (18 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6613/2021\nSatynarayan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6615/2021\nSarwan Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6618/2021\nKalavati\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6620/2021\nMahender Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6675/2021\nKuldeep Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/2021\nRavidarshan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6678/2021\nRamkumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (19 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6680/2021\nAshok Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6683/2021\nMahender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6684/2021\nSukhcharan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6687/2021\nRaghuveer\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6691/2021\nSmt. Krishana\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6694/2021\nBal Raj Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6695/2021\nOmprakash\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (20 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6696/2021\nBhim Raj\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6697/2021\nVasudev Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6698/2021\nAjaib Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6705/2021\nGirdhari Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2021\nRampal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6711/2021\nSuman Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6794/2021\nAshok Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (21 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6795/2021\nNand Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6796/2021\nRampal Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6797/2021\nSuresh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6799/2021\nKrishan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6801/2021\nSurender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6914/2021\nDalip Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6915/2021\nLalita\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (22 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6916/2021\nVinod Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6917/2021\nMahender Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6918/2021\nJagdish Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6919/2021\nHari Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6920/2021\nFarasram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6921/2021\nSunita\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6923/2021\nSushil Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (23 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6925/2021\nNayab Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6927/2021\nRajender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6928/2021\nVedvanti\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6930/2021\nPraveen Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6932/2021\nVijay Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6934/2021\nGurdat Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6936/2021\nRajesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (24 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6937/2021\nDevkaran\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6939/2021\nSurja Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6941/2021\nHeera Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6949/2021\nKaushalya\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6952/2021\nRajender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6985/2021\nSher Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6986/2021\nBhanwar Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (25 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6987/2021\nRam Chander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6989/2021\nMohammad Ishaq\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6991/2021\nGurtej Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6993/2021\nVinod Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6994/2021\nBalwinder Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6995/2021\nChotu Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6996/2021\nRajender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (26 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6997/2021\nLal Chand\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6998/2021\nLadu Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6999/2021\nKavita\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7002/2021\nSurender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7003/2021\nAmar Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7004/2021\nHarvinder Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7006/2021\nRam Dyal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (27 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7046/2021\nAbid Khan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7187/2021\nDarshan Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7719/2021\nPankaj Kumar Jain\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7855/2021\nRajendra Prasad Ramawat\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7876/2021\nAshok Kumar Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8367/2021\nAjeet Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8513/2021\nSatyveer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (28 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8514/2021\nOmprakash\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8516/2021\nSandeep Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8517/2021\nVikram Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8564/2021\nDayal Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8631/2021\nRamesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8634/2021\nKrishan Chander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8681/2021\nAli Sher\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (29 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8682/2021\nBanshi Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9031/2021\nSunder Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9032/2021\nLal Chand\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9033/2021\nJaskaran Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9034/2021\nRamesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9035/2021\nMange Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9047/2021\nKanwal Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (30 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9049/2021\nSudhir Verma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9051/2021\nShiv Narain\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9053/2021\nJagdish Prashad\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9055/2021\nRandheer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9057/2021\nChhuttan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9058/2021\nSarjeet Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9059/2021\nMeer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (31 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9061/2021\nSushma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9063/2021\nKrishan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9097/2021\nRamniwas\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9098/2021\nGirdhari Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9101/2021\nRamswaroop\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9102/2021\nJagdish Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9104/2021\nSunil Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (32 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9105/2021\nBhanwar Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9221/2021\nBalwan Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9224/2021\nAmar Chand\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThr State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9228/2021\nShiv Kumar Ragar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9231/2021\nVijendra Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9232/2021\nRajendra Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9234/2021\nPawan Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (33 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9237/2021\nRamswroop Dudi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9238/2021\nTara Chand\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9243/2021\nSikander\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9245/2021\nBeant Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9249/2021\nRamkumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9252/2021\nRamesh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9253/2021\nSarwan Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (34 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9254/2021\nYogender Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9255/2021\nMahaveer Prasad\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9257/2021\nKhiya Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9274/2021\nNaresh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThr State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9275/2021\nJanak Ram Meena\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9279/2021\nSumitra\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9328/2021\nSuja Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (35 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9391/2021\nSuresh Chandra Jangid\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2037/2021\n\nRaghbir Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n Connected With\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 261/2020\nVimla Chouhan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 269/2020\nSusheela Prajapati\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 451/2020\nBhavana Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 457/2020\nSheetal Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (36 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1032/2020\nRavindra Bohara\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1561/2020\nArun Kumar Bohra\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2275/2020\nMegh Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2282/2020\nPramod Singh Shekhawat\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2505/2020\nHarpreet Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2538/2020\nPradeep Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2677/2020\nMoolchand Gaur\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (37 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2947/2020\nDilip Kumar Joshi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3319/2020\nShiv Kumar Acharya\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4517/2020\nBirbal Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5512/2020\nBalbir Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5662/2020\nLad Devi Vyas\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5668/2020\nOm Prakash Manda\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5700/2020\nBakhtawar Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (38 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5920/2020\nRaju Devi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6497/2020\nMahendra Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6619/2020\nBalu Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6622/2020\nJitendra Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7307/2020\nSatpal Khileri\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7815/2020\nSharwan Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7963/2020\nRanjeet Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:53 PM)\n (39 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8421/2020\nMohabbat Khan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8463/2020\nShambhuram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8960/2020\nShri Ram Bishnoi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8991/2020\nMohan Lal, Constable No. 154\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9001/2020\nParag Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe Principal Secretary\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9058/2020\nThakara Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9063/2020\nRaju Devi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (40 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9722/2020\nSatyanarayan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9910/2020\nKailash Chand Meena\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10115/2020\nDurga Shankar Menaria\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10147/2020\nNeeraj Jain\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10169/2020\nBrajesh Mishra\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10208/2020\nRakesh Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10814/2020\nBanshi Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (41 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11526/2020\nMaina Choudhary\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11619/2020\nShiv Mohan Saxena\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11702/2020\nJainarayan Jandu\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12853/2020\nSatyendra Kumar Goyal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13174/2020\nAnusheel Vyas\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13492/2020\nDalpat Singh Gehlot\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 113/2021\nRekha Bhargav\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (42 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/2021\nLal Mohammed\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 475/2021\nGopal Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418/2021\nBrijendra Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1451/2021\nVinod Kumar Chawariya\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2021\nBhawani Shankar Paliwal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1701/2021\nMurari Lal Kakra\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1879/2021\nRam Kishore\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (43 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1956/2021\nChetan Puri Goswami\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1983/2021\nKalu Singh Bhati\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2187/2021\nKapilmuni\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2295/2021\nKailash Chandra Meena\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2913/2021\nJailal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3277/2021\nHema Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3316/2021\nManoj Rajpurohit\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (44 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3983/2021\nJawara Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4440/2021\nRam Kishor Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4457/2021\nOm Prakash Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4465/2021\nMohammad Iqbal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4697/2021\nGurwarn Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4699/2021\nBalwant Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4999/2021\nDinesh Chandra Sharma\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (45 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5270/2021\nMahender Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/2021\nSant Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5319/2021\nSatyapal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5328/2021\nMadan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5483/2021\nRadhe Shyam\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5850/2021\nSunita\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6186/2021\nRewat Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (46 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6382/2021\nRajesh Kumar Soni\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6719/2021\nSahib Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6722/2021\nGhishulal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7053/2021\nJavnika\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7057/2021\nAnwar Baig\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7421/2021\nDinesh Dhankhar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8273/2021\nMustaqeem Khan\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (47 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8566/2021\nRohitash Kumar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8568/2021\nJai Prakash\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8572/2021\nSatyveer\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8575/2021\nOmprakash\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8730/2021\nMahender Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8736/2021\nDeva Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8892/2021\nBhupesh Chandra Yogi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (48 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9515/2021\nRampal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10146/2021\nAbdul Rashid Deshwali\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10186/2021\nShiv Prakash Chhipa\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10799/2021\nDeepak Joshi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10851/2021\nMadhav Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10872/2021\nGovind Singh Bhati\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11516/2021\nDeda Ram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (49 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12117/2021\nMohan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5399/2020\n\nPratap Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6595/2020\n\nRamesh Bishnoi\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8466/2020\n\n Viram Dev\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5500/2021\n\n Naveen Mantri\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13839/2021\n\n Bhupesh Bhandari\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (50 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8983/2020\n\nOmprakash Choudhary\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n Connected With\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2334/2020\nSangita Bora\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4725/2020\nJagdish Lal (Constable 1679)\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7788/2020\nRamniwas\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8451/2020\nSohan Lal\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9609/2020\nSumer Singh\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nThe State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (51 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9919/2020\n Rawtaram\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 637/2021\n Rukman Kanwar\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13605/2021\n Mubarik Hussain\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n State Of Rajasthan\n ----Respondent\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Kuldeep\n Mathur, Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Dr. Nupur\n Bhati, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, Mr.\n C.R. Choudhary, Mr. Dinesh Kumar\n Ojha, Mr. N.R. Choudhary, Mr. B.R.\n Chahar, Mr. Rishabh Tayal, Mr.\n Jitendra Choudhary, Mr. Gurvinder\n Singh, Mr. Rajesh Prajapat, Mr.\n Sampat Prajapat, Mr. Tushar Mod, Mr.\n Vipul Dharnia, Mr. Sumer Singh Gour,\n Mr. N.R. Budania, Mr. Rakesh Arora,\n Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati and Mr.\n Bheem Kant Vyas.\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate &\n Advocate General with Mr. K.S.\n Lodha, Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with\n Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, Mr. Manish Vyas,\n AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Mr.\n K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr. Rajat\n Arora, Mr. Anil Gaur, AAG, Mr. Pankaj\n Sharma, AAG, Mr. Himanshu Shrimali\n and Mr. Girish Sankhla\n\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)\n (52 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSALOrder\n\n25/11/2021\n\n In these petitions, the main controversy is with respect to\n\nvalidity and legality of the notification dated 30th October, 2017\n\nissued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Finance.\n\nUnder this notification, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay)\n\nRules, 2008 came to be amended.It is not necessary to go into the details of these\n\namendments. Suffice it to note that the grievance of the\n\npetitioners is that by virtue of these amendments in the revised\n\nPay Rules, with retrospective effect, the grade pay in several cases\n\nhave been so changed as to deprive the petitioners of actual\n\nbenefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme. Since in\n\nsome cases, the Government has also initiated recoveries on the\n\nbasis of these amendments, the petitioners had also prayed for\n\ninterim protection. In some cases where recoveries have\n\ncommenced, the Court has protected the petitioners. In some\n\ncases of the pensioners recoveries in part or full may have been\n\nmade.The learned Advocate General stated that such protection\n\nagainst non-petitioners has also been ordered in cases of those\n\npersons who are affected by these amendments.Today, when this group of petitions was taken up for hearing,\n\nthe learned Advocate General tendered an affidavit dated 25 th\n\nNovember 2021 filed by one Shri Mangi Lal, Officer-in-Charge of\n\nthe respondents, in which it is stated that the State Government is\n\nconsidering all the issues with respect to the notification and for(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)(53 of 54) [CW-5920/2021]\n\n\n\nsuch purpose a Committee has been constituted under order\n\ndated 05.08.2021. The scope of this Committee involves other\n\nissues but one of them being the question of grant of ACP benefits\n\nto the Government employees. It is stated that such Committee\n\nwill take into account the issues arising out the amendments made\n\nby notification dated 30th October, 2017. According to the learned\n\nAdvocate General, this will take about three months time. Till\n\nthen, no further recoveries would be made on the basis of the said\n\nnotification.In our opinion, when the Government, on its own, is\n\nconsidering the multiple issues arising out of the said notification,\n\nit would not be proper on our part to examine the legality and\n\nvalidity of the notification. We would therefore dispose of these\n\npetitions with certain directions. Before issuing final directions,\n\nwe may notice that in some of the cases of the pensioners, part or\n\nfull recoveries have already been made. These recoveries may\n\nnot be retained by the State till fresh decision is taken, of course,\n\nsubject to outcome of the decision of the Government and further\n\norder of the Court in case the controversy raises.Under the circumstances, all these petitions are disposed of\n\nwith the following directions:-(i) Let the Government reconsider the entire issue as is stated\n\nbefore us. Final decision preferably may be taken by 28 th February,\n\n2022.(ii) After the decision is taken by the Government, if any of the\n\ngrievances of the petitioners survive, it would be open for them to\n\nfile fresh petitions.(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)(54 of 54) [CW-5920/2021](iii) Till fresh decision is taken, the State Government shall not\n\n make any further recovery on the basis of the notification dated\n\n 30th October, 2017.(iv) Recoveries already made from the pensioners would be\n\n refunded, subject to final decision of the Government, subject to\n\n further challenge.We are informed that in some of the petitions additional\n\n issues have also been raised. None of these issues would get\n\n affected by this order. It would be open for the petitioners to file\n\n an independent petition, as may be advised subject to all\n\n objections of the Government which are kept open.All pending applications are also disposed of.(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ\n\n\n a.asopa/-(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 08:30:54 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

85f8b988-14b9-5ee2-a2d4-32bf7720a82a

court_cases

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchSheikh Suhail And Ors vs Shahzada Maqbool on 8 July, 2021Author:Tashi RabstanBench:Tashi RabstanS.no. 216 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR\nAfter Notice\nCause List AT SRINAGAR\n ...\n CONC 1338/2015\n Sheikh Suhail and Ors. ....... Petitioner(s)\n Through: Mr. W.M.Shah, Adv.\n\n Versus\n Shahzada Maqbool .........Respondent(s)\n Through:\n\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE\n\n ORDER08.07.2021\n In terms of Order dated 5th October, 2015, notice was issued to the\n respondents. Even on 22nd December, 2015 Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate,\n has filed power of Attorney on behalf of respondents. However, despite lapse of\n more than five years neither respondents have come nor they have raised any\n objection for condoning the delay of 43 days in filing the revision petition.The application for the reasons mentioned therein and in view of the\n aforesaid fact position is allowed and delay in filing revision petition is\n condoned.COD is, accordingly, disposed of.\n Registry to list Revision petition on 27th August, 2021.(Tashi Rabstan)\n Judge\n Srinagar\n 08.07.2021\n "Shamim Dar"SHAMIM AHMAD DAR2021.07.15 16:24I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document

431384e8-ac51-570a-a37e-dd996b805d49

court_cases

Madhya Pradesh High CourtRajkumar @ Tikle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2021Author:Anand PathakBench:Anand Pathak1\n THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n Cr.A. No. 9484/2018\n Rajkumar @ Tikle Vs. State of M.P.\n\nGwalior Bench:\nDated :01.07.2021\n\n Shri D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.\n\n Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned PP for the respondent/State.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.Heard on I.A. No. 20971/2020, this is fifth application underSection 389 (1)of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed in respect\n\nof appellant.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-Section Conviction Fine Default of\n fine\n 307 of IPC 5 years RI Rs.1,000/- 06 months\n (2 count)\n 333 of IPC 2 years RI Rs.1,000/- 06 months\n 332 of IPC 1 year RI Rs.1,000/- 06 months\n 25(1-B)(ad) of 1 year RI Rs.1,000/- 06 months\n Arms ActIt is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that\n\ntrial court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding jail\n\nsentence. It is further submitted that out of five years of jail\n\nsentence, the appellant already sufferred three years and two months\n\nof incarceration. Looking to the period of incarceration and the fact\n\nthat the applicant is not a habitual offender, suffered implication2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHCr.A. No. 9484/2018Rajkumar @ Tikle Vs. State of M.P.\n\nbecause of co-accused Pawan. One eye witness/injured witness has\n\nnot been examined by the prosecution. Looking to the challenging\n\nsituation of COVID-19 pandemic, his case may be considered for\n\nsuspension of sentence. Fine amount has already been deposited.\n\nHearing of appeal shall take some time to conclude. Appellant would\n\nnot be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant.\n\nHe would not move in the vicinity of complainant party. He further\n\nintends to perform community service voluntarily by serving the\n\nenvironment and National/Social cause by contributing his part\n\nvoluntarily to purge his misdeeds and to reform himself and to\n\nindugle in creative pursuits. Therefore, he suspension of sentence\n\nmay be granted.Learned PP for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for its\n\ndismissal.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and record perused\n\nthrough V.C.\n\n Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case and\n\nperiod of custody, without commenting on the merits of the case as\n\nthere is no possibility of early hearing of this criminal appeal before\n\nthis Court, hence, I.A. No. 20971/2020 is allowed subject to deposit3THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHCr.A. No. 9484/2018Rajkumar @ Tikle Vs. State of M.P.\n\nof fine amount and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of\n\nRs.50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one\n\nsolvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned\n\ntrial Court, appellant's jail sentence shall remain suspended till\n\ndisposal of this appeal and he be released on bail. The appellant is\n\nfurther directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court\n\non 27.09.2021 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be\n\nfixed by the Registry.After release, the appellant is further directed to strictly\n\nfollow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central\n\nGovernment/State Government or Local Administration for\n\ncombating the COVID -19 pandemic.,rn~ }kjk muds vfHkHkk"kd }kjk nh xbZ opu ds vuqlkj ;g Hkh ;g\nfunZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 05 ikS/kksa dk ¼ Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok\nuhe@ihiy½ jksi.k djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk ds\nfy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA\nvkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa\niks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA"^^\n vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV ÅWaps ikS/ks@isM+ksa dks yxk;sxk rkfd os\n'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd\ndks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k\nU;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djuk gksxsa A\nrRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk\nfopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ çLrqr dh tk,xh A4THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHCr.A. No. 9484/2018Rajkumar @ Tikle Vs. State of M.P.\n\n o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS\nD;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky;\nvuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj\nvankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh çxfr vkSj\nvkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr\nfd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ\nbl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh\ntk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k ^^ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA\n o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ\ndksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA\n vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/kksa@isMksa dks jksius dh\nLora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk\ndjuk pkgrk gS] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks o`{kksa ds jksi.k ds fy, rFkk muds\nlqj{kk mik;ksa ds fy, vko';d [kpsZ ogu djuk gksxsaA\n bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa\nrkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk\n,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo\nvfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks\nfodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa\nvkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA\n\n ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj\ncfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA" "It is expected from the applicant that he shall submit\n\nphotographs by downloading the mobile application (App)\n\nprepared at the instance of High Court for monitoring the5THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHCr.A. No. 9484/2018Rajkumar @ Tikle Vs. State of M.P.\n\n plantation though satellite/Geo-tagging.I.A. No.20971 stands allowed and disposed of.\n\n Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for\n\n compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak)\n Judge\nneetu\n SMT NEETU\n SHASHANK\n 2021.07.02\n 12:17:58\n +05'30'

60c6bf2b-3278-5ae3-8061-e4b84793ac67

court_cases

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - IndoreShivganga Drillers P Ltd, Indore vs Cpc , Bengaluru on 17 May, 2022ITA No.174/Ind/2021\n A.Y. 2017-18\n\n Page 1 of 14\n\n\n IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n INDORE BENCH, INDORE\n\n BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n AND\nSHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\n (Conducted through Virtual Court)\n\n ITA No.174/Ind/2021\n\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\n\nShivganga Drillers Private Ltd. Vs.CPC, Income Tax,\nIndore Bangalore\n[PAN - AAJCS2458Q]\n(Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue)\n\n\n Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jain & Shreya Jain, A.Rs.\n Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R.\n\n Date of hearing : 24.02.2022\n Date of pronouncement : 17 .05.2022\n\n ORDE R\n\nPer Bhagirath Mal Biyani, A.M.:THIS APPEAL:1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated\n03.09.2021 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC ["Ld.\nCIT(A)"], which in turn arises out of the rectification-order dated\n17.12.2018, passed by the learnedCPC, Bangalore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 154 of\ntheIncome-tax Act, 1961["the Act"] for the Assessment-Year 2017-18.BACKGROUND:2. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the Ld.\nAO through Intimationu/s 143(1)of the Act after making two\nadjustments, viz. (i) disallowance of Rs. 1,02,513/- on account of delayedITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 2 of 14payment of employees' contributions to Provident Fund / Employees State\nInsurance ("PF / ESI"), and (ii) disallowance of the credit of TDS of Rs.60,49,627/-, claimed by the assessee. Against this Intimationu/s 143(1),\nthe assessee submitted an application for rectificationu/s 154of the Act\nto the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, however, passed order of rectification on\n17.12.2018 whereby the application filed by the assessee was rejected.\nBeing aggrieved by this order of rectificationu/s 154, the assesse filed\nappeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of\nassessee in limine. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed\nthis appeal and now before us.GROUNDS:3. The assessee has raised following Grounds:1. That impugned order passed by the National Faceless Appeal\n Centre, Delhi is bad in law, without jurisdiction, it is based on\n incorrect interpretation of law and without allowing proper and\n reasonable opportunity of being heard, moreover the facts have also\n been incorrectly construed.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law,\n the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in rejecting appeal\n filed by the assessee summarily by stating that appellant has not\n filed appeal against intimation orderu/s 143(1)and tried to take\n back door entry by filing appeal against orderu/s 154for which the\n original cause of action has arisen at the stage of 143(1) itself\n without appreciating the fact that on first stage appellant has\n taken the remedy of filing applicationu/s 154which is legal and as\n per the provision ofIncome Tax Act. Thus the order of the National\n Faceless Appeal Centre is illegal and liable to be set aside to decide\n on merits.3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n law the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not deciding\n the following grounds of appeal on merits:a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n law the Ld. A.O. (CPC) erred in making disallowance of Rs.1,02,513/-u/s 36 of the Income Tax without giving nature of the above\n disallowance and more so without considering the facts of the case\n and contents of return filed by the appellant.b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n law the Ld. A.O. (CPC) erred in not allowing credit for TDS of Rs.\n 60,49,627/- as deducted by National Centre for Antarctic & OceanITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 3 of 14Research since it is not appearing in the 26AS statement for the\n Assessment year 2017-18, without appreciating the fact that the\n credit of TDS of Rs.59,57,630/- was duly appeared in the 26AS\n statement for the Assessment year 2018-19 and appellant claimed\n the TDS credit as per provisions ofsection 199of the Income Tax\n Act since the corresponding income was duly offered for tax in the\n assessment year 2017-18 itself.c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n law the Ld. AO (CPC) erred in charging interestu/s 234Band234Cat Rs. 25,70,673/- and Rs. 12,14,010/- respectively which is very\n high and excessive."GROUND No. 1:4. In the Written-Submission, the assessee has submitted that this\nground is general in nature. During hearing, the Ld. AR repeated this\nversion and did not make further submission. Hence this Ground does not\nrequire any adjudication.GROUND No. 2:5. In this Ground, the assessee has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in limine.6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing Intimationu/s\n143(1)of the Act, the Ld. AO made two adjustments, viz. (i) disallowance of\nRs. 1,02,513/- on account of delayed payment of employees' contributions\nto Provident Fund / Employees State Insurance ("PF / ESI"), and (ii)\ndisallowance of the credit of TDS of Rs. 60,49,627/-. Though the assessee\ndid not file any appeal against this Intimationu/s 143(1), an application\nfor rectificationu/s 154of the Act was filed to the Ld. AO within the time\npermissibleu/s 154of the Act for seeking redressal of the grievances\narising out of the two adjustments made by Ld. AO. However, the Ld. AO\nrejected the application filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved by rejection,\nthe assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and technically such appeal\nhappened to be against the order of rectificationu/s 154and not against\nthe original Intimationu/s 143(1). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of\nassessee in limine by observing in Para No. 5 to 6 of his order as under:ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 4 of 14"5. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal is not\n against the intimation orderu/s 143(1). The appellant had\n filed an applicationu/s 154beforeCPC. Thereafter,the CPChad passed orderu/s 154rejecting the request of the\n appellant for rectification of the mistake. It is against this\n order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The original\n cause of action arises at the stage of 143(1) itself whenthe\n CPChad processed the return of income. Thereafter, the\n appellant has filed rectification application which has been\n rejected and against this, the appellant had filed the present\n appeal.5.1 On perusal of these facts, it appears that the appellant is\n trying to take back door entry by filing an appeal against\n orderu/s 154for which the original cause of action has arisen\n at the stage of 143(1) itself. As per the provisions of the Act,\n the appellant could have filed an appeal against the\n intimationu/s 143(1)of the CPC dated 09.11.2018. However,\n the appellant has not filed an appeal against the intimation\n u/s 143(1). Thereafter, the appellant has filed a rectification\n applicationu/s 154beforethe CPC. As per the rectification\n orderu/s 154dated 17.12.2018,the CPChas rejected the\n request of the appellant for rectification of mistake. There is\n no mistake apparent from record at the stage of 154\n application. If, at all, the issue under consideration would\n arise only at the stage of intimationu/s 143(1). Therefore, the\n issue is not adjudicated herein. Accordingly, the grounds of\n appeal are dismissed.6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."7. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the\ndeduction of employee's contribution to PF / ESI as well credit of TDS in\nthe Return of Income and it is the Ld. AO who has disallowed both of\nthese claims in the Intimation passedu/s 143(1), though both of these\nclaims were very much allowable in accordance with the law. The Ld. AR\nwent on submitting that under the scheme of the Act, the assessee has\ntwo remedies against the Intimationu/s 143(1), viz. (i) file rectification-applicationu/s 154, or (ii) file appealu/s 246A. According to Ld. AR, the\nassessee filed a rectification-applicationu/s 154which is not only one of\nthe available remedy but also a simpler remedy and practically resorted to\nby many of the assessees, particularly in the matter of the two\nadjustments involved in the present appeal. Accordingly to Ld. AR, it isITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 5 of 14not a case that the rectification-applicationu/s 154against the Intimationu/s 143(1)is absolutely barred in the scheme of Act. Finally the Ld. AR\nmade a submission that in the law and on facts, the assessee is very\nmuch entitled to the deduction of employees' contribution to PF / ESI as\nwell TDS credit and by not allowing the same, would result in computation\nof taxable income and tax liability beyond and against the scheme of the\nAct. With these submissions the Ld. AR prayed that the lower authorities\nbe directed to accept the claim of assessee on merit, in accordance with\nthe decision of this Bench on the subsequent Grounds.8. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed any\nappeal against the Intimationu/s 143(1), which necessarily should have\nbeen filed. According to Ld. DR, the assessee filed rectification-applicationu/s 154against the Intimationu/s 143(1)and thereafter carried the\nmatter to Ld. CIT(A) when the rectification-application itself was rejected.\nThe Ld. DR submitted that this route adopted by the assessee was not\npermissible in the issues involved and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was\njustified in dismissing the appeal of assessee in limine. With these\nsubmissions, the Ld. DR prayed to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).9. We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and also\nperused the record. We are very much aware of the recent decision of\nITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Akbar Mohammad, Nagaur Vs. ACIT,CPC, Bangalore ITA No. 108 & 109/Jodh/2021 order dated\n31.01.2012 in which the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench had resolved an\nidentical controversy by holding as under:"6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not\n file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the\n Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right to the extent that the assessee\n cannot be given relief for that reason. However, it is also a\n settled law that the assessee cannot be taxed on an amount on\n which tax is not legally imposable. Although, the assessee\n might have chosen a wrong channel for redressal of his\n grievance, all the same, it is incumbent upon the Tax\n authorities to burden the assessee only with correct amount of\n tax and not to unjustly benefit at the cost of tax payer.ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 6 of 14Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it\n expedient to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing\n officer with a direction to pass appropriate orders deleting the\n addition / disallowance after duly considering the settled\n judicial position in this regard, which have been decided in\n the three cases as enumerated above in Para 5."During hearing, we have apprised both sides about this recent decision of\nthe Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench.10. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Co-ordinate\nBench, we are inclined to accept the request of assessee. Therefore,\nGround No. 2 is allowed.GROUND No. 3(a):11. In this Ground, the issue involved is related to the disallowance of\nRs. 1,02,513/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of\nemployee's contributions to PF / ESI.12. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has made the disallowance\nwithout appreciating that though the assessee had not deposited the\nemployees' contributions to PF / ESI upto the due dates prescribed under\nthe PF / ESI laws, yet the assessee had deposited the same to the\nrespective funds within the time permittedu/s 43Bof the Act i.e. upto the\ndue dateu/s 139(1)for filing the return of income and hence no\ndisallowance is attracted in view of numerous decisions of Hon'ble High\nCourts favouring the assessee. Some of the decisions relied upon by Ld.\nAR are mentioned below:(a) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508.(b) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court inSagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT145 DTR 265(c) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court inCIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages\n Corporation Ltd. / Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill(2017)\n 250 Taxman 32ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 7 of 14The Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in\nfavour of the assessee by decision of this very Bench of ITAT in the case of\nNataraj Dal Mill, Indore vs. ACIT ITA No. 153/IND/2021 order dated\n06.12.2021.The Ld. AR also submitted that even otherwise the impugned disallowance\nis debatable in nature and outside the scope ofsection 143(1)(iv)of the Act\ninvoked by the Ld. AO and therefore also not sustainable, as held by\nITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions\nIndia (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) order dated\n23.09.2021.With these submissions, the Ld. AR prayed that the disallowance made by\nLd. AO is illegal and deserves to be deleted.13. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities.\nHe further submitted that in following decisions it has been held that once\nthe employees' contributions are paid after the due dates under PF / ESI\nlaws, disallowance is attracted even if the assessee has made payments\nwithin the time allowedu/s 43Bi.e. upto the due dateu/s 139(1)for filing\nof return:(a) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court inCIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport\n Corporation, (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100(b) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd.(2020) 115 taxmann.com 340(c) Hon'ble Kerala High Court inCIT Vs. Merchem Ltd.(2015) 378 ITR443The Ld. DR further submitted that theFinance Act, 2021has also inserted\nExplanation 2 toSection 36(1)(va)and Explanation 5 toSection 43Bas\nunder:ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 8 of 14Section 36(1)(va):"Explanation 2.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby\n clarified that the provisions ofsection 43Bshall not apply and\n shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of\n determining the "due date" under this clause;Section 43B:"Explanation 5.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby\n clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and\n shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received\n by the assessee from any of his employees to which the\n provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) ofsection 2applies."The Ld. DR claimed that with the introduction of these amendments, it is\nvery much clear that the due dates specified insection 43Bshall not\napply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the\nemployees' contributions are paid after the due dates under the PF / ESI\nlaws, disallowance would happen. The Ld. DR further submitted that the\nwords "... shall be deemed never to have been applied ..." appearing in\nthese newly inserted Explanations clearly demonstrate that the\namendments, though inserted from 01.04.2021, are clarificatory in nature\nand hence they would apply retrospectively in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Apex Court inZile Singh Vs. State of Haryana(2004) 5 SCC 1.\nTherefore, according the Ld. DR the amendments are applicable to the\nassessment-year involved in the present appeal too and hence the\ndisallowance made by Ld. AO is very much in accordance with the law.With these submissions, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. AO has rightly\ndisallowed the employees contributions to PF / ESI not paid by the\nassessee upto due dates under the PF / ESI laws and therefore the\ndisallowance must be upheld.14. We have considered the rival contentions and submission of both\nsides and also perused the relevant materials available on record. Before\nproceeding further we would like to mention that the assessee has\ndeposited the impugned contributions to the PF / ESI, though after due\ndate under PF / ESI law but within the time allowedu/s 43Bi.e. upto theITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 9 of 14due dateu/s 139(1)for filing return of income and there is no dispute on\nthis point by revenue.Regarding the decisions relied upon by both sides, we observe that there\nare divergent views of Hon'ble High Courts on the allowability of\nemployees' contributions to PF / ESI paid after due dates under the PF /\nESI laws but within the time allowedu/s 43B. While the Ld. AR has relied\nupon various decisions favouring to the assessee, the Ld. DR has quoted\nthe decisions against the assessee. We are also informed by both sides\nthat there is no decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madhya\nPradesh on this issue. In this situation, we are mindful of the decision in\nVegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nhas held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are\npossible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.\nIn view of this, the decisions favouring the assessee shall get preference\nover the decisions against the assessee. Being so we hold that the\nemployees contributions paid after due date under PF / ESI law but\nwithin the time allowedu/s 43B, are allowable as deduction.Regarding the amendments made throughFinance Act, 2021, it is\nspecifically mentioned by the legislature that the amendments are effective\nfrom 01.04.2021. Further the Memorandum explaining the Provisions\nin the Finance Bill, 2021 clearly prescribes thus:"These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and\n will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and\n subsequent assessment years."Thus, the legislature itself has categorically stated that the amendments\nshall apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment\nyears. Therefore these amendments are not applicable to the assessment-\nyears preceding the assessment-year 2021-22 i.e. not applicable upto\nassessment-year 2020-21. This has also been held so in several decisions\nof ITAT Benches including following:ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 10 of 14(a) ITAT Kolkata in Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, ITA No.\n 186/Kol/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 16.07.2021(b) ITAT Hyderabad in Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Limited Vs. ITO, ITA\n No. 644/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 15.06.2021(c) ITAT Jodhpur in Akbar Mohammad Vs. ACIT,CPC, Bangalore ITA\n No. 108 &109 / Jodh / 2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, order\n dated 31.01.2022\n\nThe reliance of the Ld. DR upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase ofZile Singh(supra) in fact supports the assessee's case and not\nrevenue's case. The conclusion coming from this decision is very clear that\nwhen there is a specific effective date given by the Act, the amendment will\nbe effective from that date only and if there is no mention of retrospective\napplicability, it will not apply to the earlier dates.15. It is also noteworthy that this Bench has recently decided several\nappeals, a few mentioned hereunder, wherein the similar disallowance\nmade by Ld. AO has been deleted:(a) ITA No. 175 / Ind / 2021 Shri Virendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. CIT(A),\n NFAC, order dated 30.03.2022(b) ITA No. 184 / Ind / 2021 M/sPrestige Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs.\n ACIT-4(1), Indore order dated 30.03.2022(c) ITA No. 223 / Ind / 2021 Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT,CPC,\n Bangalore, order dated 30.03.202216. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, we observe that employees'\ncontributions to PF / ESI paid after due date under PF / ESI laws but\nwithin the time allowedu/s 43Bi.e. upto the due dateu/s 139(1)for filing\nof return is allowable as deduction in computing taxable income of\nbusiness and the assesse had rightly claimed the same. Therefore the Ld.\nAO was not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. We thereforeITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 11 of 14accept this Ground of assessee and direct the Ld. AO to make suitable\nrectification by deleting the disallowance. Therefore, Ground No. 3(a) is\nallowed for statistical purpose.GROUND No. 3(b):17. In this Ground, the issue involved is related to the credit of TDS\namounting to Rs. 60,49,627/-.18. Before us, the Ld. AR has made a detailed submission on Page No. 6to 9 of the Written-Submission. The Ld. AR has presented a lengthy\nreconciliation of the Gross-Receipts and TDS as per books of account and\nForm 26AS of assessment-year 2017-18 and 2018-19. We are not\nreproducing the same for the sake of brevity but the crux of the\nsubmission is that although the payers have deducted TDS in the\nfinancial year relevant to the assessment-year 2018-19, the assessee has\noffered the relevant income in the assessment-year 2017-18 as per regular\nmethod of accounting and therefore claimed the credit of TDS in the\nassessment-year 2017-18 which is very much correct and allowable in\naccordance with the following provision ofsection 199:"199. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing\n provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government\n shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person\n from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of\n the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or\n of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be.(2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) ofsection 192and\n paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax\n paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such\n payment of tax has been made.(3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect\n of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this\n Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the\n rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than\n those referred to in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and also\n the assessment year for which such credit may be given."ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 12 of 1419. Ld. DR, agreeing with the submission that the credit of TDS is\nrequired to be allowed in accordance withsection 199, left the issue to the\nwisdom of the Bench.20. We have considered submissions of both sides. We observe that the\nLd. AR has rightly pressedsection 199before us. We also observe that the\nsub-section (3) of the saidsection 199empowers the Board to make rules\nand exercising that authority, the Board has made Rule 37BA which\nprovides as under:"Credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section199.\n 37BA. (1) and (2) XXX\n (3)(i) Credit for tax deducted at sourced and paid to the Central\n Government, shall be given for the assessment-year for which\n such income is assessable."Thus a bare reading of sub-rule (3)(i) of Rule 37BA makes it\nunambiguously clear that the credit of TDS shall be allowed in the year in\nwhich the relevant income is taxable. As can be seen from the submission\nof Ld. AR, the relevant-income out of which the TDS was deducted, had\nbeen offered by the assessee for taxation in the assessment-year 2017-18\naccording to the regularly followed method of accounting. Hence the credit\nof TDS deserves to be allowed in the assessment-year 2017-18 in\naccordance with the mandate ofsection 199read with Rule 37BA.21. However, the lower authorities did not have occasion to verify the\nfigures of relevant-income and TDS supplied by the assessee and whether\nthe assessee has actually offered the relevant-income in the assessment-\nyear 2017-18 or not. Hence a complete verification is required. Therefore,\nwe think appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. AO who\nshall give an adequate opportunity to the assessee, make the necessary\nverification and allow credit in terms ofsection 199read with Rule 37BA.\nNeedless to mention that the Ld. AO shall take a note of all the evidences\nproduced by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue according to the\nlaw. Ground No. 3(b) is, therefore, allowed for statistical purpose.ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 13 of 14GROUND No. 3(c):22. In this Ground, the assessee has challenged the charging of interestu/s 234Band234Camounting to Rs. 25,70,673/- and Rs. 12,14,010/-\nrespectively.23. The levy of interest is statutory and consequential. Hence this\nGround does not require any adjudication at this stage.DISPOSITION:24. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose.Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on\nthis ...17th ..... day of May, 2022.Sd/- Sd/-\n\n(SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI)\n\nJudicial Member Accountant Member\n\nIndore, 17 th May, 2022\n\nPatel/ Sr. P.S.\n\nCopies to: (1) The appellant\n (2) The respondent\n (3) CIT\n (4) CIT(A)\n (5) Departmental Representative\n (6) Guard File\n By order\nUE COPY\n Assistant Registrar\n Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n Indore Bench, IndoreITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 14 of 141. Date of taking dictation: 23.02.20222. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member:24.02.20223. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.:.........4. Dt. on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for\nPronouncement: ..........5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: .........................6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk: ..........................7. The dt. on which the file goes to the Astt. Registrar for signature on\nthe order: .........................8. Date of despatch of the Order: ........................

fbe3caa4-03a6-53c9-976a-57c7f1babdae

court_cases

Manipur High CourtM/S Rangnamei Construction & Sales vs Vrs on 5 June, 2020Author:Kh. Nobin SinghBench:Kh. Nobin SinghIN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR\n AT IMPHAL\n W.P.(C) No. 255 of 2020\n\nM/S Rangnamei Construction & Sales ...Petitioner\n Vrs.\nState of Manipur & 2 ors. ...RespondentsB E F O R E\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH\n05.06.2020.Heard Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel\nappearing for the petitioner.Let notice be issued to the respondents\nreturnable on 08.07.2020.Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA accepts notice on\nbehalf of all the respondents and hence no formal notice is\ncalled for.List it on 08.07.2020.JUDGE\n\n\n\n Dhakeshori\n\n\n WAIKHO Digitally signed\n by WAIKHOM\n M TONEN TONEN MEITEI\n Date: 2020.06.05\n MEITEI 13:46:42 +05'30'1|Page

ca09d02f-dfa8-527e-a12d-7c867dfd729a

court_cases

Chattisgarh High CourtShri Karani Traders vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 December, 2021Author:P. Sam KoshyBench:P. Sam Koshy-1-\n\n\n NAFR\n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR\n Writ Petition (C) No. 5250 of 2021\n\n Jai Durga Rice Mill Having Its Registered Office At Link Road, Bhatapara,\n District Baloda - Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner\n Mukesh Kumar Tharani S/o Bhagwan Das Tharani Aged About 52 Years\n R/o Munshi Ismail Ward, Vip Colony, Bhatapara, District Baloda - Bazaar\n Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.\n ---Petitioner(s)\n Versus\n1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh\n2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi\n Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh\n3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazaar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi\n Upaj Mandi Samiti, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh\n ---RespondentsWrit Petition (C) No. 5254 of 2021\n\n Shri Karani Traders Having Its Registered Office At Gandhi Mandir Ward,\n Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Through Its\n Partner Arun Kumar Mundhra S/o Late Durgadas Mundhra Aged About 54\n Years, R/o Sadar Bazar Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar\n Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.---Petitioner(s)\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi\n Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazaar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi\n Upaj Mandi Samiti, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.---Respondents\n &\n Writ Petition (C) No. 5256 of 2021\n\n Siyaram Rice Mill Having Its Registered Office At Gram Kholwa,\n Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Through Its\n Partner, Sandeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Prem Chandra Agrawal, Aged About\n 48 Years, Resident Of Near Sati Mandir, Nehru Ward, Bhatapara, District\n Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.---Petitioner(s)\n Versus1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture,\n Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi\n Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazaar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi\n Upaj Mandi Samiti, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.---Respondents-2-For Petitioners : Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate.\n For Respondent/State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, Ms.\n Astha Shukla and Ms. Shriya Mishra, Panel\n Lawyers.For Respondent No.3 : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy\n Order on Board\n\n16.12.2021 .1. Since common facts and issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they\n\n are being disposed of by this common order.2. The writ petitions have been filed for the following relief(s)-"10.2. To issue a writ of appropriate nature directing the\n respondent to suspend and not to invoke Section 19(1)(ii) of\n the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 for the\n levy of market fee on the petitioner for paddy brought from\n outside the State for processing and manufacturing where\n transaction has not taken place with the market area being\n arbitrary and illegal."3. The petitioners seem to be apprehending levy of market fees by the\n\n respondent No.3. for the paddy which they intend to mill at their Rice Mills\n\n which is coming from outside the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh.\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the judgment of Supreme\n\n Court in case ofGujarat Ambuja Exports Limited and Another Vs. State of\n\n Uttarakhand and Others, 2016 (3) SCC 601 submits that the pari-materia\n\n provision applicable in the State of Uttarakhand has already been struck\n\n down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.That, further on the\n\n basis of the aforesaid judgment in the case ofGujarat Ambuja(Supra) the\n\n Division Bench of this High Court also in bunch of writ petitions, leading\n\n case of which being WPC No.1207 of 2019 (Shree Sita Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.\n\n Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 08.05.2019, have-3-reiterated the stand taken inthe said judgmentand have in paragraphs\n\n 5&6 held as under:"5. In view of the statement made, we dispose of all the Writ\n Petitions with the direction that the respondents shall not\n invoke Section 19 (1) (ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 for levy of\n market fee on the petitioners for paddy brought from outside\n the State for processing and manufacturing where\n transaction has not taken place within the market area.6. If the statute permits levy of market fees for any other\n transaction, than what is covered under Section 19 (1) (ii) of\n the Adhiniyam, 1972, the concerned market committee would\n be at liberty to consider the same on transaction basis."4. Today, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 as also the counsel\n\n for State make a statement that both the State of Chhattisgarh as also the\n\n respondent No.3 have been abiding by the judgment of Division Bench in\n\n case ofShree Sita Agro Tech(Supra). The whole contention of the counsel\n\n appearing for the respondents are that the respondents under no\n\n circumstances would be levying market fees on the paddy which is being\n\n brought from outside of territories of the State of Chhattisgarh only for the\n\n purpose of milling and manufacturing subject to the finish product i.e. rice\n\n or paddy not being sold or transacted in any manner within the territories\n\n of the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the respondents counsel, if the\n\n petitioners after milling sends back the finished product to the place where\n\n if came from for milling the market fees will not be levied otherwise the\n\n product becomes leviable.5. The apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the respondents have\n\n been squarely dealt with in the aforementioned judgment of Division\n\n Bench of this High Court inShree Sita Agro Tech(Supra).6. Given the aforesaid statements made by the counsel appearing for the\n\n respondents and the stand that have been taken by the respondents, the-4-petitioners should not have any apprehension as of now so far as the\n\n respondents levying market fees on paddy which is being brought from\n\n outside the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh into the petitioners\n\n establishment only for milling/processing/manufacturing and thereafter\n\n returning it back to the source from where it has come. However, the\n\n petitioners would be subjected to levy of any other tax or fees, as the case\n\n may be, in case if the paddy which has been brought from outside the\n\n territories of the State of Chhattisgarh is being sold either in the form of\n\n paddy or in the form of finished product after processing within the State of\n\n Chhattisgarh.7. With the aforesaid observations and the judgment referred to in the\n\n preceding paragraphs, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.Sd/-(P. Sam Koshy)\n Judge\n\n\ninder

a48d82ce-d15d-55af-9a0b-99a21a5f522a

court_cases

Securities Appellate TribunalSaffron Capital Advisors Private ... vs Sebi on 12 March, 2021BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n MUMBAI\n\n Date : 12.03.2021\n\n Misc. Application No. 136 of 2021\n (Exemption from filing Certified Copy)\n And\n Misc. Application No. 137 of 2021\n (Condonation of Delay)\n And\n Appeal No. 94 of 2021\n\n Saffron Capital Advisors Private Limited ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\n\n Mr. Abishek Venkataraman, Advocate with Ms. Poonam D.\n Gadkari, Advocate i/b Juris Matrix Partners LLP for the\n Appellant.\n\n Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey,\n Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.\n\n\n ORDER:1. There is a delay of 15 days in the filing of the appeal.\n\n Accordingly, an application for condonation of the delay has\n\n been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and\n\n for the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.\n\n The application is allowed.22. The appellant has also filed an exemption application.\n\nWe direct the appellant to file an application before the\n\nrespondent for supply of a certified copy of the impugned order.\n\nUpon receiving the application, the respondent will supply the\n\ncertified copy within five working days. The appellant,\n\nthereafter, file a certified copy of the impugned order before the\n\nTribunal.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, three\n\nweeks time is allowed to the respondent to file a reply. Three\n\nweeks thereafter to the appellant to file a rejoinder. The matter\n\nwould be listed for admission and for final disposal on May 3,\n\n2021.4. Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar\n\n48 hours before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether\n\nthe matter would be taken up for hearing through video\n\nconference or through physical hearing.5. The present matter was heard through video conference\n\ndue to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign\n\na copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be\n\nissued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be\n\ndigitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench3and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally\n\nsigned copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a\n\ndigitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.Justice Tarun Agarwala\n Presiding Officer\n\n\n\n\n Justice M.T. Joshi\n Judicial Member\n RAJALA Digitally signed\n\n12.03.2021 by\n\n KSHMI NAIR\n RAJALAKSHMI H\n\n\nmsb Date: 2021.03.15\n H NAIR 11:44:54 +05'30'

fb062fc0-fbc4-5ab0-bbfa-a9b41b37a061

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nLok Sabha Debates\nRegarding Connecting Deoghar With Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor -Laid. on 22 September, 2020\n Seventeenth Loksabha \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n an> \n\n \n\nTitle: Regarding connecting Deoghar with Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor -laid. \n\nDR. NISHIKANT DUBEY (GODDA) :  As per the announcement, the inter-ministerial group was to examine the feasibility of setting up the Amritsar-Delhi-Kolkata Industrial Corridor along with the structural and financing arrangements that would be required. \n\n          The Amritsar-Delhi-Kolkata Industrial Corridor will use the Eastern dedicated freight corridor as the backbone. The Eastern DFC extends from Ludhiana in Punjab to Dankuni near Kolkata. Therefore, the Amritsar-Delhi-Kolkata Industrial Corridor will be structured around the Eastern DFC and also the highway network that exists on this route. It will also leverage the Inland Waterway System being developed along National Watenvay-l, which extends from Allahabad to Haldia. \n\n          It will cover Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. This is one of the most densely populated regions in the world and houses about 40% of India’s population. \n\n          Interestingly, the corridor is to cover the cities of Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Ambala, Saharanpur, Delhi, Roorkee, Moradabad, Bareilly, Aligarh, Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, Varanasi, Patna, Hazaribagh, Dhanbad, Asansol, Durgapur and Kolkata. \n\n          While originally, the alignment was being considered differently, changes seem to have been suggested. These changes would result in this vital corridor bypassing the Santhal Pargana region and that too by just 100-odd Kilometers. While the Corridor is proposed to link Patna, I would urge the Government to consider connecting DEOGHAR in Jharkhand, which is less than 100 Kilometers to the proposed alignment. The area is in extreme need of infrastructure and just a slight change in alignment would make a huge difference to the lives of the poor tribals of the region. The tribals of Santhal Pargana will forever thank the Government of India for this.

49800902-67c8-548f-907a-f4000d0bbba4

court_cases

Jammu & Kashmir High CourtM/S Fazal Rehman Dar vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir And Others on 9 March, 2023Sr. No. 149\n\n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n AT JAMMU\n\n\n WP(C) 585/2023\n\nM/S Fazal Rehman Dar ..... petitioner (s)\n\n Through :- Mr. R.K.Gupta Sr. Advocate with\n Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta Advocate.\n\n V/s\n\nUT of Jammu and Kashmir and others .....Respondent(s)\n\n Through :- Ms. Pallavi Sharma Advocate vice\n Mr. Ravinder Gupta AAG.\n\nCoram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE\n\n\n\n ORDERThe grievance of the petitioner as projected in this petition is that in\n\nresponse to e-NIT No. 68 of 2022-23 dated 19.01.2023, the petitioner\n\nsubmitted its bid for the work indicated at S.No.3 of the e-NIT. Learned Senior\n\nCounsel assisted by Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Advocate submits that as per\n\nclause 6.5 of the e-NIT, the bidder was to ensure to upload scanned copy of all\n\nthe documents mentioned in the checklist which would include the copies of\n\ncomplete ITRs for the last five financial years. Referring to clause 23(f) of the\n\nInstructions to Bidders, it is submitted that the respondents were to upload the\n\nresult of technical evaluation on JKtenders.gov.in following which the bidder\n\nhaving any objection was entitled to submit his objections, if any, in writing to\n\nthe tender accepting authority. The said authority was under an obligation to\n\nconsider the objections before opening of the financial bid. It is submitted that\n\nthe result of technical evaluation was uploaded on the official website on24. 02.2023 and the petitioner having found that many of the bidders had failed2to upload their complete ITRs for the last five years and, therefore, ineligible\n\nto participate in the tender process, made written objections to the tender\n\naccepting authority on 26.02.2023.The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of more than ten\n\ndays, the tender accepting authority has not decided the objections submitted\n\nby the petitioner and it is apprehended that the tender accepting authority may,\n\nwithout considering the objections, open up the financial bid.Heard. Notice. Ms. Pallavi Sharma Advocate appearing vice\n\nMr. Ravinder Gupta AAG accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2.\n\nNow notice shall be issued to respondents No. 3 to 6, returnable within four\n\nweeks. Requisite steps for service within two weeks.List along with WP(C) No. 567/2023.In the meanwhile, it is provided that respondent No.2 shall not open up\n\nthe financial bid till the objections filed by the petitioner are considered and\n\ndisposed of by passing a speaking order. This, however, shall be subject to the\n\ncondition that the objections have been filed by the petitioner within the time\n\nstipulated in the e-NIT.(SANJEEV KUMAR)\n JUDGE\nJammu\n09.03.2023\nSanjeev

a0381808-e111-559b-9634-abf7e660b41b

court_cases

High Court of MeghalayaThe Union Of India & Anr. vs . Bina Khongbuh & 4 Ors. on 29 November, 2021Bench:Sanjib Banerjee,W. DiengdohSerial No. 09\n Regular List\n HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA\n AT SHILLONG\nWP (C) No. 236/2020\n Date of Order: 29.11.2021\nThe Union of India & Anr. Vs. Bina Khongbuh & 4 Ors.\nCoram:\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge\n\nAppearance:\nFor the Petitioner/Appellant (s) : Dr. N. Mozika, ASG with\n Ms. T. Sutnga, Adv.\nFor the Respondent (s) : Mr. UK Nair, Sr. Adv. withMs. S K Nongrum, Adv.The writ petition is directed against a judgment and order of March 15,\n\n 2019 passed by the Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondent employees\n\n were appointed as Lecturers at the North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional\n\n Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIMHS) at Mawdiangdiang\n\n in Shillong and, as such, the revision of pay as recommended by the Sixth\n\n Central Pay Commission vide notification dated February 2, 2009 and\n\n implemented in respect of Senior Lecturers would not apply to the post of\n\n Lecturer occupied by the petitioners before the Tribunal.It is evident that the Union framed certain rules pertaining to Senior\n\n Lecturers in the nursing course prior to the creation of the post of Lecturer at\n\n the North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical\n\n Sciences (NEIGRIMHS). It also appears that the anomaly as in the present\n\n case may also have been at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences\n\n (AIIMS) in New Delhi and at the Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing\n\n also in New Delhi. By the judgment and order impugned, the Tribunal heldPage 1 of 3that the petitioners before such Tribunal were justified in seeking the same\n\ngrade pay as those in similar institutes like the All India Institute of Medical\n\nSciences (AIIMS), Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing and Post\n\nGraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),\n\nChandigarh.The Tribunal found that the second respondent institute had taken up\n\nthe issue with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2016 regarding\n\nthe change of nomenclature and grade of pay in respect of the faculty posts\n\nat the NEIGRIMHS.In a sense, the writ petitioners herein are precluded from challenging\n\nthe order inasmuch as, the immediate employer, NEIGRIMHS, had noticed\n\nthe anomaly and had required a clarification that would have led to the same\n\nbenefit as has been conferred by the Tribunal by the order impugned.Since the order impugned indicates adequate reasons and removes an\n\nanomaly pertaining to the functioning of the petitioners before the Tribunal\n\nand since the primary justification that is evident from the order impugned is\n\nthat persons discharging similar duties at similar institutes under the Ministry\n\nof Health and Family Welfare are accorded the benefits by the Sixth Central\n\nPay Commission, the order does not call for any interference.It is, however, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of\n\nthe order impugned, certain amendments may be required to be introduced\n\nin the rules. The respondent employees deny that any amendment is\n\nnecessary. Since the scope of the petition is limited to the propriety of the\n\norder impugned, it will be open to the petitioners to introduce any\n\namendment that may be necessary in accordance with law.Page 2 of 3WP (C) No. 236 of 2020 is disposed of without interfering with the\n\n judgment and order impugned dated March 15, 2019.There will be no order to costs.(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)\n Judge Chief Justice\n\n\nMeghalaya\n29.11.2021\n"Santosh, P.S."Page 3 of 3

3c998b16-e16f-5ec3-8c2f-d569f12333df

court_cases

Central Administrative Tribunal - ChandigarhSukhjit Singh Bains vs Chief Secretry Of Punjab on 11 April, 20231 (OA No. 060/254/2021)\n\n CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL\n CHANDIGARH BENCH\n\n\n Reserved on: 01.03.2023\n Pronounced on: 11.04.2023\n\n\n OA No. 060/254/2021\n\n\nHON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)\nHON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)\n\n\nSukhjit Singh Bains, IAS (Retd.), (Group A), aged 63\nyears, Resident of #327, RCS Flats, Sector 48-A,\nChandigarh.\n\n\n .........Applicant\n\n (By Advocate : Sh. J.R. Syal)\n\n\n VERSUS\n\n1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of\n Personnel and Training, North Block, Central\n Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001.\n2. Government of Punjab, through Chief Secretary,\n Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 1, Chandigarh-\n 160001.\n3. Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of\n Personnel, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 1,\n Chandigarh-160001.\n\n\n ...Respondents\n\n (BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Vinod K. Arya for respdt. No. 1\n Sh. T.P.S. Walia, AAG for respdts.\n No. 2 & 3\n 2 (OA No. 060/254/2021)\n\n ORDER\n\nPer: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):1. The present Original Application has been filed underSection 19of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985\n\n against the order dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure A-13)\n\n passed by the Chief Secretary to Government of\n\n Punjab, Department of Personnel, IAS Branch,\n\n conveyed vide endorsement dated 27.01.2021\n\n whereby claim of the applicant for promotion to the\n\n Super Time Scale has wrongly been put in a sealed\n\n cover in view of the meeting of the Screening\n\n Committee held on 04.01.2021 in pursuance of the\n\n advice of the Government of India vide letter dated\n\n 04.05.2020 as per Para 11, 15 and 21 of the I.A.S.\n\n Promotion Guidelines dated 28.03.2000.2. The facts as stipulated by the applicant in this OA are\n\n that the applicant belongs to 2001 batch of IAS and\n\n was serving the State of Punjab till the date of his\n\n retirement on 28.02.2017. Vide order dated\n\n 03.02.2012 (Annexure A-1), the applicant was placed\n\n in the Junior Administrative Grade of Rs. 15600-\n\n 39100 + 7600 with effect from 01.01.2010. Vide\n\n order dated 22.02.2014 (Annexure A-2), the3 (OA No. 060/254/2021)applicant was placed in the Selection Grade of Rs.\n\n37400-67000+8700 w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Thereafter,\n\napplicant became eligible to be placed in Super Time\n\nScale w.e.f. 01.01.2017 after completion of 16 years\n\nof service under the provisions of the rules (Annexure\n\nA-3). A meeting of the Screening Committee was\n\nheld on 14.12.2016 (Annexure A-3A) under the\n\nChairmanship of Sh. Sarvesh Kaushal, IAS, the then\n\nChief Secretary to Government of Punjab and Smt.\n\nRaji P. Shrivastava, IAS, Principal Secretary to\n\nGovernment of Punjab, Department of Personnel and\n\nSh. K.A.P. Sinha, IAS, Principal Secretary to\n\nGovernment of Punjab, Department of General\n\nAdministration as Members to adjudge the suitability\n\nof IAS Officers of the 2001 Batch for promotion to the\n\nSuper Time Scale of IAS in the pay scale of Rs.\n\n37,400-67,000 + Rs/ 10,000/- Grade Pay with effect\n\nfrom 01.01.2017. The Committee perused the\n\npromotion guidelines dated 28.03.2000 and IAS (Pay)\n\nRules, 2007 regarding promotion of members of the\n\nService to various grades and proceeded to adjudge\n\nthe suitability of as many as five officers wherein the\n\nname of the applicant appeared at Sr. No. 4. The4 (OA No. 060/254/2021)applicant had obtained a copy of the proceedings of\n\n the meeting of the said Screening Committee and\n\n found that the Committee proceeded to adjudge the\n\n suitability of the applicant along with others, but gave\n\n no recommendation in respect of the applicant along\n\n with another, for the reasons best known to the\n\n Screening Committee, irrespective of the fact that\n\n there was nothing adverse against the applicant on\n\n the date the said meeting was held.3. That while in the service of the respondents, a\n\n complaint was filed by the Punjab Financial\n\n Corporation Employees Welfare Association,\n\n Chandigarh against the applicant, whereupon a\n\n preliminary inquiry was conducted. On 20.02.2017,\n\n on the basis of a preliminary inquiry, the applicant\n\n was issued charge sheet under Rule 8 of the All India\n\n Service Rules (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, on\n\n the misconduct as detailed in the charge-memo itself.\n\n During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings,\n\n the applicant retired on 28.02.2017 from the cadre\n\n post of IAS, on attaining the age of superannuation.\n\n In the meanwhile, the Inquiry officer submitted his\n\n inquiry report fully exonerating the applicant and 0n5 (OA No. 060/254/2021)11.10.2018 (Annexure A-4), the respondent No. 2\n\n after examining the same, dropped the charge sheet\n\n issued to the applicant.4. It is submitted by the applicant that the respondents\n\n on the recommendations of the DPC held in the\n\n month of December, 2016, placed S/Sh. Gurkirpal\n\n Singh, Priyank Bharti and Arvinder Singh Bains, IAS\n\n Officers of the 2001 Batch in the Super Time Scale,\n\n but the applicant was not granted the said Super\n\n Time Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2017.5. The applicant made a representation on 23.06.2017\n\n (Annexure A-5) to this effect to the respondents.6. Again, on 28.02.2017 (Annexure A-6), the applicant\n\n addressed a representation to the Joint Secretary,\n\n Government of India, Department of Personnel &\n\n Training, New Delhi, stating that in spite of his being\n\n eligible for the same, the State Government had not\n\n considered his claim for Super Time Scale for the\n\n reasons best known to them. The Government of\n\n India sought comments on the representation of the\n\n applicant from the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated\n\n 13.03.2018 (Annexure A-7). The Special Secretary\n\n Personnel in the Government of Punjab, Department6 (OA No. 060/254/2021)of Personnel (IAS Branch) vide letter dated\n\n 09.04.2018 (Annexure A-8) sought clarification from\n\n respondent No. 1 regarding the deemed date in the\n\n allotment year from which the period of service in the\n\n IAS is to be counted for the purpose of calculating 16\n\n years of service for the grant of Super Time Scale for\n\n officers promoted to IAS from State Civil Service. In\n\n the communication, it was specifically pointed out\n\n that RR Officers of 2001 Batch joined their service in\n\n the IAS on 02.09.2001 and were granted Super Time\n\n Scale from 22.12.2016.7. It is further stated that on the representation of the\n\n applicant regarding denial of promotion to the Grade\n\n of Super Time Scale by the State Government, the\n\n Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel,\n\n Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of\n\n Personnel & Training, New Delhi vide letter dated\n\n 22.06.2018 (Annexure A-9), addressed a letter to the\n\n Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department\n\n of Personnel, IAS Branch, Chandigarh, conveyed that\n\n any officer of 2001 Batch, inter alia, Sh. S.S. Bains\n\n (present applicant) would be eligible to be considered\n\n for promotion to Super Time Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2017.7 (OA No. 060/254/2021)The decision was conveyed with the approval of the\n\n competent authority.8. The applicant served a Legal Notice dated 02.12.2019\n\n (Annexure A-10) calling upon the respondents to\n\n grant him the Super Time Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2017\n\n and also grant him consequential benefits alongwith\n\n interest @12% p.a. After a period of eight months,\n\n the Government of Punjab replied vide letter dated\n\n 17.08.2020 (Annexure A-11) informing the applicant\n\n that his case for adjudging the suitability for\n\n promotion to Super Time Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2017 is\n\n under consideration of the Government of Punjab.9. Applicant, on not getting any desired benefit released,\n\n filed OA No. 060/853/2020 praying for a direction to\n\n the respondents to release the benefit of Super Time\n\n Scale on time bound basis. This OA was decided on\n\n 10.11.2020 (Annexure A-12) and respondents were\n\n directed to decide the claim of the applicant within six\n\n weeks in accordance with rules and advice rendered\n\n by DOP&T.10. In compliance of order dated 10.11.2020, instead of\n\n releasing the Super Time scale to the applicant w.e.f.\n\n 01.01.2017, the date it was due, a speaking order8 (OA No. 060/254/2021)was passed by the respondents, putting the case of\n\n the applicant for promotion to the Super Time Scale\n\n in the sealed cover till the time pending FIR is\n\n finalized. Hence this OA.11. The respondents have filed their reply wherein they\n\n submitted that I.A.S. officers of the State\n\n Government have been granted promotion to the\n\n various scales of Indian Administrative Service in\n\n accordance with the I.A.S. Promotion Guidelines\n\n issued by the Government of India vide letter dated\n\n 28.03.2000 (Annexure R-1). The relevant para for\n\n grant of Super Time Scale to the I.A.S. Officers is as\n\n follows:-"The members of the Service who are working in\n the Selection Grade and have completed 16 years\n of service shall be eligible for appointment in the\n Supertime Scale at any time during the year of\n their eligibility, subject to the availability of\n vacancies in this grade."12. The respondents submitted that the applicant joined\n\n the I.A.S. Cadre Punjab on 13.08.2009 and the batch\n\n allotted to him was 2001. Hence, the Officer was to\n\n complete 16 years of service on 12.08.2017 whereas\n\n he retired on 28.02.2017 before completing 16 years\n\n of service in I.S. and therefore, he could not be9 (OA No. 060/254/2021)considered for promotion to Super Time Scale in the\n\n Screening Committee's meeting held on 14.12.2016.13. The applicant represented on 26.12.2016 and\n\n 28.12.2016 for considering him for promotion to the\n\n Super Time Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2017. His case for\n\n promotion to the Super Time Scale was considered in\n\n the Screening Committee's Meeting held on\n\n 30.01.2018 (Annexure R-3) and the Committee\n\n decided to take a clarification in this regard from\n\n Department of Personnel and Training, Government\n\n of India, New Delhi. Hence, a clarification was sought\n\n vide letter dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure R-4)\n\n regarding the deemed date in the allotment year from\n\n which the period of service in the I.A.S. is to be\n\n counted for the purpose of calculating 16 years of\n\n service for grant of Super Time Scale. The\n\n Government of India vide letter dated 22.06.2018\n\n (Annexure A-9) had advised that as per Note 1 & 2\n\n under Rule 3 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 and IAS\n\n Promotion Guidelines, a member of service becomes\n\n available to be considered for promotion to Super\n\n Time Scale after completing 16 years of service w.e.f.\n\n 1st January of relevant year. As such, any officer of10 (OA No. 060/254/2021)2001 batch, interalia Sh. S.S. Bains would be eligible\n\n to be considered for promotion to Super Time Scale\n\n w.e.f. 01.01.2017.14. It is further stated by the respondents that an FIR No.\n\n 2 dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure A-14) was registered\n\n by the Vigilance Bureau for misappropriation of funds\n\n in respect of release of compensation in acquiring\n\n panchayat land in the name of village Jheurheri,\n\n District Mohali during the tenure of Sh. Sukhjit Singh\n\n Bains, as Director, Rural Development and Panchayat.\n\n Under these circumstances, an advice from the\n\n Government of India was sought regarding the date\n\n (as on the date of Screening Committee Meeting or as\n\n on the due date of promotion) the\n\n Disciplinary/Departmental/Vigilance proceedings\n\n pending against an officer are to be considered, in\n\n cases where an officer is to be considered for\n\n promotion w.e.f. retrospective date. The Government\n\n of India vide letter dated 04.05.2020 (Annexure R-6)\n\n had advised to process such cases as per Paras 11,\n\n 15 and 18 onwards of IAS Promotion Guidelines dated\n\n 28.03.2000. These paragraphs are reproduced\n\n hereunder:-11 (OA No. 060/254/2021)"11. PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN RESPECT OF\nOFFICERS AGAINST WHOM DISCIPLINARY/COURT\nPROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING OR WHOSE CONDUCT\nIS UNDER INVESTIGATION\n\n11.1 At the time of consideration of the cases of officers\nfor promotion, details of such officers in the zone of\nconsideration falling under the following categories should\nbe specifically brought to the notice of the concerned\nScreening Committees:-(a) Officers under suspension; (b) Officers in respect of\nwhom a chargesheet has been issued and disciplinary\nproceedings are pending ; (c) Officers in respect of whom\nprosecution for criminal charge is pending.11.2 The Screening Committee shall assess the suitability\nof the officers coming within the purview of the\ncircumstances mentioned above, alongwith other eligible\ncandidates, without taking into consideration the\ndisciplinary case/criminal prosecution which is pending.\nThe assessment of the Committee including "Unfit for\nPromotion" and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a\nsealed cover. The cover will be superscribed "FINDINGS\nREGARDING THE SUITABILITY FOR PROMOTION TO THE\nSCALE OF................IN RESPECT OF\nSHRI..........................NOT TO BE OPENED TILL THE\nTERMINATION OF THE DISCIPLINARY CASE/CRIMINAL\nPROSECUTION AGAINST SHRI.................." The proceedings\nof the Committee need only contain the note " THE\nFINDINGS ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED SEALEAD\nCOVER". The same procedure will be adopted by the\nsubsequent Screening Committees till the disciplinary\ncase/criminal prosecution against the officer concerned is\nconcluded.15. VIGILANCE CLEARANCE WHILE IMPLEMENTING\nTHE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nA clearance from vigilance angle should be available\nbefore making actual promotion or confirmation of officers\napproved by the Committee to ensure that no disciplinary\nproceedings are pending against the officer concerned.21. SEALED COVER PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO\nOFFICERS IN WHOSE CASES CONTINGENCIES OF\nPARA 11.1 SUPRA ARISE BEFORE ACTUAL\nPROMOTION\n\n In the case of an officer recommended for promotion by\nthe Screening Committee where any of the circumstances12 (OA No. 060/254/2021)mentioned in para 11 above arise before actual\n promotion, sealed cover procedure would be followed. The\n subsequent Committee shall assess the suitability of such\n officers along with other eligible candidates and place\n their assessment in sealed cover. The sealed cover/covers\n will be opened on conclusion of the disciplinary\n case/criminal prosecution. In case the officer is\n completely exonerated, he would be promoted as per the\n procedure outlines in para 18 above and the question of\n grant of arrears would also be decided accordingly. If any\n penalty is imposed upon him as a result of the disciplinary\n proceedings or if he is found guilty in the criminal\n prosecution against him, the findings of the sealed cover\n shall not be acted upon, as outlined in para 18.2 above."15. In compliance of the order dated 10.11.2020\n\n (Annexure A-12) passed by this Tribunal in OA No.\n\n 060/853/2020, the case of Sh. Sukhjit Singh Bains\n\n I.A.S.(retd.) was considered in the Meeting of the\n\n Screening Committee held on 04.01.2021 and in\n\n pursuance of advice of Government of India sent vide\n\n their letter dated 04.05.2020 (Annexure R-6), as per\n\n Para 11, 15 and 21 of the I.A.S. Promotion Guidelines\n\n dated 28.03.2000, the case of the applicant for\n\n promotion to the Super Time Scale was decided to be\n\n kept in sealed cover till the time pending F.I.R. is\n\n finalized and the decision taken by the Screening\n\n Committee was conveyed to the applicant vide\n\n impugned letter dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure A-13).\n\n Hence, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the\n\n applicant to file this OA and the same is liable to be\n\n dismissed being devoid of merit.13 (OA No. 060/254/2021)16. The applicant has filed the rejoinder reiterating the\n\n facts as stated in the Original Application. He\n\n further stated that the case of the applicant has\n\n wrongly been put in a sealed cover referring to Para\n\n 11, 15 and 21 of the IAS Promotion Guidelines dated\n\n 28.03.2000 only on a clarification given by the\n\n Government of India vide letter dated 04.05.2000,\n\n ignoring the fact that the case of applicant for Super\n\n Time Scale was due w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and the\n\n conduct of the officer was required to be adjudged by\n\n the Screening Committee prior to the date the Super\n\n Time Scale was due. It was, therefore, wrong on the\n\n part of the Screening Committee to take cognizance\n\n of FIR No. 2 dated 20.02.2018 reported to be\n\n registered against the applicant by the Vigilance\n\n Bureau. Moreover, the name of the applicant has not\n\n been mentioned as an accused. In spite of that, the\n\n respondents sought advice from the Government of\n\n India regarding considering the applicant for his\n\n placement in the Super Time Scale of IAS w.e.f.\n\n 01.01.2017. The Government of India gave an advice\n\n on the point mentioned in the reference vide their\n\n letter dated 04.05.2020 probably considering the fact14 (OA No. 060/254/2021)that the applicant is being considered for the Super\n\n Time Scale from a prospective date. Since the case\n\n of the applicant for release of the Super Time Scale\n\n was due with effect from 01.01.2017, this fact was\n\n duly acknowledged by the Government of India in\n\n their letter dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure A-9). Hence,\n\n the action of the respondents in placing the case of\n\n promotion of the applicant to the Super Time Scale in\n\n a sealed cover referring to the pendency of the FIR\n\n reported to be registered on 22.02.2018 is uncalled\n\n for.17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties\n\n and have carefully gone through the pleadings on\n\n record.18. From the pleadings, the main point for determination\n\n is that since when the Super Time Scale is due to the\n\n applicant.19. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant\n\n was allotted IAS Cadre in the year 2001. The\n\n applicant was placed in the Junior Administrative\n\n Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2010 and thereafter, Selection\n\n Grade was granted to the applicant w.e.f.\n\n 01.01.2014.15 (OA No. 060/254/2021)20. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant\n\n became eligible to be placed in Super Time Scale\n\n w.e.f. 01.01.2017 after completion of 16 years of\n\n service under the provision of Rules (Annexure A-3).21. It is an admitted fact that the meeting of the\n\n Screening Committee was held on 14.12.2016\n\n (Annexure A-3 A). Though the applicant was\n\n succeeded, but was not granted Super Time Scale.\n\n The contention of the respondents is that though the\n\n Selection Committee has considered the case of the\n\n applicant, but the applicant has not completed 16\n\n years in view of the instructions vide letter dated\n\n 28.03.2000 (Annexure R-1).22. It has been submitted by the respondents that\n\n applicant has joined the IAS Cadre (Punjab) on\n\n 13.08.2009 and was allotted IAS (2001) Batch and\n\n the applicant was to complete 16 years of service on\n\n 12.08.2017 and the applicant stood retired on\n\n 28.02.2017. In view of such position, the Committee\n\n decided to take a clarification in this regard from the\n\n Department of Personnel and Training, Government\n\n of India, New Delhi. The same was sought vide letter\n\n dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure R-4) regarding the16 (OA No. 060/254/2021)deemed date in the allotment year from which the\n\n period of service in the IAS is to be counted for the\n\n purpose of calculating 16 years of service for the\n\n grant of Super Time Scale.23. The contention of the respondents is that the\n\n Government of India vide letter dated 22.06.2018\n\n (Annexure A-9) had advised that a Member of service\n\n becomes available to be considered for promotion to\n\n the Super Time Scale after completing 16 years of\n\n service w.e.f. 1st January of relevant year and as\n\n such, any officer of 2001 batch would be eligible to be\n\n considered for promotion to Super Time Scale w.e.f.\n\n 01.01.2017.24. The contention of the respondents is that FIR dated\n\n 20.02.2018 was registered and advice from\n\n Government of India was sought regarding the date\n\n (as on the date of the Screening Committee or as on\n\n the due date of promotion) the\n\n Disciplinary/Departmental/Vigilance proceedings\n\n pending against an officer are to be considered in\n\n cases where an officer is to be considered for\n\n promotion w.e.f. retrospective date and Government\n\n of India vide letter dated 04.05.2020 (Annexure R-6)17 (OA No. 060/254/2021)had advised to process such cases as per Paras 11,\n\n 15 and 18 of IAS Promotion Guidelines dated\n\n 28.03.2000 and the case of the application for\n\n placement in the Super Time Scale was to be kept in\n\n the sealed cover till the time the pending FIR is\n\n finalized.25. From the pleadings, it is clear that till 14.12.2016\n\n when the Selection Committee met qua the granting\n\n of Super Time Scale, no FIR was registered against\n\n the applicant. On representing of the applicant\n\n regarding denial of promotion to the Grade of Super\n\n Time Scale by the State Government, the\n\n Government of India letter dated 22.06.2018\n\n (Annexure A-9) which was addressed to the State\n\n Government to the effect that any officer of the 2001\n\n Batch would be eligible to be considered for\n\n promotion to Super Time Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2017.\n\n The respondent department, in compliance of the\n\n order passed by this Tribunal (Annexure A-12), has\n\n considered the applicant and a speaking order was\n\n passed whereby the case of the applicant for\n\n promotion to Super Time Scale was put in sealed\n\n cover till pending FIR is finalized. FIR was registered18 (OA No. 060/254/2021)on 20.02.2018. The para IV of Guidelines for\n\n consideration for promotion to Super Time Scale is as\n\n under:-"IV. The members of the Service who are working\n in the Selection Grade and have completed 16\n years of service shall be eligible for appointment in\n the Supertime Scale at any time during the year of\n their eligibility, subject to availability of vacancies\n in this grade. The Screening Committee to\n consider officers for promotion in this scale would\n consist of the Chief Secretary as Chairman and 2\n Officers working in the grade of Principal Secretary\n within the State Government concerned, as\n members................"26. The Union of India vide letter dated 22.06.2018\n\n (Annexure A-9) has also intimated to the Chief\n\n Secretary to Government of Punjab. The same is\n\n reproduced as hereunder:-"To\n\n The Chief Secretary,\n Government of Punjab,\n Department of Personnel,\n IAS Branch,\n Chandigarh.Kind Attn : (Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Sapra, Special\n Secretary (P)\n\n Subject: Representation of Shri S.S. Bains, IAS\n (2001) regarding denial of promotion to the Grade\n of Super Time Scale by State Government.Sir,\n\n I am directed to refer to the State\n Government's letter No. 1/01/2017-IAS (4)/1186\n dated 16.04.2018 on the above mentioned subject\n and to say that as per Note 1 & 2 under Rule 3 of\n IAS (Pay) Rules 2016 and IAS promotion guidelines,\n a member of service become eligible to be\n considered for promotion to Super Time Scale after19 (OA No. 060/254/2021)completing 16 years of service w.e.f. 1st January of\n the relevant year.2. As such any officer of 2001 batch, interalia\n Shri S.S. Bains would be eligible to be considered\n for promotion to Super Time Scale w.e.f. 1.1.2017.3. In this context further, it is noticed that IAS\n officers (RR) of 2001 batch also promoted to super\n time scale on 22.12.2016, prior to their date of\n eligibility to be considered for promotion to Super\n Time Scale. This also appears to have been done\n without obtaining prior concurrence of Central\n Government for availability of vacancies, which is\n mandatory as per Rule 392) of IAS (Pay) Rules,\n 2016.4. This issues with the approval of competent\n authority.Yours faithfully,\n\n (Jyotsna Gupta)\n Under Secretary to Government of India\n Tel. 23094714"27. The contention of the respondents is that the State\n\n Government has considered the applicant in the\n\n Selection Committee meeting held in view of Paras\n\n 11, 15 and 18 of IAS Promotion Guidelines dated\n\n 28.03.2000. As the FIR (which was registered on\n\n 20.02.2018) was pending, the sealed cover procedure\n\n was adopted. The letter from Government of India\n\n was communicated to Government of Punjab on\n\n 22.06.2018 (Annexure A-9) wherein it has been\n\n specifically clarified by the Government of India with\n\n reference to letter dated 16.04.2018 qua the Note 1 &\n\n 2 under Rule 3 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 and IAS20 (OA No. 060/254/2021)Promotion Guidelines, a member of service becomes\n\n available to be considered for promotion to Super\n\n Time Scale after completing 16 years of service w.e.f.\n\n 1st January of relevant year. As such, any officer of\n\n 2001 batch, interalia Sh. S.S. Bains would be eligible\n\n to be considered for promotion to Super Time Scale\n\n w.e.f. 01.01.2017. Despite this, the applicant has not\n\n been considered.28. In view of Annexure A-9 and also the rule position as\n\n per Annexure A-3, the applicant in this Original\n\n Application is eligible to be considered in the\n\n Screening Committee held on 14.12.2016 as the\n\n applicant belongs to IAS (2001) Batch. The FIR has\n\n been registered on 20.02.2018 which has no\n\n relevance at the time of consideration of the applicant\n\n in the meeting of Selection Committee for grant of\n\n Super Time Scale which was held on 14.12.2016 and\n\n there is no question for putting the case of the\n\n applicant for grant of Super Time Scale Scale in the\n\n sealed cover. So, the applicant is entitled for\n\n consideration in the Selection Screening Committee\n\n held on 14.12.2016. Accordingly, this OA is allowed.\n\n The impugned order dated 18.01.2022 is quashed21 (OA No. 060/254/2021)and set aside and the respondents are directed to\n\n consider the case of the applicant for grant of Super\n\n Time Scale as has been granted to his 2001 Batch\n\n counterparts.29. The relevant exercise be done within two months of\n\n grant of a certified copy of this order.30. There shall be no order so as to costs.(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)\n Member (A) Member (J)\nND*

7d01547f-57d2-50f3-8560-c44a9f00a22c

court_cases

Central Information CommissionS Gosh vs Directorate General Of Commercial ... on 20 October, 2022Author:Saroj PunhaniBench:Saroj Punhaniके ीय सूचना आयोग\n Central Information Commission\n बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका\n Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nFile No : CIC/DGCIS/A/2022/615950\n\nS Gosh ......अपीलकता /Appellant\n\n VERSUS\n बनाम\nCPIO,\nDirectorate General of\nCommercial Intelligence &\nStatistics, RTI Cell, 565,\nAnandapur, Plot No. 22,\nSector-1, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent\n\nDate of Hearing : 18/10/2022\nDate of Decision : 18/10/2022\n\nINFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on : 02/01/2022\nCPIO replied on : 31/01/2022\nFirst appeal filed on : 31/01/2022\nFirst Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2022\n2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL\n\nInformation sought:The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 02.01.2022 seeking the\nfollowing information:1. "Please provide complete leave details (including CL, SCL, EoL etc.) of all\n Group A officers along with their name, designation, type of leave, duration of\n leave (to and from dates) for the calendar year 2021.12. Is biometric attendance system resumed in DGICS? Yes or No. If yes, please\n provide the date since its working. If No, reasons thereof.3. Names and designations of all employees who have taken more than 30\n days leave in the calendar year 2021 along with the type of leave and\n durations (to and from dates).4. Whether EL, HPL, EoL in part 1 and part 3 above has been entered in service\n books for calendar year 2021? Yes or No. If No, please provide names of such\n officers.5. Please provide copies of note sheet, OMs and other official letter related to\n my email dated 12/11/21 addressed to[email protected]with subject\n unauthorised absences of Souvik Naskar, Deputy Director Export. Please\n provide copies of replies received from and issued to Sh Naskar on the above\n issue.6. Has E-office implemented in DGCIS? Yes or No. If yes, please provide the\n date since E-office is fully functional in DGCIS. If no, reasons thereof.7. Please provide names and designations of all Group B and lower levels\n officers who have access to E-office. Out of this list, how many officers with\n names and designations has processed at least 10 files in December 2021.8. What percentage of old physical files has been converted into digital files in\n the last one year?9. Please provide names and designation of all employees who have applied\n leave in the calendar year 2021 using e-office.10. Please provide names and designation of all employees who have applied\n for tours in the calendar year 2021 using e-office.11. Please provide names and designation of all employees who have applied\n for tours in the calendar year 2021 using physical files.12. Please provide TA bills along with all relevant documents that is needed to\n conduct an official tour for the employees of DGCIS in the calendar year 2021."The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 31.01.2022. Being\ndissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2022. FAA's order dated\n15.02.2022 held as under:-".........The CPIO has no intention not to provide the information. As per RTI Rule,\nthe information may be provided to the applicant's which are existing in this\noffice. So that CPIO informed you to come this office Administration Division and\ninspect the documents. For inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a\nfee of rupees five (Rs.5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) tinderRTI\nAct, 2005fees, cost & Rule in respect of point No. 1,3 &11- 12.\nPoint No. 2: No. The said system is suspended due to Government order,\nPoint No.5: No relevant document is available.2Point No 6: No, e-Office has not been fully implemented in DOGS. Reasons for 'No':e-Office is being implemented in a 'phase wise manner'. So, the File Management\npart of e-Office has been implemented first. Subsequently, implementation of\nother parts of e-Office has been taken up.Point No. 7:Information regarding 2nd part of the question: It is not possible from\nthe e-Office application to find out the required information, This is because the\nFile Management System of e-Office application does not have any functionality\nthrough which one can cull out the details of users with their frequency of usage.\nPoint No.8: It is under process."Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with\nthe instant Second Appeal.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present:-Appellant: Not present.Respondent: Shyamsundar Parul, Asstt. Director & CPIO present through video-\nconference.The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Appeal has been filed by\nthe Appellant on the ground of non-receipt of desired information in response to\npoints no. 1,3, 7, 11 and 12 of RTI Application.The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with an opportunity of\ninspection was already offered to the Appellant; however, he did not avail of the\nsaid opportunity. In response to it, the Commission counselled the CPIO that the\ndetails of other officials as sought by the Appellant at points no. 1, 3, 7, 11 & 12\nare squarely hit bySection 8(1)(j)of RTI Act; therefore, offering opportunity of\ninspection to the Appellant in response to above said points without taking\nconsent/objection underSection 11of RTI Act was not appropriate and was\nagainst the provisions ofRTI Act.Decision:In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission upon a perusal of facts on\nrecord observes that details of officials as sought for in the instant case through\npoints no. 1, 3, 7, 11 & 12 of RTI Application pertains to personal information of a\nthird party and thus is squarely hit bySection 8(1)(j)of RTI Act.In this regard,\nattention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court3ofIndia vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwalin Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with\nCivil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the\nimport of "personal information" envisaged underSection 8(1)(j)of RTI Act has\nbeen exemplified in the context of earlier ratioslaid down bythe same Court in\nthe matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyamin Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009;Girish\nRamchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1\nSCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following\nwas thus held:"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would\n indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental\n and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets,\n are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records,\n including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs,\n disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical\n records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors\n visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members,\n information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of\n investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such\n personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion\n of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger\n public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."However, ignoring the aforesaid aspect, the CPIO has erred in giving the\nopportunity of relevant records of the concerned third parties to the Appellant\nwithout seeking their consent/objection underSection 11of RTI Act. In this\nregard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and follow due process of\nlaw as envisaged under theRTI Actbefore divulging any third party's exempted\ninformation.In view of the foregoing observations and considering the absence of the\nAppellant during hearing to buttress his case, no further relief can be granted in\nthe matter.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)\n हािन)\n Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )4Authenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित)\n\n(C.A. Joseph)\nDy. Registrar\n011-26179548/[email protected]सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक\n दनांक /5

d25a558b-685f-5f98-bfb5-783c3832a2d6

court_cases

Rajasthan High CourtRatanlal Meena S/O Late Shri Banshilal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 April, 2020Author:Inderjeet SinghBench:Inderjeet SinghHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3899/2020\nRatanlal Meena S/o Late Shri Banshilal Meena, Aged About 48\nYears, R/o Gram Jhopda Ps Soorwal Tehsil And Dist. Sawai\nMadhopur Presently At Plot No 11 Pursharth Nagar-B Jagatpura\nJaipur Presently Transport Inspector Rto Officer Jaipur (Currently\nIn J.c. In Central Jail At Jaipur)\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan, Through Pp\n ----RespondentFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora.\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, AAG-GA.\n\n\n\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH\n\n Order\n\n22/04/20201. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are\n\nnot appearing in the courts.2. Heard Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel for petitioner, through\n\nWhatsapp Video Calling as well as learned Additional Advocate\n\nGeneral-cum-Government Advocate appearing for the\n\nState(prosecution), who is present in the court.3. The present bail application has been filed underSection 439Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.\n\n35/2020 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Chowki-\n\nTonk) for the offence(s) under Sections 7, 7A, 13(1) (A) of\n\nPrevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 andSection\n\n119,384and120-Bof IPC.4. Perused the record.(Downloaded on 22/04/2020 at 08:45:29 PM)(2 of 2) [CRLMB-3899/2020]5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has\n\n been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that\n\n the petitioner has been made accused during investigation in trap\n\n proceedings at the instance of co-accused Manish Mishra and the\n\n fact is that neither any bribe amount has been received from\n\n possession of the petitioner nor he has been caught red handed by\n\n the police. Counsel further submits that the challan has already\n\n been presented in this matter and conclusion of the trial may take\n\n long time and the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.02.2020.6. Learned Additional Advocate General-Government Advocate\n\n has opposed the bail application.7. Considering the material on record and taking into account\n\n the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the\n\n challan has already been presented in this matter and the\n\n petitioner is not required for any further custodial investigation\n\n and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in\n\n custody and also considering the period of custody and without\n\n expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is\n\n allowed. Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to\n\n satisfaction of the trial Court. Office is directed to send a copy of\n\n this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for\n\n necessary compliance.8. All the pending applications stand disposed of.(INDERJEET SINGH),J\n\n MG/13(Downloaded on 22/04/2020 at 08:45:29 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

20ef4ac3-9c07-52f7-91f5-bb41110954f3

court_cases

Madras High CourtS.M.Nagoor Gani vs Mohammed Ismail (Died) ... 1St on 3 August, 2022Author:P.VelmuruganBench:P.VelmuruganA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013\n\n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n DATED: 03.08.2022\n\n CORAM:\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN\n\n A.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013\n and\n M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013\n S.M.Nagoor Gani ... Appellant / Plaintiff\n -Vs-\n Mohammed Ismail (died) ... 1st Defendant\n 1.Rahmath\n 2.N.Jamila Beevi\n 3.M.Shahul Hameed\n 4.M.Varusaikani\n 5.Jinnakani ... Respondents / Defendants 2 to 6\n\n\n PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/wSection 96of the Code\n of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.3 of 2007\n dated 29.08.2013 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge,\n Tirunelveli.\n\n\n For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan\n For R1 to R3 & R5 : Mr.M.P.Senthil\n\n\n 1/20\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n A.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013\n\n JUDGMENTThe appellant / plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2007 before the\n\n First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking declaration and permanent\n\n injunction, wherein the respondents are the defendants 2 to 6.2(i). The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-The plaintiff's paternal grandfather viz., S.P.Sahul Hameed and his elder\n\n brother viz., S.P.Nagoor Gani Rowther had been jointly carrying on business in\n\n Ceylon since 1921. The said S.P.Sahul Hameed died in the year 1948 and his\n\n brother S.P.Nagoor Gani Rowther died on 26.01.1983, without issues and his wife\n\n had predeceased him. After the death of S.P.Nagoor Gani Rowther, his sister viz.,\n\n Kader Pathumal Beevi filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of the learned\n\n Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, claiming partition and separate possession of half\n\n share in the suit properties left by the deceased S.P.Nagoor Gani Rowther. The\n\n case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1984 was that she being the sister of the\n\n deceased S.P.Nagoor Gani Rowther, was entitled to half share in the properties\n\n left by him and the 1st defendant in that suit viz., S.P.Nagoor Gani, who was none\n\n other than the son of late S.P.Shahul Hameed and nephew of the deceased2/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013S.P.Nagoor Gani Rowther was entitled to the remaining half share. In O.S.No.34\n\n of 1984, E.S.E.Mohamed Samsudeen was impleaded as the 2nd defendant, on the\n\n ground that he was managing the estate of the deceased as Accountant. During\n\n the pendency of the suit, on 28.10.1995, the said Kader Pathumai Beevi died.\n\n Consequently, her two sons viz., V.Mohamed Ismail, who is the 1st defendant in\n\n the present suit and V.Nagoor Gani were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 and 3.2(ii). In view of the plea raised by the 1st defendant along with the 2nd\n\n defendant in the joint written statement that the deceased S.P.Nagoor Gani had\n\n made a oral gift of some of his properties to the wife and children of the 1 st\n\n defendant's brother Mohamed Ali Jinnah, the defendants 3 to 8 were impleaded as\n\n parties to the said suit. The plaintiff in the present suit was added as 4 th defendant\n\n in O.S.No.34 of 1984. Since the 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the\n\n said suit, his legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 9 to 15. The\n\n defendants 16 and 17 being tenants under the plaintiff herein in respect of some\n\n of the items of the suit properties, were added as parties. The 18 th defendant was\n\n impleaded on the ground that he was a cultivating tenant in respect of some of the\n\n suit properties under the plaintiff herein.3/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 20132(iii). During the pendency of the said suit, the 2 nd plaintiff had executed\n\n two registered release deeds dated 27.04.1994, totally relinquishing his claim and\n\n right in the suit properties in favour of the 4th defendant therein / plaintiff herein\n\n for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- each total aggregating Rs.1,00,000/-.\n\n Thereafter, the plaintiff herein become the absolute owner of the suit properties.\n\n After trial in the said suit, the trial Court has held that the two release deeds were\n\n not valid in law as much as the said documents had been obtained under coercion.\n\n During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff herein had filed O.S.No.402 of\n\n 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyoor, seeking permanent injunction\n\n against the 1st defendant herein / 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1984. Thereafter,\n\n the suit in O.S.No.402 of 1995 was transferred to Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli\n\n and renumbered as O.S.No.122 of 1996 and the same was dismissed on\n\n 23.03.1997. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.34 of\n\n 1984, the defendants 3 to 8 filed A.S.No.237 of 1997 on the file of the learned\n\n District Judge, Tirunelveli. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.402 of 1995 had\n\n also filed A.S.No.28 of 1998. The First Appellate Court dismissed both the\n\n appeals. Then, the Second Appeals filed against the said judgment in S.A.Nos.4/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 20131135 and 1134 of 1999 before this Court, were also dismissed. Against which\n\n they filed the Special Leave Petitions and the same were also dismissed by the\n\n Hon'ble Apex Court.2(iv). In the meanwhile, the 1st defendant herein has filed I.A.No.286 of\n\n 1997 for final decree for partition and the same is still pending. The plaintiff has\n\n been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in entirety by\n\n virtue of the execution and registration of the two release deeds. Taking\n\n advantage of the findings of the trial Court in O.S.No.34 of 1984, the 1 st\n\n defendant had been consistently making illegal and unlawful attempts to divest\n\n the plaintiff of the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Until the two\n\n release deeds are actually set aside through the competent Court of law, both the\n\n interest and title created thereby in favour of the plaintiff over the suit properties\n\n will continue to subsist under law. Therefore, the suit has to be decreed as prayed\n\n for by the plaintiff.3.The brief facts of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant are as\n\n follows:-This defendant never executed any release deed during the pendency of5/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013the suit in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. It is\n\n absolutely false to state that this defendant executed two registered release deeds\n\n on 27.04.1994, after receiving a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. As admitted by\n\n the plaintiff, this defendant contended in the previous suits that the two\n\n documents were not valid in law, since they had been obtained by the plaintiff\n\n under coercion, while he was under the illegal custody of the plaintiff and his\n\n men. The trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court\n\n held that the two release deeds are not valid and the plaintiff has no right over the\n\n property, on the basis of the two release deeds. This defendant is not aware of the\n\n Special Leave Petitions filed by him before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.\n\n The plaintiff himself has admitted that the Special Leave Petitions were also\n\n dismissed even at the admission stage itself. The said findings of the trial Court\n\n and the Appellate Courts regarding the release deeds has become final. It is true\n\n that underSection 19of the Indian Contract Act, the release deeds obtained by\n\n the plaintiff under coercion is voidable. But the legal position pleaded in the\n\n plaint that until the defendant takes action to set aside the release deed, the\n\n documents are valid in law is not legally unsustainable. It is not necessary for\n\n this defendant to file a suit for avoiding the two release deeds obtained by the6/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013plaintiff by coercion. The plea of the plaintiff that the finding in O.S.No.34 of\n\n 1984 and in O.S.No.122 of 1996 cannot deprive the plaintiff of his alleged\n\n interest over the suit properties until the release deeds are set aside is legally\n\n unsustainable. The suit property is in joint possession of the defendants and other\n\n co-owners. The suit and the appeals were dismissed holding that the plaintiff is\n\n not entitled to any injunction, on the basis of the two invalid documents. Hence,\n\n this suit for the same relief is barred by the principle of res-judicata.4. Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court has framed the\n\n following issues:-“1. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of Res-Judicata in view of the decrees in O.S.No.34 of 1984 and O.S.No.\n 122 of 1996?;2. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct ?;3. Whether the defendant is liable to set aside the release\n deeds obtained from him by coercion?;4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction?;5.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?7/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 20135. In order to substantiate the case, during the trial on the side of the\n\n plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1, three witness were examined as P.Ws.2 to\n\n 4 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants,\n\n no oral evidence was examined, however, one document was marked as Ex.B.1\n\n during the cross-examination of P.W.16. On conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on\n\n either side, the trial Court has dismissed the suit with costs. Challenging the same,\n\n the plaintiff in the suit has filed the present Appeal Suit before this Court.7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would\n\n submit that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property,\n\n based upon the two registered release deeds dated 27.04.1994, which are Exs.A1\n\n and A2 and also in order to prove the same, the appellant has also marked Ex.A6\n\n series (five in numbers) which are chellans for the amount paid to Kalakad\n\n Panchayat Union. Though the respondents stated that Exs.A1 and A2 were\n\n obtained by coercion and Exs.A1 and A2 are voidable documents, the respondents\n\n have not taken any steps to set aside the documents in accordance with law,8/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013through the competent Court or they have not cancelled the same before the\n\n Registrar. Therefore, the right and interest accrued to the appellant on the strength\n\n of such voidable documents viz., Exs.A1 and A2 would continue to subsist under\n\n law till they are set aside. Further, he would submit that based on the above said\n\n documents, the appellant was in possession. The trial Court failed to consider the\n\n legal effect of the voidable documents and also the appellant is in possession of\n\n the property, based on the said documents. Since Exs.A1 and A2 being\n\n instruments registered in terms ofSection 17(1)of the Registration Act, the\n\n transaction will continue to remain with its full effect until the respondents set\n\n aside the transaction through the competent civil Court. Therefore, the appellant\n\n is entitled to continue in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties until\n\n Exs.A1 and A2 would be set aside by due process of law. Till now Exs.A1 and\n\n A2, the registered release deeds said to have been obtained by coercion were not\n\n set aside by due process of law. The trial Court has not framed proper issues and\n\n decide the case and without gone into the legal effect of Exs.A1 and A2, simply\n\n dismissed the suit on technical ground that the suit is barred by res judicata. The\n\n possession of the appellant has to be recognised unless the documents / Exs.A1\n\n and A2 set aside by due process of law. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed9/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has to be set aside.8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5\n\n would submit that though it is true underSection 19of the Indian Contract Act,\n\n the release deeds said to have been obtained by the plaintiff under coercion is\n\n voidable. However, the legal position pleaded by the appellant that only the\n\n respondents have to take action to set aside the release deeds / Exs.A1 and A2 or\n\n valid in law is not only assumption but also it is legally unsustainable. If a suit is\n\n filed by a party on the basis of document obtained by coercion, the party affected\n\n by the deed can seek to void in his written statement. It is not at all necessary for\n\n the defendants to file a suit for cancelling the said release deeds / Exs.A1 and A2\n\n obtained by the appellant by coercion. The appellant has not in lawful possession\n\n over the suit properties. All the co-owners are in joint possession of the suit\n\n properties, even the suit in O.S.No.34 of 1984, the appellant is one of the\n\n plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed only for partition claiming that all are in\n\n joint possession. The respondents have got only 1/4th share in the suit schedule\n\n properties. As such, the appellant is not entitled for declaration or the injunction\n\n as prayed for. Therefore, the appellant has filed the suit only based on the release10/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013deeds / Exs.A1 and A2. The competent Court in the earlier suit in O.S.No.34 of\n\n 1984 and in O.S.No.122 of 1996, held that both the Exs.A1 and A2 / release\n\n deeds are not valid. Once the validity of the said documents / Exs.A1 and A2\n\n have been already decided by the competent civil Court that the said release deeds\n\n have been obtained by coercion, those documents are not valid in the eye of law.\n\n Once the competent civil Court declared that the above said two documents are\n\n not valid documents, the appellant is not entitled to claim possession through the\n\n documents. Further, the validity of documents have been decided between the\n\n parties in the earlier suits. Hence, the appellant has filed the present suit in\n\n O.S.No.3 of 2007, which is legally not maintainable and the same is barred by res\n\n judicata. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the\n\n appellant and even the grounds raised in the appeal is also not legally valid.\n\n Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel\n\n for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.11/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 201310. Admittedly, the deceased first respondent along with her mother\n\n Kader Pathumal Beevi filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of the\n\n Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for partition. In the said suit, the appellant herein\n\n was arrayed as the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the deceased first\n\n respondent said to have executed a registered release deeds in favour of the\n\n appellant herein. The said registered release deeds dated 27.04.1994 were marked\n\n as Exs.A1 and A2 in the present suit. The defence of the first respondent herein in\n\n the above suit in respect of his share of the properties is the appellant herein\n\n obtained two registered release deeds by coercion. Therefore, the trial Court also\n\n framed one of the issues that whether the release deeds dated 27.04.1994\n\n were obtained by coercion. The trial Court also after the trial given a finding in\n\n respect of the said issue that the said release deeds were obtained by coercion and\n\n hence, the same are not valid in the eye of law.11. In the mean while, the appellant herein also filed yet another suit in\n\n O.S.No.402 of 1995 on the file of the Munsif Court, Valliyoor. Subsequently, the\n\n same was transferred to Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli and renumbered as\n\n O.S.No.122 of 1996 and the said suit was tried along with the above said suit in12/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013O.S.No.34 of 1984 and both the suits were tried simultaneously and decided on\n\n merits and the release deeds were also marked in the above said suits and the\n\n issue was decided in favour of the first respondent herein and against the\n\n appellant.12. Challenging the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.34 of 1984, the\n\n appellant herein filed an appeal before the District Court, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.\n\n 237 of 1997 and against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.122 of 1996,\n\n he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 1998 before the District Court, Tirunelveli.\n\n Both the appeals were dismissed. As against the said judgments, the appellant\n\n herein filed the second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1134 of 1999 and 1135\n\n of 1999. This Court also after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeals on\n\n merits. Challenging the same, the appellant herein filed the Special Leave Petition\n\n before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same were also dismissed at the\n\n admission stage itself. Therefore, the subject matter of the issue herein was\n\n already decided by the competent civil Court in the earlier suit in O.S.No.34 of\n\n 1984 and the same went up to the Highest Court of this Country and the issue was\n\n decided against the appellant herein. Therefore, the present suit in other way filed13/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013by the appellant herein is barred by res judicata and the right claimed by the\n\n appellant is not valid and sustainable and based on the invalid documents, he\n\n cannot claim possession. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the\n\n entire facts and evidence and dismissed the suit.13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the\n\n respondents admitted the execution of the above said release deeds / Exs.A1 and\n\n A2, but the same are voidable documents, unless the same are set aside by the\n\n competent Court, the documents are in force and based on the documents, the\n\n possession of the appellant is lawful.14. It is settled proposition of law that no doubt the respondents have\n\n admitted the execution of the release deeds/Exs.A1 and A2, but they have stated\n\n that the documents were obtained by coercion. In such circumstances, underSection 19of the Indian Contract Act, it is voidable documents. The said\n\n documents were challenged in the Court of law in the earlier suits and the specific\n\n issue was also framed regarding the validity of the documents and both the\n\n appellant and the first respondent herein were also parties to the earlier suits and14/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013the said issue was also finally decided by the competent Court between the parties\n\n on merit after trial. The successor cannot re-agitate the same issue. Since the said\n\n issue was ended finality by all the forum, now the appellant cannot say that the\n\n documents / Exs.A1 and A2 were not set aside by the competent Court. The\n\n respondents have not taken steps to set aside the documents. Therefore, the\n\n documents are still in force. The said submission of the learned counsel for the\n\n appellant is not sustainable under law. Once the competent Court declared that\n\n the documents are not valid, the issue was also framed and finally decided, now\n\n the documents have no force. Therefore, claiming right by the very same\n\n documents is not sustainable and the trial Court has rightly framed the issue that\n\n whether the suit is barred by res judicata and also answered the same and held\n\n that the present suit is barred by res judicata.15. As far as the possession is concerned, as already stated, the two suits\n\n in which both the appellant and the respondents were also arrayed as one of the\n\n plaintiffs and defendants and even the suit in O.S.No.122 of 1996 was filed by the\n\n appellant herein for the very same properties, based on the very same documents/\n\n Exs.A1 and A2. Both the suits were decided against the appellant. No doubt the15/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013suit in O.S.No.34 of 1984 for partition was filed by the deceased first respondent\n\n and his mother. During the pendency of the suit, the said Exs.A1 and A2 alleged\n\n to have been executed on 27.04.1994, which means during the pendency of the\n\n said suit in O.S.No.34 of 1984, the above said suit was filed for partition. The\n\n respondents herein claimed only 1/4th share in the said suit and it is not the suit\n\n for declaration, declaring the right of entire property and the respondents\n\n executed the release deeds with reference to the entire property. Even the suit\n\n was filed for partition claiming 1/4th share by the respondents and also claiming\n\n joint possession. Subsequently, the appellant obtained the registered release\n\n deeds. Of course, the respondents claimed that it was obtained by coercion and in\n\n the earlier suits, the competent civil Court held that both the Exs.A1 and A2 were\n\n not valid and the issue went up to the Supreme Court and ended finality.\n\n Therefore, the execution of the documents itself during the pendency of the suit\n\n and the alleged possession also taken during the pendency of the suit, which\n\n means only subject to the outcome of the suit. Once the competent civil Court\n\n held that the documents are not valid, naturally the alleged possession is also not\n\n lawful. Therefore, the appellant cannot file the subsequent suit viz., the present\n\n suit in O.S.No.3 of 2007 and re-agitate the very same issue which are ended16/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013finality. Therefore, the appellant has no merit in the appeal.16. Even though the appellant was in constructive possession based on\n\n the said documents, once the documents/Exs.A1 and A2 declared as not valid, he\n\n cannot claim possession, based on the said documents. Further, now the final\n\n decree proceeding is pending, based on the judgment and decree passed in\n\n O.S.No.34 of 1984. Once the issue was decided that the documents/Exs.A1 and\n\n A2 are not valid, naturally the appellant is not entitled to share of the first\n\n respondent herein.17. As per the preliminary decree in O.S.No.34 of 1984, the appellant is\n\n entitled to 1/4th share and that has got to be divided by metes and bounds in the\n\n final decree proceedings. Under such circumstances, claiming of possession by\n\n the appellant is also not legally valid and sustainable, even the document Ex.A6\n\n series relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant will not give any legal\n\n right to the appellant and Exs.A5 and A7 also subject to the outcome of the suit\n\n only. Therefore, the transaction itself was in lis pendens, which was during the\n\n pendency of the suit and all the transactions during the pendency of the suit,17/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013naturally subject to the outcome of the suit only. They cannot claim any\n\n independent right against the decisions of the Court. Therefore, this Court finds\n\n that the appellant has no merit in the appeal and the appeal is devoid of merits\n\n and the same is liable to be dismissed.18. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,\n\n the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.03.08.2022\n Index : Yes / No\n Internet : Yes / No\n\n akv\n\n\n\n\n To1.The First Additional District Judge,\n Tirunelveli.18/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 20132.The Record Keeper,\n V.R.Section,\n Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,\n Madurai.19/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisA.S.(MD)No.148 of 2013P.VELMURUGAN, J.akvA.S.(MD)No.148 of 201303.08.202220/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

657af1c3-543f-58f1-813f-df8b146d7ede

court_cases

Calcutta High CourtBulk Trade Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3/1 And Ors on 15 December, 2022Author:Md. NizamuddinBench:Md. NizamuddinOD -7\n\n ORDER SHEET\n\n WPO/3220/2022\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION\n ORIGINAL SIDE\n\n BULK TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED\n VS\n INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3/1 AND ORS.\n\n BEFORE:\n The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN\n Date: 15th December, 2022.\n Appearance:\n Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.\n Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.\n ...For the Petitioner\n\n Mrs. Smita Das De, Adv.\n ...For the Revenue\n\n The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.\n\n Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records.\n\n By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order\n\ndated 28th July, 2022 underSection 148A(d)of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n\nrelating to assessment year 2013-14, and, all subsequent proceedings based\n\non the impugned notice dated 18th June, 2021 underSection 148of the\n\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, mainly on the ground of jurisdiction of the assessing\n\nofficer in issuance of the impugned notice underSection 148of the Act\n\nbeing barred by limitation underSection 149(1)(b)of the Income Tax Act,\n\n1961. In the impugned order underSection 148A(d)of the Act, the assessing\n\nofficer has tried to justify the initiation of re-assessment proceeding by\n\nrelying on an instruction being No. 01/2022 dated 11th May, 2022 issued by\n\nCBDT. Admittedly, the issuance of notice and initiation of re-assessment\n\nproceeding are beyond six years and, prima facie, it is barred by limitation\n 2\n\n\nboth under the old Act as well as under newly amended provision relating toSection 147of the Act.\n\n Considering the submission of the parties, I am of the view that this\n\nmatter deserves adjudication by calling for affidavits from the respondentsand I am also of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a\n\nprima facie case for an interim order by raising the issue of jurisdiction of\n\nthe assessing officer concerned in initiating the impugned re-assessment\n\nproceeding.Let the respondents file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks after\n\nthe Christmas Vacation; petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within two\n\nweeks thereafter.The matter shall appear for final hearing in the monthly list of March,\n\n2023.In the meantime, there will be no further proceeding on the basis of\n\nthe impugned order dated 28th July, 2022 being Annexure P-4 to the writ\n\npetition till the disposal of the writ petition.(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)\n\nTR/3

781c8896-4217-514f-86c1-0093cf85c44f

court_cases

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Tapas Roy vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 July, 202110 19.7.2021 WPCT 10 of 2020\nCt-16\n Tapas Roy\n Vs.\n Union of India & Ors.\n\nar\n Mr. Bharat Bhusan\n ... For the Petitioner\n\n Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta\n ... For the Respondent nos. 2 & 3The writ petition is directed against an order\n passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on\n 27th September, 2019 in connection with O.A No.\n 378/2011.The review application was filed primarily on\n the ground that the original applicant although\n had the experience certificate in plumbing he did\n not submit the same at the time of hearing of the\n original application.The other ground was that the Tribunal failed\n to consider the fact that since the applicant\n possessed ITI certificate in Electrician Trade, his\n name was sponsored by employment exchange\n as eligible candidate and he was even called by\n the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (in\n short JNV), Burdwan to appear at the selection\n test.Mr. Bharat Bhusan, learned counsel\n representing the writ petitioner, has submitted\n that the trade certificate in favour of the\n applicant was issued by the West Bengal State\n Council of Vocational Education & Training,\n Directorate of Industrial Training certifying that\n the applicant has attended part time evening\n class under part-time classes scheme in the\n subject mentioned relating to his trade of\n Electrician and passed the final examination in2May 2006.Mr. Bhusan further submits that the\nRecruitment Rules provide for ITI certificate or\nequivalent in the trade of Electrician or\nWireman/Plumbing from a recognised institute.\nHaving regard to the fact that the Trade\ncertificate has now been produced before the\nTribunal along with the review application, the\nTribunal ought to have revisited the earlier order\nand allowed the main application.\n With regard to the order dated 26th October,\n2010 of the Deputy Commissioner addressed to\nthe Principal, JNV, Burdwan, West Bengal that\nthe candidature of the petitioner could not be\nentertained as the petitioner had no experience\nof Government/Autonomous organisation as per\nthe norms of NVS, it is submitted that once the\nadvertisement has been published and the\neligibility criteria has clearly mentioned, it is no\nmore open to the authority concerned to alter the\nqualification norms.The certificate issued by the West Bengal\nState Council of Vocational Education & Training\non 10th February, 2012 has categorically certified\nthat the engagement of the petitioner in Maliara\nRaj Narayan High School conforms to the said\nrequirement. Moreover, the certificate of\nElectrical House Wiring and Motor Winding\ncourse (VIII) is given by the West Bengal State\nCouncil of Vocational Education & Training, a\nstatutory body under State of West Bengal.\n Mr. Bhusan submits that the documents\nissued by the Maliara Raj Narayan High School\nand subsequently by one Rainbow Enterprise\nclearly show that the petitioner had the working\nexperience. This aspect of the matter, according\nto Mr. Bhusan, has not been considered by the\nTribunal while deciding the said matter.3Mr. Susmita Saha Datta, learned counsel\nappearing on behalf of the State, submits that\nthe entire process of selection was scrapped in\n2010 itself as none of the candidates had\nexperience of Government/Autonomous\norganization as per the norms of NVS.\n Our attention has been drawn to one of the\neligibility criteria, namely, that the candidate\nmust have two years' experience in Electrical\ninstallation, Wiring and Plumbing work but the\npetitioner had failed to demonstrate by way of a\ncertificate that he had experience in Plumbing\nwork.Mr. Bhusan in reply has contended that for\nall the recruitment made by NVS over the years\nthe working experience of two years' of Electrical\ninstallation, Wiring and Plumbing work was\nnever considered to be essential and it is well-\nnigh impossible to have all the experiences\ninasmuch as there is no certificate course for\nPlumbing.It is submitted that the working experience\nfor Electrical installation, Wiring and Plumbing\nwork should be considered disjunctive and not\nconjunctive.In this regard, the writ petitioner has drawn\nour attention to the few documents regarding\nappointment of Electrician cum Plumber in NVS.\nThere is no doubt that documents disclosed in\nthis proceeding show that the persons who did\nnot have the aforesaid essential qualification\nhave been appointed to the post of Electrician\ncum Plumbing in various schools spread all over\nIndia.This certificate gives an impression that the\nsaid clause was not applied strictly by some of\nthe branches of NVS due to non-availability of\ncandidates having all the essential qualifications.4This probably prompted the authorities to\nappoint candidates having one or more of the\nessential qualifications in many cases.\n In view of the fact that admittedly the\npetitioner has failed to produce the certificate of\nworking experience of two years' of Electrical\ninstallation, Wiring and Plumbing work, we are\nunable to grant relief to the writ petitioner. We,\nhowever, direct the respondent authorities to\ntake into consideration the certificates produced\nby the writ petitioner in this writ application as\nthey have done in respect of other candidates\nwho were appointed in various schools of NVS by\nnot insisting upon plumbing certificate or strictly\nworking experience certificate and consider his\ncandidature if he is similarly placed as those of\nthe candidates who were appointed without such\nrequired certificate.We expect that the authorities concerned will\ntake a realistic pragmatic and sympathetic view\nin the matter, having regard to the documents\nproduced by the writ petitioner in support of\ntrade and working experience which the\npetitioner has disclosed before us and also\nhaving regard to the persons, who having lesser\nqualifications, have been appointed in various\ninstitutions of NVS.The order of the Tribunal is modified to the\naforesaid extent.WPCT 10 of 2020 is thus disposed of.\n There will be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied\nfor, be given to the parties upon compliance of all\nundertakings.(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)5

f2a12c5a-3d76-5bc8-b354-8fe321a04d7f

court_cases

Telangana High CourtHaleema Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 14 July, 2020Author:Challa Kodanda RamBench:Challa Kodanda RamTHE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM\n\n WRIT PETITION No.10242 of 2020\nORDER:Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pasham Krishna\n\nReddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation.It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent authorities, in\n\nspite of the petitioner having sanctioned plan and the construction itself is\n\nat the stage of digging of foundation, are interfering with the construction\n\nbeing made by the petitioner.On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits on instructions\n\nthat there is no interference by the respondent authorities with respect to\n\nthe construction activity, however, there appears to be an enquiry made by\n\nthe lower staff of the respondent corporation with respect to whether the\n\npetitioner had obtained permission and if so, a copy to be furnished to\n\nthem. However, taking the same as interference, the petitioner had run to\n\nthis Court on apprehension.Having regard to the respective submissions, there being no dispute\n\nthat the petitioner had already been granted permission for making\n\nconstruction vide building permit order dated 20.03.2020, by making it\n\nclear that as long as the permission granted in favour of the petitioner is\n\nintact, and the petitioner makes construction strictly adhering to the\n\nsanctioned plan, the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the\n\nconstruction. However, it is also made clear that if there is any deviation\n\nmade by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to\n\ninvoke the provisions ofGHMC Act, more particularly,Section 452and636of the GHMC Act, and take necessary action in accordance with law.Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.\n\n Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.____________________\n CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J\n14th July, 2020\nKSM\n THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION No.10242 of 2020\n\n\n\n\n 14th July, 2020\n\n\n\n\nKSM

d8ad248f-ef4a-58f0-b90f-c9c71bf6243b

court_cases

Gujarat High CourtSachinbhai Sureshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2022Author:Vaibhavi D. NanavatiBench:Vaibhavi D. NanavatiR/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2971 of 2016\n\n=====================================================\n SACHINBHAI SURESHBHAI PATEL & 1 other(s)\n Versus\n STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)\n=====================================================\nAppearance:\nMR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2\nMR KAIVAN K PATEL(6338) for the Respondent(s) No. 2\nMS MAITHILI D MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nthe Respondent(s) No. 1\n=====================================================\n\n CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI\n\n Date : 30/09/2022\n\n ORAL ORDER1. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate\n\n appearing for the applicants, Ms. Maithili D.\n\n Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and\n\n Mr. Kaivan K. Patel, learned advocate appearing\n\n for the respondent No.2-original complainant.2. By way of this application, the applicants\n\n herein have prayed for quashing of FIR being\n\n C.R. No.I-41 of 2016 dated 15.04.2016 registered\n\n with Siddhpur Police Station, District Patan,Page 1 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n for the offence punishable underSections 406,420and114of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3. Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing\n\n for the applicants submitted that the impugned\n\n FIR fails to constitute the alleged offences\n\n against the applicants herein and that the said\n\n FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law\n\n and the same does not disclose any cognizable\n\n offence against the applicants herein. Mr. P.P.\n\n Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the\n\n applicants also submitted that respondent No.2\n\n while instituting the impugned complaint\n\n substrate the fact that an earlier complaint was\n\n instituted by the respondent No.2 before the\n\n Police Sub Inspector, Manjalpur, District\n\n Vadodara, leveling similar allegations wherein\n\n after preliminary inquiry, the police submitted\n\n a report stating that respondent No.2 - original\n\n complainant was not present to give his\n\n statement and that the complaint came to be\n\n filed by the respondent authority. The complaintPage 2 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n filed by the respondent No.2 was for recovery of\n\n money and hence, the said complaint was not\n\n entertained and a closure report to the said\n\n effect came to be filed on 29.03.2016. It\n\n appears that the applicants herein gave their\n\n statements in the said preliminary inquiry on\n\n 05.03.2016 and 22.03.2016. The copy of the said\n\n reports are duly produced on record ad Annexure-\n\n C (Collectively). The facts required\n\n adjudication of the present FIR as stated by the\n\n applicants herein are stated thus:-The respondent No.2 filed impugned FIR\n\n alleging FIR dated 15.04.2016 and stating that\n\n the respondent No.2 - original complainant\n\n started business of agro products at Nedhra\n\n village in Siddhpur District Patan. It is\n\n alleged that the respondent No.2 was in need of\n\n processing machine and therefore, the respondent\n\n No.2 contacted the applicant herein who is one\n\n of the partners of ANG Enterprice. It is also\n\n alleged in the impugned FIR that a quotation wasPage 3 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n sent for 16 machines amounting to Rs.26,73,000/-\n\n by email by the applicant herein. It is further\n\n alleged that meeting was held between the\n\n parties on 29.08.2014 and that the parties\n\n agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid as\n\n down payment and allegedly on 29.08.2014 The\n\n respondent No.2 gave a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-\n\n to the applicant herein. It is further alleged\n\n that thereafter on 27.09.2014, another cheque of\n\n Rs.5,00,000/- was also given by the respondent\n\n No.2 to the applicant herein and receipts were\n\n also issued by email. It is also alleged that\n\n though the aforesaid payment was duly paid, the\n\n machinery was not delivered to the respondent\n\n No.2 and in view of above, the applicants were\n\n told that by the respondent No.2 to refund the\n\n down payment. However, the said amount was not\n\n refunded and the machinery was also not been\n\n delivered. Resultantly, the respondent No.2 was\n\n constrained to file impugned FIR.4. Mr. Kaivan Patel, the learned advocate appearingPage 4 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n for the respondent No.2 - original complainant\n\n was not in a position to controvert the fact\n\n that the complaint impugned is identical to the\n\n first complaint which was filed by the\n\n respondent No.2 at Manjalpur Police Station,\n\n District : Vadodara,which is duly produced at\n\n page No.31.5. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional\n\n Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent\n\n No.1 - State submitted that the applicant-accused has a factory preparing machines\n\n utilised for preparing packing material, which\n\n is situated at Vadodara so the second cheque was\n\n also delivered at Vadodara and therefore,\n\n Vadodara Police Station would have the\n\n jurisdiction. Similarly, the respondent No.2-\n\n original complainant has a agro product factory\n\n which is a packing material preparing factory\n\n which is situated at Siddhpur.6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for\n\n the respective parties. At this stage, it isPage 5 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n apposite to refer to position of law as laid\n\n down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Criminal\n\n Appeal No.834 of 2017 dated 08.08.2019. It is\n\n apposite to refer paragraphs No.2.2., 4, 4.1,\n\n 4.2 and 4.3 which reads thus :-"2.2 That the aforesaid prayers/reliefs\n\n were opposed by the appellants herein and\n\n respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. It was\n\n submitted that the original complainant\n\n had earlier preferred an application underSection 156(3)of the Cr.P.C. which came\n\n to be rejected by the learned Magistrate,\n\n vide order dated 27.03.2015 and that the\n\n said order was not assailed by the\n\n complainant and thereafter a fresh private\n\n complaint underSection 200Cr.P.C. has\n\n been preferred which is pending before the\n\n learned Magistrate. It was also submitted\n\n on behalf of the original accused that the\n\n dispute is of a civil nature which is\n\n tried to be converted into criminal, whichPage 6 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n is nothing but an abuse of the process of\n\n law. It was submitted that despite having\n\n the knowledge of the mortgage of the\n\n property with the Andhra Bank, thereafter\n\n the complainant himself had paid the\n\n mortgage money to the Andhra Bank and even\n\n got the sale deed executed in his favour.\n\n It was submitted that if the complainant\n\n was aggrieved, in that case, he would not\n\n have got the sale deed executed in his\n\n favour.4.1 Even considering the nature of\n\n allegations in the complaint, we are of\n\n the firm opinion that no case is made out\n\n for taking cognizance of the offence underSection 420/34IPC. The case involves a\n\n civil dispute and for settling a civil\n\n dispute, the criminal complaint has been\n\n filed, which is nothing but an abuse of\n\n the process of law.4.2 It is required to be noted that afterPage 7 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n having come to know that the property was\n\n mortgaged with the Andhra Bank, the\n\n original complainant himself paid the\n\n mortgage money and got the mortgage\n\n redeemed. Not only that, thereafter, he\n\n got the sale deed executed in his name.\n\n Thereafter also, he filed the complaint\n\n with the learned Magistrate, being an\n\n application underSection 156(3)of the\n\n Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by the\n\n learned Magistrate, vide order dated\n\n 27.03.2015. The said order was not\n\n assailed by the complainant. It appears\n\n that thereafter he filed a private\n\n complaint underSection 200Cr.P.C. which\n\n was pending before the learned Magistrate.Despite the above, he filed a writ\n\n petition before the High Court, which is\n\n nothing but an abuse of the process of\n\n law. The criminal proceedings have been\n\n initiated by the original complainant to\n\n settle the civil dispute. Therefore, inPage 8 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n the facts and circumstances of the case,\n\n the Investigating Officer and other police\n\n officers were justified in not registering\n\n the FIR and in coming to the conclusion\n\n that the complaint be filed. The earlier\n\n opinion on preliminary inquiry was never\n\n placed before the DCP. Thereafter, on\n\n thorough investigation/inquiry and\n\n considering the facts and circumstances of\n\n the case narrated hereinabove, when it was\n\n opined that the dispute between the\n\n parties is of a civil nature, the High\n\n Court ought not to have issued further\n\n directions. The High Court ought to have\n\n closed the proceedings. Not only the High\n\n Court has issued further directions, but\n\n even has imposed costs and an action\n\n against the appellants 3 to 5 herein\n\n which, in the facts and circumstances of\n\n the case, is not sustainable.4.3 In view of the above and for thePage 9 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n reasons stated above and as observed\n\n hereinabove, the initiation of the\n\n criminal proceedings by the original\n\n complainant is nothing but an abuse of the\n\n process of law, we not only quash and set\n\n aside the impugned judgment and order, but\n\n also quash the criminal proceedings\n\n pending before the learned Magistrate in\n\n respect of the transaction in question.\n\n Consequently, the present appeal is\n\n allowed, the impugned judgment and order\n\n dated 13.01.2017 passed by the High Court\n\n is hereby quashed and set aside. Even the\n\n criminal proceedings initiated by the\n\n original complainant pending before the\n\n learned Magistrate in respect of the\n\n transaction in question are hereby quashed\n\n and set aside."7. In the facts of the present case, it is an\n\n undisputed fact that the respondent No.2 -\n\n original complainant herein preferred aPage 10 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n complaint before the Manjalpur Police Station\n\n being application No.66 of 2016 for the same\n\n transaction as stated in the Second FIR. The\n\n contents of the FIR as stated above are not\n\n repeated. The said complaint came to be filed by\n\n the respondent authority on 29.03.2016 and the\n\n operative paragraph of the said report reads\n\n thus :-"As the applicant gave Rs.10,00,000/-\n\n only, the respondent was to receive the\n\n finance money from the applicant at the\n\n rate of 5 %. As the applicant does not\n\n take the machinery for some reasons and\n\n gives vague reply and as no other person\n\n can purchase the said machinery, our money\n\n is blocked in the said machinery, which\n\n has caused huge loss to us. As it has been\n\n stated that the applicant does not take\n\n the machinery, the applicant was contacted\n\n but he did not come to give his statement\n\n till date. It appears that he has\n\n submitted this application with thePage 11 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n intention of earning money from the\n\n respondent. Therefore, as it appears that\n\n no action is required to be taken with\n\n respect to this application, the officer\n\n is requested to file the said application.\n\n Date: 29/03/2016."8. The FIR which is impugned and which is duly\n\n produced at page 28 dated 15.04.2016, admittedly\n\n has been filed subsequently after the respondent\n\n authority closed the complaint on 29.03.2016 as\n\n stated above. The aforesaid FIR being C.R. No.I-\n\n 41 of 2016 dated 15.04.2016 culminated into\n\n chargesheet, which is also duly produced at page\n\n No.44. The said charge-sheet came to be filed on\n\n 19.11.2020.9. Having considered the documents which are\n\n produced on record and the nature of the\n\n complaints impugned, in view of this Court and\n\n in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble\n\n Apex Court, in view of this Court, the complaint\n\n which is impugned and which has culminated intoPage 12 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022R/SCR.A/2971/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Case No. 1235 of 2021 would not be\n\n maintainable since the first complaint came to\n\n be closed and which was the same subject matter.\n\n On this ground alone, this Court is inclined to\n\n allow the application filed by the applicants\n\n herein. Consequently, the impugned FIR which has\n\n culminated into the criminal case No.1235 of\n\n 2021 stands quashed and the said proceedings\n\n which has resulted in Criminal Case No.1235 of\n\n 2021 shall stands terminated.10. It is however, kept open for the respondent\n\n No.2 to take steps as permissible in the law.11. This Court has otherwise not gone into the\n\n merits of the matter.12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid\n\n extent.(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)\n\nPallaviPage 13 of 13Downloaded on : Sat Oct 01 20:33:25 IST 2022

eb9e6ab0-b454-5a63-94b0-d9964b46d5b3

court_cases

Telangana High CourtGaddela Vinay Kumar vs Uppu Rayamallu on 7 October, 2020Author:P. Naveen RaoBench:P. Naveen RaoTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO\n\n WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2020\n\n Date:07.10.2020\n\nBetween:\nGaddela Vinay Kumar, S/o. Late Premaiah,\nAged 62 years, H.No.4-4-46, Karimnagar\nRoad, Peddapalli Town, Peddapalli\nMandal and District .. Petitioner\n\n\n And\n\nUppu Rayamallu, S/o. Late Ramaiah,\nAged 76 years, R/o. Karimnagar Road,\nPeddapalli and others .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\nThe Court made the following:\n 2\n\n\n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO\n\n WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2020\nORDER:Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant\n\nGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 6 to 10.2. This writ petition is filed alleging that even though\n\na cognizable crime was reported by the petitioner on 22.10.2019\n\nbefore the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddapally Town, respondent\n\nNo.6, against respondents 1 to 5, respondent No.6 has not received\n\nthe complaint and crime is not registered, causing lot of hardship\n\nand suffering to the petitioner.3. If the petitioner had grievance against non-registration\n\nof crime, he has an effective and efficacious remedy under theCriminal Procedure Code. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the\n\nremedy available in law, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.4. The very issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.38397\n\nof 2019 and batch inGovind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and\n\nOthers1. On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject\n\nand the scope of provisions of theCode of Criminal Procedure, more\n\nparticularly,Sections 156,190and200of Cr.P.C., this Court held as\n\nunder:"34. Having regard to law propounded by Supreme Court, it is no\n more open for any one to contend that unless a report is filed\n aggrieved person is without remedy. It is also no more open to\n contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and\n charge sheet/final report must be filed as a matter of course.\n Further, delay in completing the investigation can be for various\n reasons. Police may be waiting for forensic report/Medical report/the\n accused is absconding/having regard to complex nature of crime\n reported more time is consumed to collect required data/information12019 (3) ALT 1393to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or\n witnesses are more. While determining delay, it is necessary to\n consider each case on its facts having regard to attending\n circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and\n witnesses etc [Mahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No.\n 1038 of 2001 dated 12.10.2001]. The jurisdictional Magistrate shall\n have all material facts in issue at his command to assess the issue\n and shall be competent to go into all aspects when matters are\n brought before him and to take appropriate decision. It is also within\n the competence of superior officers to assess the conduct of Station\n House Officer and to take remedial action whenever there is\n deliberate and unexplained delay in investigation and filing of final\n report."5. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inM.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janakiand another2.Inthe\n\nsaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken\n\nby the Supreme Court inSakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh3andMohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan4and held as under:"17. In our opinionSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include\n all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a\n proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration\n of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is\n satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not\n being done by the police.Section 156(3)Cr.P.C., though briefly\n worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such\n incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper\n investigation."6. Following the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed\n\ngranting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on the\n\nissue of non-registration of crime stated to have been reported\n\nby the petitioner on 22.10.2019. Pending miscellaneous petitions\n\nshall stand closed.____________________\n P. NAVEEN RAO, J\nDate:07.10.2020\nKH22020 SCC online S.C. 341\n3 (2008) 2 SCC 409\n4 (2006) 1 SCC 6274THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2020\n\n Date:07.10.2020\n\nKH

645b367b-1140-5daf-a044-e745c7749907

court_cases

Karnataka High CourtD J Prashantha vs Roopa on 11 January, 2021Author:H.P.SandeshBench:H.P. Sandesh1\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU\n\n DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021\n\n BEFORE\n\n THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH\n\n CRIMINAL PETITION No.3947/2020\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. D.J. PRASHANTHA\n S/O. D.E. JANARDHAN\n AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS\n\n2. SMT. SUMITHRA\n W/O. D.E. JANARDHAN\n AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS\n\n3. D.E JANARDHAN\n S/O LATE ERAIAH\n AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS\n\n ALL ARE R/AT DADAHALLI VILLAGE\n MALLIPATNA HOBLI\n ARAKALGUD TALUK\n HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201 ... PETITIONERS\n\n (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)\nAND:\n\nROOPA\nD/O. ERAIAH\nAGED ABOUT 26 YEARS\nR/AT. DADADAHALLI VILLAGE\nMALLIPATNA HOBLI\nARAKALAGUDU TALUK - 573 102 ... RESPONDENT\n\n (BY SRI. M.L. ALVA, ADVOCATE)\n 2\n\n\n\n THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482\nOF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE\nTHE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 06.06.2019 IN PCR\nNO.200/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC\nAT ARAKALAGUDU, AND FIR AT ANNEXURE - C REGISTERED BY\nPSI, ARAKALAGUDU IN CR.NO.140/2019 DATED 20.06.2019.\n\n THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION\nTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\n ORDERHeard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. Though the respondent engaged her Counsel, there\n\nis no representation on behalf of her.3. This petition is filed underSection 482of Cr.P.C.\n\npraying this Court to set aside the order dated 06.06.2019\n\npassed in PCR No.200/2019 by the Civil Judge & JMFC., at\n\nArakalagudu at Annexure 'B' and FIR in Crime No.0140/2019\n\ndated 20.6.2019 at Annexure 'C'.4. The factual matrix of the case is that the\n\ncomplainant has filed a private complaint before the learned\n\nMagistrate. In paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the complaint, the\n\nallegation was made that these petitioners no way connected to3her family and indulged in creation of documents and got\n\ntransferred the property in favour of accused No.3, who is an\n\neducated person and retired bank employee. Thereafter, created\n\nthe gift deed, furnishing the false information and obtained the\n\nKhatha in favour of accused No.2 and executed the gift deed in\n\nfavour of the first accused. The learned Magistrate having\n\nperused the complaint averments and also the documents,\n\nformed an opinion that there are prima facie case against the\n\naccused and the complainant has made out a ground for\n\nreferring the matter for investigation vide order dated\n\n06.06.2019. Hence, the present petition is filed.5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently\n\ncontends that in support of the complaint, no affidavit is filed\n\nand the Magistrate did not apply his mind while referring the\n\nmatter underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel in\n\nsupport of his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Apex\n\nCourt in the case ofPRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER\n\nv. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSreported in\n\n(2015) 5 SCC 287. Referring paragraph Nos.24, 30, 32 and 274of the judgment, the learned counsel would submit that non-\n\nfiling of the affidavit or otherwise it amounts to abuse of process\n\nand the Apex Court held that in order to prevent abuse of\n\nprocess, affidavit has to be filed.6. The other contention of the petitioners' Counsel is\n\nthat the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and the\n\nMagistrate ought not to have referred the matter for police\n\ninvestigation. The third contention is that the matter is civil in\n\nnature and ought not to have registered the case and there is no\n\ncheating and complaint averments do not constitute the\n\ningredients of the offences invoked against the petitioners.\n\nHence, it is liable to be quashed.7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel\n\nfor the petitioners and also on perusal of the records, the\n\nlearned Magistrate referred the matter underSection 156(3)of\n\nCr.P.C, having found the contents of the complaint makes out a\n\nprima facie case. The factual matrix of the case in hand and also\n\nthe Judgment of the Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA's\n\ncase (supra), are distinct. A case was registered against the5Bank officials, who have taken the recourse against the\n\ncomplainant in accordance with law. Hence, the Apex Court\n\ncomes to the conclusion that there is an abuse of process. In\n\nthe case on hand, a specific allegation is made against these\n\npetitioners that they indulged in creation of documents even\n\nthough they are not connected to the family of the complainant.8. The Apex Court in the case ofHDFC SECURITIES\n\nLTD. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND\n\nANOTHERreported in AIR 2017 SC 61, held that, directing the\n\nInvestigating Officer, does not amount to causing an injury of\n\nirreparable nature and the said order cannot be quashed at a\n\npremature stage. The Apex Court in paragraph No.24 of the\n\njudgment held that while passing an order underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to\n\nhave caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage,\n\nrequires quashing of the investigation. It is further observed\n\nthat the stage of cognizance would arise only after the\n\ninvestigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Hence, power\n\nunderSection 482of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised and should be6sparingly used.After discussing the Judgments of the Apex Court\n\nin the case of MAKSUD SAIYED v. STATE OF GUJARATH AND\n\nOTHERS reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 and also in the case ofANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS v. M.K. AIYAPPA AND\n\nANOTHERreported in (2014) 1 SCC (CRI) 35, and after\n\nconsidering the Judgments formed an opinion that while invokingSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C, the Court has to invokeSection 482of\n\nCr.P.C, sparingly, if it does not affect the right of the accused\n\nwhile ordering 156(3) ofCr.P.C, it should not be used in a casual\n\nmanner. The Court has to look into the contents of the\n\ncomplaint, if any specific allegation is made in the complaint\n\nthen invokeSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, the\n\nlearned Magistrate while passing the order dated 06.06.2019,\n\napplied his judicial mind and on perusal of the complaint after\n\nhearing the complainant's Counsel, a specific order has been\n\npassed that the available records and pleading have disclosed\n\nthe prima facie case against the accused and made out a ground\n\nto refer the matter underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C. When the\n\nMagistrate has applied his mind and considered the contents of\n\nthe complaint and also the documents which have been placed7along with the complaint, this Court does not find any error\n\ncommitted by the Magistrate while referring the matter underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C, to the investigating Officer. Hence, I\n\ndo not find any merit in the petition.9. The other contention of the learned counsel\n\nappearing for the petitioners is that the complaint is hopelessly\n\nbarred by limitation and it involves question of law and facts and\n\nthe same has to be considered during the course of the trial not\n\nat the stage of referring the matter under Section 156(3) of\n\nCr.P.C.10. The third contention of the learned counsel\n\nappearing for the petitioners is that there is a civil dispute\n\nbetween the parties and the suit is also filed. The said contention\n\nalso cannot be accepted. While referring the matter underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C, the Court has to look into the contents\n\nof the complaint and the specific allegation is made invoking the\n\noffence in the complaint and the same has to be investigated. It\n\nis settled law thatSection 482of Cr.P.C, has to be exercised8sparingly and not mechanically. Hence, I do not find any error in\n\nreferring the matter.11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the\n\nfollowing:-ORDER\n\n The petition is dismissed.Sd/-JUDGE\n\n\n\ncp*

3c9e1d65-eb7c-5c22-be62-36fa8d88adbd

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nCustom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal\nMakkar Construction Co. vs Ludhiana on 3 May, 2023\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n CHANDIGARH\n REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I\n\n Service Tax Appeal No. 266 of 2012\n\n [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 24/LDH/2011 dated 23.11.2011 passed by the\n Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana]\n\n\n\n M/s Makkar Construction Co. ......Appellant\n 267, Maya Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana\n\n VERSUS\n\n Commissioner of C.E., Ludhiana ......Respondent\n Central Excise House, F Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana\n\n\n APPEARANCE:\n\n Present for the Appellant: Shri Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate\n Present for the Respondent: Ms Shivani, Authorized Representative\n\n\n CORAM: HON'BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\n HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)\n\n FINAL ORDER NO. 60115/2023\n\n DATE OF HEARING: 01.05.2023\n DATE OF DECISION: 03.05.2023\n\n\n\n PER P. ANJANI KUMAR\n\n Heard both the sides and perused the records of the case.\n\n\n 2. The appellants assail the order dated 23.11.2011 by the\n\n Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, passed in pursuance of\n\n this Tribunal's Order No. ST/104/2010 dated 15.12.2010.\n\n\n 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are\n\n engaged in construction services and are registered for the same; the\n\n appellants have undertaken some construction for M/s Kangaroo\n\n Industries at Nalagarh, Solan, H.P. under a contract. The department\n 2 ST/266/2012\n\n\n\n\nwas of the opinion that the contract did not specifically indicate the\n\ninvolvement of any material in the service provided by the appellants.\n\nDuring the period 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2006, the appellants have\n\navailed abatement as provided under Notification No. 15/2004-ST\n\ndated 10.09.2004 and 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. The department\n\nwas of the opinion that the said abatement was not applicable as the\n\ninvolvement of the material in the contract. A show cause notice\n\ndated 21.06.2007 was issued and the same culminated in the\n\nproceedings before us.\n\n\n4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that as per the\n\ndirection of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. ST/104/2010 dated\n\n15.12.2010, the appellants have produced evidence in the form of\n\ncontract, VAT returns, Chartered Accountant Certificate, Chartered\n\nEngineer Certificate etc before the adjudicating authority; the\n\nevidence submitted clearly indicates that the payment made by the\n\nappellants towards the purchase of steel, cement etc; the address of\n\nthe appellants as mentioned in the documents is also the same as\n\nthat of M/s Kangaroo Industries, for which they have undertaken the\n\ncontract. Further, Learned Counsel submits that during the relevant\n\nperiod, work contracts were not leviable to any service tax as held by\n\nthe Apex Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Larsen & Toubro\n\nLtd - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) which is affirmed by the Apex Court\n\nin the case of Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd -\n\n2022 (63) GSTL 257 (SC).\n\n\n5. Learned Authorized Representative for the department\n\nreiterates the findings of the impugned order.\n 3 ST/266/2012\n\n\n\n\n6. Having heard both the sides and having perused the records of\n\nthe case, we find that the contract is clearly for the construction on\n\nthe basis of rate fixed for per sq. ft.; the contract indicates quality of\n\nthe material in some clauses; moreover, the copies of the VAT\n\nreturns and the invoices clearly indicate the purchase of steel, cement\n\nand other material required for the construction; the fact that the\n\ninvoices raised by the supplier of the appellants contain reference to\n\nthe address of M/s Kangaroo Industries who have awarded the\n\ncontract to the appellants; Certificates issued by the Chartered\n\nAccountant and Chartered Engineer, go on to establish the fact of use\n\nof material in the work executed by the appellants. Therefore, we are\n\nof the considered opinion that the contract was not simplicitior but\n\nwas a composite contract. Therefore, we find that the appellants are\n\nentitled for the abatement of 67% of the value as claimed by them.\n\nAs such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set\n\naside and we do so.\n\n\n7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.\n\n\n (Order pronounced in the court on 03.05.2023)\n\n\n\n\n (S. S. GARG)\n MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\n\n\n\n\n (P. ANJANI KUMAR)\n MEMBER (TECHNICAL)\n\nRA_Saifi

017d7d84-5182-5ce7-8c5f-d102292a6784

court_cases

Supreme Court - Daily OrdersIbrahim Ismail Bhatti vs State Of Gujarat on 6 December, 2023IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.504/2012\n\n\n IBRAHIM ISMAIL BHATTI APPELLANT(S)\n\n VERSUS\n\n\n STATE OF GUJARAT RESPONDENT(S)\n\n\n O R D E R1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. The appellant is the husband of the deceased who has\n\n been convicted for the offence punishable underSection 302of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, ‘theIPC’).\n\n According to the prosecution, on 31st October, 1992 the\n\n appellant and the co-accused (brother of the appellant)\n\n poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her to\n\n fire. The deceased was taken to hospital on the next day.\n\n On 3rd November, 1992, on the basis of the statement of the\n\n deceased (Ex.51), First Information Report was recorded.\n\n According to the prosecution case, dying declaration was\n\n recorded before the Executive Magistrate who was examined as\n\n PW1. The Trial Court convicted the appellant but acquitted\n\n the co-accused. Conviction of the appellant has been\n\n confirmed by the impugned judgment.Signature Not Verified\n\nDigitally signed by\nGEETA AHUJA\nDate: 2023.12.11\n17:41:47 IST\nReason:13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has\n\ntaken us to the notes of evidence. His first submission is\n\nthat the alleged dying declarations have been recorded three\n\ndays after the incident and there is no explanation of such\n\na delay. Moreover, the deceased died within two hours of\n\nthe dying declaration recorded by PW1. Inviting our\n\nattention to evidence of PW1, it is submitted that the\n\nstatement of the deceased was not recorded as per the\n\ndictation and there are additions made by PW1. He pointed\n\nout that two independent witnesses namely PW4 and PW5 who\n\naccording to the prosecution case doused the fire did not\n\nfully support the prosecution and, therefore, they were\n\ndeclared as hostile witnesses. It is submitted that both\n\nthe witnesses were independent witnesses who did not depose\n\nthat the deceased stated that the appellant had poured\n\nkerosene on her. The submission of the learned counsel for\n\nthe appellant is that the dying declarations relied upon by\n\nthe prosecution cannot be believed at all.4. We have carefully perused the depositions of PW1 and\n\nPW8. PW8 is the Medical Officer who certified on the dying\n\ndeclaration recorded by PW1 that the deceased was fit enough\n\nto make a statement. It is not possible to accept the\n\ncontention that something was added to the dying declaration\n\nto the deceased by PW1. In fact, PW1 has stated that the\n\naddition made by him was as per the dictation of the\n\ndeceased.25. We have also perused the deposition of Kanjibhai\n\nBijalbhai Patel, who recorded the statement of the deceased\n\nat Ex.51. Hardly anything has come on record in the cross-\n\nexamination which will create any doubt about the\n\ncorrectness of the dying declaration. There is an oral\n\ndying declaration made by the deceased before Salemamad\n\nHussein Lohar (PW6). Even the version regarding the oral\n\ndeclaration has not been shaken in the cross-examination.6. Learned counsel invited our attention to Station Diary\n\nEntry of 3rd November, 1992 made in the afternoon by PSO\n\nattached to Bhuj Taluka Police Station. He pointed out that\n\nit is mentioned therein that the deceased suffered burn\n\ninjuries while she was making tea. Apart from the fact that\n\nthe entry is not made by a police officer who recorded the\n\nstatement of the deceased, the mother of the deceased\n\nAminaben (PW7) deposed that the deceased told her that she\n\nwas tutored to tell that she got burn injuries while she was\n\npreparing tea.7. We find that there is no reason to disbelieve the three\n\ndying declarations (one oral and two written). Only because\n\nPW4 and PW5 were declared as hostile, we cannot ignore the\n\nevidence in the form of the three dying declarations. We,\n\ntherefore, find no error in the view taken by the Sessions\n\nCourt and the High Court.38. At this stage, we may refer to the order dated 12th\n\nMarch, 2012 passed in this appeal while granting bail to the\n\nappellant. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order read as\n\nunder:“5. The appellant has already completed about\n 13(thirteen) years and 4 (four) months of his\n sentence. We are also informed by Ms. Wahi,\n learned counsel appearing for the State of\n Gujarat, that steps are being taken to release the\n appellant on his completion of 14 years\n imprisonment.6. Be that as it may, since the appellant has\n already undergone a major part of the sentence,\n let him be released on bail to the satisfaction of\n the trial court and let not the same come in the\n way of his release in terms of the decision of the\n State Government.”9. Though we are dismissing the appeal and directing the\n\nappellant to surrender, the benefit of pre-mature release\n\nwill have to be given to the appellant after he completes 14\n\nyears of actual imprisonment as conceded by the State in\n\nparagraph 5 reproduced above.10. We dismiss the appeal. We direct the appellant to\n\nsurrender within a period of one month from today for\n\nundergoing the remaining sentence.11. We direct the respondent-State to implement the\n\nassurance recorded on behalf of the State in paragraph 5 of\n\nthe order dated 12th March, 2012.412. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending\n\napplication(s), if any, shall stand disposed of........................J.(ABHAY S. OKA)\n\n\n .......................J.(PANKAJ MITHAL)\n NEW DELHI\n DECEMBER 06, 20235ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-B\n\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 504/2012\n\nIBRAHIM ISMAIL BHATTI Appellant(s)\n\n VERSUS\n\nSTATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s)Date : 06-12-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL\n\n\nFor Appellant(s) Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR\n Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv.Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR\n Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.Ms. Srujana Suman Mund, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\n\n The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order which\n\nis placed on the file.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU)\nCOURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)6

37079aec-c6c1-57e6-b20e-67918fe251f1

court_cases

Bombay High CourtThe Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Tirupati Land Developers And ... on 20 January, 2021Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Abhay AhujaGroup 989-1070.odt\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n 989 TAX APPEAL NO.19 OF 2006\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\nDHANAVARSHA BUILDERS and DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. AURANGABAD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok\n ...990 TAX APPEAL NO.62 OF 2007\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SAMARTHA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD ANKUSHNAGAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...991 TAX APPEAL NO.1 OF 2008\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n TULJABHAVAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD TULJAPUR,\n OSMANABAD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...992 TAX APPEAL NO.19 OF 2008\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD.VERSUS\n M/S TIRUPATI LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AURANGABAD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...993 TAX APPEAL NO.27 OF 2008\n WITH TA/28/2008\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE\n VERSUS\n GANESH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale1/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n ...994 TAX APPEAL NO.30 OF 2008\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\n VERSUS\n JAI JAWAN JAI KISAN SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...995 TAX APPEAL NO.33 OF 2008\n WITH TA/39/2008\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SHRI RAMESHKUMAR JEETMAL BAGADIA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...996 TAX APPEAL NO.35 OF 2009\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE\n VERSUS\n NAGAR TALUKA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...997 TAX APPEAL NO.36 OF 2009\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\n VERSUS\n NAGAR TALUKA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...998 TAX APPEAL NO.48 OF 2009\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1\n VERSUS\n ANASAHEB RAMESH C AJMARA NAGARI SAH PAT PEDI DHULE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D. V. Soman\n ...999 TAX APPEAL NO.52 OF 20092/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\n VERSUS\n DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1000 TAX APPEAL NO.54 OF 2009\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX\n VERSUS\n JAI SHIV SHANKAR SAHAKARI AKHAR KARKHANA LTD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1001 TAX APPEAL NO.58 OF 2009\n WITH TA/60/2009 WITH TA/61/2009 WITH TA/64/2009 WITH\nTA/65/2009 WITH TA/62/2009 WITH TA/63/2009 WITH TA/59/2009\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX ( CENTRAL ) NAGPUR\n VERSUS\n OMPRAKASH R S BHARUKHA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...1002 TAX APPEAL NO.38 OF 2010\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-II\n VERSUS\n SHRI MONOHARLAL BHURALAL SARMA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1003 TAX APPEAL NO.47 OF 2010\n WITH TA/48/2010 WITH TA/49/2010\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX I PUNE\n VERSUS\n VASANT KUSUM RURAL YOG ANDAYURVED SANSHODHAN\n AHMEDNAGAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1004 TAX APPEAL NO.63 OF 20103/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX II\n VERSUS\n SADHANA UMAKANT DHAKE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Alok Sharma\n ...1005 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.7 OF 2012\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX I NASHIK\n VERSUS\n SHRI AGRASEN SAHAKARI PATSNSTHA MARYADIT DHULE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.15 OF 2012\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, ABAD\n VERSUS\n MIRZA QUAISAR BAIG\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-I, NASHIK\n VERSUS\n VISHAL SAGAR HOME AND AGROPRODUCTS LTD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.19 OF 2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SURENDRA SHANTILAL PEETY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.21 OF 2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SURENDRA SHANTILAL PEETY\n ...4/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1010 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.26 OF 2013\n WITH ITA/56/2013 WITH ITA/27/2013 WITH ITA/55/2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n RACHANA JITENDRA PEETY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1011 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.28 OF 2013\n WITH ITA/29/2013 WITH ITA/31/2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n NAMRATA RAVINDRA PEETY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1012 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.32 OF 2013\n WITH ITA/47/2013 WITH ITA/49/2013 WITH ITA/45/2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SURENDRA SHANTILAL PEETY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1013 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.34 OF 2013\n WITH ITA/35/2013 WITH ITA/36/2013 WITH ITA/37/2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n RAVINDRA SHANTILAL PEETY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1014 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.40 OF 2013\n WITH ITA/41/2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SHANTILAL GOVARDHAN PEETY5/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1015 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.43 OF 2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n VARSHA SURENDRA PEETY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1016 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.60 OF 2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE BANK TD. HINGOLI\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1017 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.71 OF 2013\n WITH X-OBJ(ST)/33172/20 IN ITA/74/2013 WITH\n X-OBJ(ST)/33171/20 IN ITA/72/2013 WITH ITA/72/2013 WITH\n ITA/74/2013 WITH X-OBJ(ST)/33173/20 IN ITA/71/2013\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n PUSHPALATA S. LOYA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1018 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.8 OF 2014\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN\n AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PT. LTD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1019 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.27 OF 2014\n WITH ITA/28/2014 WITH ITA/29/2014 IN ITA/28/2014 WITH\n ITA/30/2014\n\n THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR6/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n VERSUS\n M/S MULAY CONSTRUCTIONS PV. LTD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1020 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.52 OF 2016\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n AJIT RAMCHANDA JADHAV\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1021 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.100 OF 2016\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE BNK LTD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1022 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.101 OF 2016\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n ANURAG RADHESHYAM ATTAL\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1023 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.18 OF 2017\n WITH ITA/20/2017 WITH ITA/19/2017\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SALAUDDIN KASIMSAB SAYEED\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1025 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.20 OF 2018\n WITH ITA/21/2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n M/S RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELERS PVT. LTD., JALGAON7/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1026 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.23 OF 2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n KACHRULAL NATHAMAL MUTHA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1027 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.24 OF 2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S. NATH ROYAL LTD., AURAGABAD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1028 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.25 OF 2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n GOVIND DEVRAO PATIL\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1029 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.26 OF 2018\n\n THR PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIE PVT., LTD, AURANGABAD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1030 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.34 OF 2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SMT. SANGEETA KOTOOMAL ESRNI\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr.A.R. Kale\n ...1031 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.45 OF 20188/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n DEEPAK JAGDISH THAKKAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1032 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.54 OF 2018\n WITH ITA/55/2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SHIVAJI CHANDARRAO DESHMUK\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1033 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.68 OF 2018\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 NASHIK\n VERSUS\nAADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEELOPMENT PVT LTD., JALGAON\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1034 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.73 OF 2018\n\n THR PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n CHARUSHILA SURESH BOROLE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1035 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.74 OF 2018\n\n THR PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S SHREE OM ROLLING MILLSPVT LTD., JALNA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1036 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.76 OF 2018\n\n RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAANSHI\n VERSUS9/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n THE INCOME TAX OFFICER LATR AND ANR\n ...Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Halkude Sharad S....1037 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2019\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S ABHAY CONTEX PVT LTD., JALNA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1038 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5 OF 2019\n WITH ITA/6/2019 WITH ITA/8/2019 WITH ITA/7/2019\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S RISHI STEEL AND ALLOYSPVT LTD., JALNA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1039 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.33 OF 2019\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S. PIYUSH ENTERPRISES, ARANGABAD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1040 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.34 OF 2019\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABD\n VERSUS\n CHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI RAJE SKHAR UDYOG LTD....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1041 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.35 OF 2019\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n RANJEET SURESH GHATE, AURAGABAD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale10/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n ...1042 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.44 OF 2019\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n OM SAI RAM STEEL AND ALLOY PVT. LTD., JALNA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1043 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABD\n VERSUS\n LADHARAM MATHURADAS DEMDA ROP. AADILAXMI TRADING\n COMOPANY\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1044 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S. PARESH FARMS PVT LTD. AURANGABAD\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1045 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n AKSHAY RAJESH SAMDARIYA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1046 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n DILIP DATTATREYA RADE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1047 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.7 OF 202011/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n ROCHANDAS KIMATRAM KAWARAN\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1048 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.9 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n CHANDRAKANT RAGHUNATHRAO GJE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1049 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.10 OF 2020\n\n THE PCIT - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n NANDKISHORE KISHANRAO DILEAO\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1050 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.27 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AURANGABD\n VERSUS\n RAKHI ANAND VERMA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1051 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.29 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n PRAVIN JAGANNATH PATIL\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1052 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.30 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n VERSATILE CHEMICALS LTD, DULE\n ...12/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1053 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.31 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n UMAKANT SHAMBHULING SWAMI\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1054 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.32 OF 2020\n WITH ITA/33/2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n JIJABRAO ANANDRAO PATIL\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1055 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.34 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n JAYKUMAR BALKRISHNA SHAH\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...1056 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.36 OF 2020\n WITH ITA/37/2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, PUNE\n VERSUS\n NAKODA MACHINERY PVT. LTD. AHMEDNAGAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1057 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41 OF 2020\n WITH ITA/43/2020 WITH ITA/42/2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n JAYSHREE SURESH SHARMA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale13/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n ...1058 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.44 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n PRAVIN JAGANNATH PATIL\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1059 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.48 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n MANOJ SURESH SHARMA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1060 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.50 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n MRS. LALITA SUBHASH NAHAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1061 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.51 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n SHARAD GULABCHAND SARDA, BED\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1062 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.52 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n VITTHAL GURUNATH PATIL\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1063 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.54 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 PUNE14/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n VERSUS\n MANGURDE BALASAHEB KARBHAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1064 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.55 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 PUNE\n VERSUS\n SHIVAJI YASHWANT KARPE\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1065 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.58 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. JALNA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1066 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.65 OF 2020\n WITH ITA/66/2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n M/S. TIRUPATI SALES, JALNA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1067 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.67 OF 2020\n\n THE PCIT - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n NANDKISHOR K. DILERAO\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1068 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.68 OF 2020\n\n THE PCIT - 1 AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n PANKAJ OMPRAKASH ZANZARI15/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::Group 989-1070.odt\n\n\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M....1069 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.75 OF 2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I AURANGABAD\n VERSUS\n LAXMIKANT RAMNIWAS BALDAWA\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.R. Kale\n ...1070 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.76 OF 2020\n WITH ITA/77/2020\n\n THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 NASHIK\n VERSUS\n PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PT. LTD., NANDURBAR\n ...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A. R. Kale\n ...CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND\n ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.DATE : 20.01.2021\n\n\n\nPER COURT :1. Learned counsel for the appellants states that required written\n\ninstructions are awaited.2. We hope the required instructions would be received by next week.3. Stand over to 3rd February, 2021.(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)\n\nSameer16/16::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:10:43 :::

86c9fc58-affa-5ac0-8b34-fb5031c16395

court_cases

Bombay High CourtUnion Of India vs K.R.Mirchandani on 22 July, 2022Bench: G.S. Patel, Gauri Vinod GodseIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 455 OF 1994\n In\n FIRST APPEAL 533 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India And Other. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohamad Mashal M.mohsin Bhaiji And Others.\n ....RESPONDENTWITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dosu A. Bhiwandiwalla ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1442 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Manekbhai D. Bhiwandiwalla. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 274 OF 1994\n\n Juma Masjid Trust,uran And Anr. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Spl.land Acq.officer,metro Centre No.ii,uran ....RESPONDENT\n And Anr\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 277 OF 1994\n\n\n Page 1/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::Juma Mashjid Trust,uran Through ....APPELLANT\n A.h.m.i.tungekar.V/S\n Spl.land Acq.officer,metro Centre,no.uran And....RESPONDENT\n Anr.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 476 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Ardeshir H.bhiwandiwala ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n K.r.mirchandani ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohamad Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dec) ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 501 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Harkisandas R. Shroff And Others ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n\n\n Page 2/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::FIRST APPEAL NO. 526 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt.mohini Motiram Vaswani And Anr. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 OF 1995\n In\n First Appeal 755 OF 19951.mainuddin M. Ashraf Bhaiji And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The State Of Maha. And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 749 OF 1995\n\n Mahadeo Sinaa Thakur ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The State Of Maharashtra And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 751 OF 1995\n\n Mohamod Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dec) L.r.....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The State Of Maharashtra And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Ardeshir Hormusji Bhiwandiwalla (dec) Through\n ....RESPONDENT\n\n\n Page 3/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt.jayshree Narayan Mhatre. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 518 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Maneckbai Dossabhoy Bhiwandiwalla ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 492 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt Jayshree Narayan Mhatre ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mrs.vasanti Sitaram Thakur. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Maneckbai Dossabhoy Bhiwandiwala ....RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n Page 4/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 520 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mainuddin M.ashraf Bhaiji And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 533 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohammed Jaffer Gulam Hussain Tungekar ....RESPONDENT\n And Ors.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 523 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Ardeshir Hormasji Bhiwandiwala And Anr. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 504 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Ardeshir Hormasji Bhiwandiwalla And Ors.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n K.r.mirchandani And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n\n Page 5/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 276 OF 1994\n\n Juma Masjid Trust(masjid Dargah Turst)uran ....APPELLANT\n And Ors.V/S\n Spl.land Acq.officer,metro Centre No.ii,uran ....RESPONDENT\n And Anr\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1448 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Manekbhay D. Bhiwandiwalla ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl.land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 1994\n\n Smt. Naima Begam ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer And Anr ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 519 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Ardeshir Hormusji Bhiwandiwalla (dec) Throug\n ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 750 OF 1995\n\n Tikamdas Tilakchand Mirchandani (dec) L.r. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n\n\n Page 6/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::The State Of Maharashtra And Others ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 OF 1994\n\n Smt. Halimabibi Mohamed Yusuf Tungekar ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl.land Acquisition Officer, ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Manohar Pandharinath Chavate (dec). ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1451 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dasu A. Bhiwandiwalla. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 503 OF 1994\n\n Union Of Inida And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Jama Masjid Trust, Uran And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 OF 1994\n\n A.h.m.i.tungekar(d.h.)m.s.tungekar And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n\n\n Page 7/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::The Spl.land Acquisition Officer,raigad. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Manohar Pandharinath Chavathe (deceased)\n ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 477 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India Through Dy.salt Commissioner ....APPELLANT\n And Anr.V/S\n K.a.h. Bhaiji And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Ardeshir Hormasji Bhiwandiwala ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Badrinarayan Rampratap Gododia. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n\n\n Page 8/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::V/S\n Badrinarayan Rampratap Gadodia And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Mahadeo Sina Thakur ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 488 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Maneckbai Dossabhoy Bhiwandiwalla. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 457 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Ardeshir H.bhiwandiwaala (dec). ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Rabia Bibi Mohammad Hussan Tungekar ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 478 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n\n\n Page 9/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::V/S\n Abdul Rashid Abdul Ramaman And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 494 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Prakash Dhirajlal Parekh ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Tikamadas Tilikchand Mirchandani (dec) L.r.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 500 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Puranmal Lalchand Mundada ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1450 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dasu A. Bhiwandiwalla ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl.land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1445 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Desu A. Bhiwandiwalla. ....APPELLANT\n\n\n Page 10/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1447 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Manekbhai D. Bhiwandiwalla. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 532 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt. Jamilabibi W/o Mohammed Jaffar ....RESPONDENT\n Tungekar.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Bhalchandra Jaskaran Mandada ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 524 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Dhirajlal Gulabchand Parekh And Others.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 485 OF 1994\n\n\n\n Page 11/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Nandlal L. Agarwal And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India And Another ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt. Halimabibi Mohamed Yusuf Tungekar ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Hamid Mohamad Ibrahim Tangekar (dec).....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 480 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Jama Masjid Trust, Uran ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 508 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mahadev Sina Thakur. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 521 OF 1994\n\n\n\n Page 12/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohammed Hami Abdul Hami Bhaiji (dec) ....RESPONDENT\n Through L.r\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Ramesh Girdhandas Mehta And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 490 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Mohamed Jafar Gulam Hussein Tungekar.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Ardeshir Hormasji Bhiwandiwalla. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 493 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Ahmed M.h.saleh Mohamad ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 1994\n\n\n Page 13/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Ahmed Mohamed H.s.mohomed ....RESPONDENT\n Namakwala.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Badrinarayan Rampratap Gododia And Others.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 530 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Samed Kadir Thakur ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 528 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Majid Abdul Hamid Mulla And Others.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 466 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Sayyad Alam Shah Kadri. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 1994\n\n\n Page 14/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::The State Of Maharahstra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Juma Masjid Trust And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 747 OF 1995\n\n Harkisandas R Shroff And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 525 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Jama Masijid Trust And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohammad Tayyab Mohammad Ismail Bhaiji....RESPONDENT\n And Others\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Maneckabai Dossabhoy Bhiwandiwalla And ....RESPONDENT\n Others\n\n WITH\n\n\n Page 15/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::FIRST APPEAL NO. 487 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Maneckbai Dossabhoy Bhiwandiwalla And ....RESPONDENT\n Others.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Dosu Ardeshir Bhiwandiwala. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 479 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohammed Nazir A.majid Sonde And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Majid Mohammed Yusuf Mukhari ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 482 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Bakiate Salehate Mariam Trust, Through Abdul\n ....RESPONDENT\n And\n\n\n Page 16/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Ardeshir Hormasji Bhiwandiwalla (dec) ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 1994\n\n Juma Masjid Trust Uran Through ....APPELLANT\n A.h.m.i.tungekar.V/S\n Spl.land Acq.officer,metro Centre No.1 Uran 7....RESPONDENT\n Anr.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 531 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Kulsumbibi And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 517 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohamed Nasir Mohamed Ali Tungekar ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 1994\n\n Smt. Rabia Bibi Mohaamed Hassan Tungekar ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n\n\n Page 17/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::The Spl. Land Acqusition Officer And Anr ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 461 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Hamid Mohammad Ibrahim Tungekar ....RESPONDENT\n (dec)\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Shri Abdul Hamid Mohammad Ibrahim ....RESPONDENT\n Tungekar.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Yusuf Tungekar....RESPONDENT\n And Ors.WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 484 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Mohamed Yusuf Mohamed Abdulla Bhaiji And\n ....RESPONDENT\n Ohters.WITH\n\n\n Page 18/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::FIRST APPEAL NO. 505 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Rahim Mehammed Hanan ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 1994\n\n 1a.rahiman Abdul Rashid Tungekar And Anr ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n He Spl. Land Acqusition Officer And Anr ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1449 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Manekbhai D. Bhiwandiwalla. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dosu Ardeshir Bhiwandiwalla ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Special Land Acq.officer, Uran ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 837 OF 1995\n\n Abdul Majid Abdul Hamid Mulla And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n State Of Maharashta. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n\n\n Page 19/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::FIRST APPEAL NO. 202 OF 1994\n\n Abdul Samad Abdul Kadir Thakur. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Spl.land Acquisition Officer And Anr. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 465 OF 1994\n\n The Union Of India ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt Halimabibi And Others ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dosu A. Bhiwandiwala. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1443 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dosu A. Bhiwandiwalla. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl.land Acq Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 1444 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Dosu A. Bhiwandiwalla ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq. Officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n\n\n Page 20/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::FIRST APPEAL NO. 1446 OF 1996\n\n Mr. Manekbhai D. Bhiwandiwalla ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acq.officer, Uran. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 184 OF 1994\n\n Mohomed Yusuf Mahomed Abdulla And Anr ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer And Anr ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 OF 1994\n\n Smt.h.m.y.tungekar And Ors. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The Spl Land Acq.officer,raigad And Anr. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 491 OF 1994\n\n State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Muhammad Ismail Bhaiji ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 496 OF 1994\n\n Union Of Inida And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Juma Masjid Trust ,uran, Through Abdul Hamid\n ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n\n\n Page 21/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::FIRST APPEAL NO. 499 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Abdul Majid Abdul Hamid Mulla And Others.....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Smt.naima Begum D/o.mohamed Hasan ....RESPONDENT\n Tungekar\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 OF 1994\n\n Union Of India And Others. ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Moinuddin Malik Yusuf Thakur (dec) Through....RESPONDENT\n L/h\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 1994\n\n The State Of Maharashtra ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n Chandrakant R. Shroff And Ors. ....RESPONDENT\n\n WITH\n FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 1995\n\n Prakash Dhirajlal Parekh ....APPELLANT\n V/S\n The State Of Maharashtra And Others. ....RESPONDENT\n\n\n Page 22/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Pralhad Paranjape a/w\n Shubhra Swami i/b M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co. For Appellant in\n FA/741/1995\n For Respondent in FA/455/1994,\n FA/490/1994,FA/532/1994,FA/533/1994,\n FA/497/1994, FA/507/1994, FA/470/1994\n\n Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Arya Bile i/b Soloman & Co. For\n Applicant in IA/672/2020 In FA/275/1994 and IA/673/2020 in\n FA/466/1994\n\n Pranil Sonawane for Union of India in FA/455/1994 & ors.\n Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla a/w Ms. Sanidhaa Vedpathak i/b\n Maneksha & Sethna For the Appellant in FA/1440/1996,\n FA/1441/1996, FA/1443/1996, FA/1444/1996, FA/1445/1996,\n FA/1446/1996, FA/1447/1996, FA/1448/1996, FA/1449/1996,\n FA/1450/1996 AND 1451/1996\n Ibrahim Merchant Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (A) to 1 (C)\n in FA/516/1994\n Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Adv. General a/w Mr. Milan Bhise,\n Mr. Amit Bhave i/b Milan Bhise & Co. Adv. For Appellant No.\n 3 (JNPT)\n Mr. Kunal Katariya a/w Mr. Vishesh Malviya, Adv. Azraa\n Millwala a/w Mr. Tejas Popat i/b Rashmikant & Partners for\n Respondents in FA/477/1994, FA/491/1994, FA/514/1994\n Adv. Chintan Shah for Respondent No. 1 & 2 In FA/529/1994\n Bruno Castellino for Appellants in FA/475/1994 and\n FA/750/1995\n\n CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL &\n HON'BLE JUSTICE MS. GAURI GODSE, JJ\n DATE : 22nd July, 2022\n\n\n\n\n Page 23/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::P.C. :Not before the Bench of which Justice Hon'ble Ms. Gauri Godse\n is a member.( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )\n\n\n\n\n Page 24/24::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 02:20:06 :::

4b3b4f6d-0683-50f1-bfd2-57e12f34085c

court_cases

Bangalore District CourtSri.Chetan vs Smt.Jayamma on 5 February, 20221 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ACMM, BENGALURU\n\n Dated: This the 05th day of February, 2022.\n\n Present:\n\n Smt. Reshma H.K., B.A.,LL.B.,\n XXI ACMM, Bengaluru\n\n C.C.No.24663/2019\n Complainant : Sri.Chetan,\n S/o Venkojirao.,\n Aged about 32 years,\n R/at: #II 1095, 21st Main,\n 21st Cross, Shriganda Kaval,\n "D" Group Layout, Nagarabhavi,\n Bengaluru - 560072.\n\n (By Sri.K.B., adv.)\n V/s\n Accused : Smt.Jayamma,\n W/o Tirumalagouda,\n Aged about 65 years,\n Kumri Narayanapur,\n At/Post Tallikatte,\n Tq-Bhadravati - 577301,\n Dist-Shivamoga.\n (By Sri.R.G., Adv.)\n\n JUDGMENTThis is the complaint filed by the complainant undersection\n\n200of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable\n\nundersection 138of Negotiable Instruments Act and to take\n\ncognizance of the offence to punish the accused in accordance\n\nwith law.2 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.2. The factual matrix of the complaint is that the complainant\n\nand accused are well known to each other as both are belongs to\n\nsame native i.e., Bhadravati. With this acquaintance, during the\n\nfirst week of March 2018 the accused has approached the\n\ncomplainant and sought for a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to clear\n\nhis housing loan. Accordingly, complainant has paid the said\n\namount in two occasions, in March Second Week of 2018 paid\n\nRs.2,00,000/- and March Last Week of 2018 paid Rs.3,00,000/- by\n\nway of cash to the accused and also accused assured that he will\n\nrepay the said amount within one year. Further the case of the\n\ncomplainant is that, after repeated request and reminders made\n\nby the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque bearing\n\nNo.746164 dated:19.02.2019 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-\n\ndrawn on Canara Bank, Channagiri Road Branch, Bhadravathi.3. Further, as per the accused instructions, the complainant\n\nhas presented the above said cheque for encashment through his\n\nbanker i.e., Canara Bank, Nrupathunga Road Branch, Bangalore,\n\nbut to the shock and surprise of the complainant said cheque\n\nreturned as 'Funds Insufficient' as per the bank memo\n\ndated:22.02.2019. Thereafter, the complainant issued Legal\n\nnotice dated:21.03.2019 to the accused through R.P.A.D calling3 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.upon him to pay the amount covered under the cheque within\n\nthe stipulated period and the same was served to the accused on\n\n25.03.2019. Despite of service of summons, accused failed to\n\nrepay the borrowed amount. Hence, the complainant filed the\n\npresent complaint against the accused for the offence punishable\n\nundersection 138of Negotiable Instrument Act.4. This court after perusing records, cognizance of the offence\n\nwas taken and there on sworn statement of the complainant was\n\nalso recorded. The criminal case has been registered against the\n\naccused for the offence punishable undersection 138of N.I. Act.5. Upon service of summons, accused appeared through her\n\ncounsel and enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the court has recorded\n\nthe plea of the accused and the accused not pleaded guilty of the\n\noffence and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for\n\ntrial.6. The complainant in order to prove his case, he examined\n\nhimself as PW-1 and got marked 06 documents i.e., Ex.P-1 to\n\nEx.P-06. Original Cheque marked as Ex.P.1, Signature of accused\n\nmarked as Ex.P.1(a), Return Memo marked as Ex.P.2, Legal Notice\n\nmarked as Ex.P.3, RPAD Postal receipt marked as Ex.P.4, Postal4 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.Acknowledgement marked as Ex.P.5 and Medical Certificate\n\nmarked as Ex.P.6.7. After completion of the evidence of complainant, the\n\nsubstance of the evidence has been read over and explained to\n\nthe accused undersection 313of Cr.P.C. the accused denied the\n\nincriminating evidence available against her and she did not\n\nchoose to lead evidence on her behalf.8. Heard arguments and perused the materials placed before\n\nthe court. The counsel for complainant relied on the following\n\ndecisions;1. ILR 2019 KAR 4932. AIR 2018 SCC 31739. The advocate for accused also relied on the decision\n\nreported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Basalingappa V/s\n\nMudibasappa).10. The following points would arise for consideration;1. Whether the complainant proves that\n the accused issued cheque bearing\n No.746164 dated:19.02.2019 for the\n legally enforceable debt of5 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.Rs.5,00,000/-, in favour of complainant\n and it was presented within the\n validity period and same is returned\n unpaid on account of "Funds\n Insufficient" and thereby caused the\n dishonor of cheque and inspite of legal\n notice, the accused fail to make\n payment and thereby committed an\n offence punishable undersection 138of Negotiable Instrument Act?2. What Order?11. My findings on the above points are as under:-Point No.1: In the "Negative"Point No.2: As per the final orders for the\n following:REASONS12. Point No.1:On over all perusal of the oral and documentary evidence\n\nadduced by both the parties, it reveals that the case of the\n\ncomplainant is that during the first week of March 2018 the\n\naccused has approached the complainant and sought for a hand\n\nloan of Rs.5,00,000/- to clear his housing loan. Accordingly,\n\ncomplainant has paid the said amount in two occasions, in March\n\nSecond Week of 2018 paid Rs.2,00,000/- and March Last Week of6 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.2018 paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash to the accused and also\n\naccused assured that she will repay the said amount within one\n\nyear. In order to repay the said amount,the accused has issued a\n\ncheque bearing No.746164 dated:19.02.2019 for an amount of\n\nRs.5,00,000/-. On the other hand, the contention of the accused\n\nis that, she dont know about the complainant and she has not\n\ngiven Ex.P.1/Cheque to one Vasanthamma with respect to chit\n\nbusiness. Further contended that accused colluding with\n\nU.Kumar and Vasanthamma has filed the present case by\n\nmisusing the Ex.P.1 cheque, which was issued to said\n\nVasanthamma with respect to chit business.13. Further, in order to prove the guilt of the accused for\n\noffence undersection 138of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,\n\nthe complainant is required to prove the following ingredients\n\nbeyond reasonable doubt:(i) Accused had issued a cheque in favor of complainant.(ii) The said cheque has been issued in discharge of a\n debt or liability and is for consideration.(iii) The said cheque has been dishonored on presentation.(iv) Accused has failed to make payment of cheque amount\n within statutory period of service of legal notice served to\n him by complainant.7 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.14. The above ingredients of offence punishable undersection 138of NI Act are required to be considered with\n\nreference tosec. 118and139of the Act. It is worth to note\n\nthat according tosection 118and139of the Act, rebuttable\n\npresumptions are available in favour of the complainant to the\n\neffect that once the issuance of cheque, its dishonor is proved,\n\ncourt has to presume that the same has been drawn for\n\nconsideration and it is issued for legally enforceable debt or\n\nliability. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the\n\naccused. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable\n\ndefense which creates doubts about the existence of a legally\n\nenforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.15. With the above backdrop of statutory presumptions, on\n\nperusal of the evidence adduced by both the parties it reveals\n\nthat in ordered to prove the case of the complainant, the\n\ncomplainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the\n\ndocuments at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the other hand, in order to\n\nestablish her defence accused did not stepped into witness box\n\nand also did not examined any witness on her behalf but placed\n\nher defence by way of effective cross examination of PW.1. As\n\nper the evidence on record, accused denied the issuance of8 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.cheque in favour of complainant, the specific defence of the\n\naccused is that the she has issued Ex.P.1 cheque to one\n\nVasanthamma with respect to chit business. The complainant by\n\ncolluding with the son of Vasanthamma by name U.Kumar has\n\nfiled the present false case and thereby accused denied the\n\nentire allegation made against her.16. Further, as per the case of the complainant, in the last\n\nweek of March 2018 he lend total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the\n\naccused. On the other hand, accused questioning the financial\n\ncapacity of the complainant in lending such an huge amount. For\n\nthis contention PW.1 explained in his cross examination that he is\n\nhaving a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month and he was having\n\nRs.2,00,000/- amount from his salary savings and obtained\n\nRs.3,00,000/- from his owner and same is handed over to the\n\naccused. Further, PW.1 deposed that his owner deducting amount\n\nfrom his salary for the said Rs.3,00,000/- till today, but in the\n\nsame cross examination dated:22.12.2021 PW.1 deposed that he\n\nhas not calculated the amount, which was return to his owner by\n\nway of deduction from his salary. However, complainant has not\n\nproduced any evidence before the court to show the same.\n\nTherefore, this statement of the PW.1 creates doubt in the mind9 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.of court regarding the trustworthiness of the testimony of the\n\ncomplainant with respect to source of funds in order to lend the\n\nsame to the accused.17. Moreover, during the course of cross examination, PW.1\n\nhimself admitted that he came to know about the accused\n\nthrough one U.Kumar and in his presence only he has handed\n\nover the amount to the accused. It is worth to note that, in the\n\nentire cross examination accused repeatedly suggesting the PW.1\n\nthat the Ex.P.1 cheque was handed over to the Mother of said\n\nU.Kumar by name Vasanthamma with respect to chit amount and\n\nhe has filed the present case by colluding with these persons.\n\nUnder such circumstances, the complainant ought to have\n\nexamine said U.Kumar in order to falsify the case of the accused.\n\nBut, the complainant fails to take any steps to prove his case.\n\nFurthermore, In support of his case, the complainant has not\n\nproduced any documents to show the lending of such a huge\n\namount to the accused. With this regard counsel for the accused\n\nrelied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e., in a case of\n\n'Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa' reported in '2019 SCC\n\nonline SC 491' wherein which it is held that;10 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt."Drawing presumption under, and how\n said presumption can be rebutted -\n Standard of Proof - While prosecution must\n establish its case beyond reasonable doubt,\n accused to prove a defence must only meet\n standard of preponderance of probability."18. Further, the position of law is that though presumption\n\ndoes arise against the accused undersections 118and139of\n\nthe said Act, the presumption is rebuttable on the touchstone of\n\npreponderance of probabilities. Further, to draw the presumption\n\nundersection 118read along with 139 ofNegotiable Instrument\n\nAct, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to prove that\n\nthe accused was bound to make the payment as had been\n\nagreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant.\n\nHowever, in the present case, the material on record clearly\n\nindicates that the complainant fails to prove his case by\n\nproviding clinching evidence. Further, the onus of proof to rebut\n\nthe presumption lies on the accused and it is a settled position\n\nthat when an accused has to rebut the presumption undersection 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of\n\n"preponderance of probabilities". In the present case, the\n\naccused is successfully raised a probable defense and it creates11 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.doubt in the mind of court about the existence of a legally\n\nenforceable debt or liability. However, complainant fails to\n\ndemolish the evidence adduced by the accused.19. Further, under the facts and circumstances of the case, I\n\nam of the opinion that PW-1 is unable to discharge the initial\n\nburden casted on him. So when such being the case, question of\n\ndrawing presumption undersection 118and139of Negotiable\n\nInstruments act does not arise. So under the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case, the inevitable conclusion is that\n\ncomplainant failed to discharge the initial burden pertaining to\n\nissuance of cheque as per Ex-P1 by the accused. Hence, the\n\ninevitable answer to point No.1 is in the "Negative".20. Point No.2: On foregoing reasons assigned while\n\nanswering Point No.1 and in the result, I proceed to pass the\n\nfollowing:ORDER\n By invoking the power conferred\n undersection 255(1)of Cr.PC., the\n accused is hereby acquitted of the\n offence punishable U/S 138 ofNegotiable\n Instrument Act.12 C.C. No.24663/2019 Judgt.Bail bond and surety bond of the\n\n accused shall stand cancelled.(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected\nby me, signed then pronounced in the open court on this the 05 th day of\nFebruary,2022.)\n\n\n\n (SMT.RESHMA H.K.)\n XXI ACMM, BENGALURU\n\n ANNEXURE1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the\n complainant:PW-1 : Chetan2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-NIL-3. List of documents marked on behalf the\n complainant:Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque\n Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused\n Ex.P.2 : Return Memo\n Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice\n Ex.P.4 : RPAD Postal receipt\n Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment\n Ex.P.6 : Medical certificate4. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:-NIL-(SMT.RESHMA H.K.)\n XXI ACMM, BENGALURU

a4038803-4346-5bd5-875b-553688ea9d16

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nRajasthan High Court\nSeema Bai Wife Of Devilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 October, 2020Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha\n HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11007/2020\n\nSeema Bai Wife Of Devilal, R/o Village Duwava, Police Station\nBassi, District Chittorgarh (Raj)\n(At Present Central Jail, Kota.)\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.\n ----Respondent\nFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv.(through\n video conference)\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP\n\n\n\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA\n\n Order\n\n19/10/2020\n\n\n1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439\n\nCr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.\n\n295/2020 Registered at Police Station Kunhadi, Kota for the\n\noffence(s) under Section 363 IPC later on found under Section 354\n\n& Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act.\n\n2. Counsel for the petitioner (through video conference)\n\nsubmits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29.08.2020.\n\nCounsel further submits that name of the petitioner is not\n\nmentioned in the FIR and conclusion of trial may take long time.\n\n3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.\n\n4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the\n\npetitioner (through video conference) and taking into account the\n\nfacts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any\n\n\n (Downloaded on 19/10/2020 at 09:27:37 PM)\n (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11007/2020]\n\n\n opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and\n\n proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.\n\n 5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is\n\n allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Seema Bai\n\n Wife Of Devilal shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a\n\n personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of\n\n Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for\n\n her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of\n\n hearing as and when called upon to do so.\n\n\n (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J\n\n Gourav/29\n\n\n\n\n (Downloaded on 19/10/2020 at 09:27:37 PM)\n\n\n\n\nPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1764a3df-2a95-5d2a-be4b-b2917a322fc8

court_cases

Karnataka High CourtBasayya S/O Mallayya vs Bandappa S/O Late Basanna on 23 October, 2021Author:Krishna S DixitBench:Krishna S.DixitIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n KALABURAGI BENCH\n\n DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021\n\n BEFORE\n\n THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT\n\n CRP NO.200012/2021\nBETWEEN:\n\nBASAYYA S/O LATE MALLAYYA\nAGE: 64 YEARS,\nOCC: AGRICULTURE,\nR/O ARISHANGI VILLAGE,\nTQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 113\n\n ... PETITIONER\n(BY SRI PREETAM DEULGAONKAR &\n SRI SHIVAPUTRA UDBALKAR, ADVOCATES)\n\n\nAND:\n\nBANDAPPA S/O LATE BASANNA\nAGE: 49 YEARS,\nOCC: AGRICULTURE,\nR/O ARISHANGI VILLAGE,\nTQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 113\n\n ... RESPONDENT\n(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)\n\n THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THECPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE\nTHE ORDER DATED 15.06.2021 PASSED BY THE\nHONOURABLE COURT II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC -IV\nAT RAICHUR WHEREBY THE I.A. NO.II FILED BY THE\n 2\n\nPRESENT PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.132/2020 IS\nREJECTED.\n\n THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,\nTHE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-\n\n ORDERThe petitioner being the sole defendant in a suit\n\nfor declaration & injunction in O.S.No.132/2020 is\n\nknocking at the doors of Revisional Court for assailing\n\nthe order dated 15.06.2021 made by the learned II\n\nAdditional Civil Judge at Raichur, whereby his\n\napplication in I.A.No.II filedu/s 11of CPC, 1908, having\n\nbeen rejected, his request for resjudicating the suit has\n\nbeen turned down.2. After service of notice, the respondent/\n\nplaintiff has entered appearance through his counsel,\n\nwho vehemently opposes the petition making\n\nsubmission in justification of the impugned order and\n\nthe reasons on which it has been constructed.33. Having heard the learned counsel for the\n\nparties and having perused the petition papers, this\n\ncourt declines indulges in the matter for the following\n\nreasons:a. The respondent's earlier suit in\n\nO.S.No.240/2011 was dismissed on 21.08.2017 is true;\n\neven his appeal in R.A.No.37/2017 was also dismissed\n\nis also true; however, the said suit was for a decree of\n\nbare injunction whereas, the present suit in\n\nO.S.No.132/2020 is for declaration and consequent\n\ninjunction; that being the position, there is no unity\n\nand identity of the substrata of both the suits; therefore,\n\nthe doctrine of res judicata enacted insection 11of\n\nCode is not invokable, as rightly held by the court\n\nbelow.4. The reliance of learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner on the decision of the Apex court in the case\n\nofAsgar and Others vs. Mohan Varma and Others4reported in (2020) 16 SCC 230 does not much come to\n\nhis aid, the fact matrix being miles away from that of\n\nthe present suit; it has long been settled by Lord\n\nHalsbury in Quinn v. Leathem (1901) A.C.495, 506\n\nthat a case is an authority for the proposition laid down\n\nin a given fact matrix and not for all that which logically\n\narises from what has been so laid down.5. The court below in its discretion has made\n\nthe impugned order which does not merit a deeper\n\nexamination at the hands of this court, the scope of\n\nstatutory revision being restrictive; even otherwise, it is\n\nopen to the petitioner to make the impugned order one\n\nof the grounds to lay a challenge to the adverse\n\njudgment and decree if and when made in the suit, as\n\nprovided under Order XLIII Rule 1A read withsection\n\n105of the Code.56. In the above circumstances, this petition\n\nbeing devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and\n\naccordingly, dismissed.7. In view of disposal of the main petition,\n\nI.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration.Sd/-JUDGE\n\n\n\nVNR

472e7b4e-8ffe-5ffb-ae98-4e24ba1445c2

court_cases

Jharkhand High CourtAshish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2023Bench:Shree Chandrashekhar,Ratnaker BhengraIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)\n\n LPA No. 565 of 2019\n ------\n1. Ashish Kumar, son of Shri Bishnudeo Prasad, resident of Adarsh\nColony, Mango, PO and PS: Mango, District: East Singhbhum at\nJamshedpur- 831012.\n2. Ambujya Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Ganesh Pandey, resident of Qr.\nNo. CD-33/2, HEC Colony, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi-\n834004.\n3. Sunita Lakra, daughter of H.L. Lakra, resident of Albert Compound,\nPurulia Gumla Road, Ranchi PO GPO PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi-\n834001.\n4. Shiv Kumar Mallick, son of Late B. Mallick, resident of RIMS\nColony, Bariatu, PO:Bariatu, PS. Bariatu, Ranchi- 834009.\n5. Pankaj Kumar, son of Shri R.C. Thakur, resident of 149, New AG\nColony, Kadru, Ranchi, PO: Doranda, PS: Argora, District: Ranchi.\n6. Vijay Kumar, son of late Gobardhan Singh, resident of DT-681 Dam\nSite, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagannathpur, District: Ranchi-834004.\n7. Sanjay Kumar Kapri, son of Shri Jai Chandra Kapri, resident of\nMohalla Gulzarbagh, Godda, PO, PS, and District: Godda.\n8. Nalini Ranjan, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah, resident of Gopalpur,\nPO and PS: Ghatshila, District: East Singhbhum.\n9. Piyush Kumar, son of Sri Janardan Bhagat, resident of village:\nPathargama, PO and PS: Pathargama, District: Godda-814147.\n10. Devesh Kumar Sinha, son of Shri R.N. Prasad, resident of village:\nNawagarh, PO: Kharkharee, PS: Madhuband, District: Dhanbad-828125.\n11. Shiv Shankar Prabhat, son of Late Satyadeo Prasad, resident of\nBasant Vihar Colony near Jhirhariapul, Hazaribagh, PO and PS:\nHazaribagh, District: Hazaribagh.\n12. Kaushal Kishore, son of Sri Murlidhar Prasad, resident of Pahantoli,\nnear ITI Barja, Itki Road, Ranchi, PO: Hehal, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:\nRanchi-834005.\n13. Amit Kumar Mukherjee, son of late Amulya Kumar Mukherjee,\nresident of Hoogly Cottage, European Quarters, Chaibasa, PO, PS, and\nDistrict: Chaibasa-833201.\n14. Jyoto Xalxo, son of Sri Karam Sing Oraon, resident of Opposite Birsa\nStadium, Sarai Tank, Morhabadi, PO: Morhabadi, PS: Hatma, District:\nRanchi-834008.\n15. Monidipa Banerjee, daughter of late N.C. Banerjee, resident of\nChandraniketan, Shivpuri Colony, Hinoo, PO: Hinoo, PS: Doranda, District\nRanchi.\n16. Anup M. Kerketta, son of Sri Abraham Kerketta, resident of Lowadih,\nPO and PS: Namkum, District: Ranchi.\n17. Uday Kumar Singh, son of Sri Binod Kumar Singh, resident of\nNational Public School, New Area, Hazaribagh, PO and PS: Hazaribagh,\nDistrict: Hazaribagh-825301.\n18. Prakash Kumar, son of Sri P.P. Srivastava, resident of House No.1,\nAnand Nagar near Shiv Mandir, Namda Basti, Golmuri, PO and PS:\nGolmuri, District: East Singhbhum-831003. ... Appellants\n 2 LPA No. 565 of 2019\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n1. The State of Jharkhand.\n2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand-cum-Chairman, State\nExecutive Committee, JEPC, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO:\nDhurwa, PS: Jagarnnathpur, District: Ranchi.\n3. The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department,\nGovernment of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa,\nPS: Jagannathpur, District: Ranchi.\n4. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,\nProject Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagannathpur, District:\nRanchi.\n5. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of\nJharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagannathpur,\nDistrict: Ranchi.\n6. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad,\nhaving its office at New Cooperative Building, Shyamli Colony, Doranda,\nPO and PS: Doranda, District: Ranchi.\n7. The Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad,\nhaving its office at New Cooperative Building, Shyamli Colony, Doranda,\nPO and PS: Doranda, District: Ranchi.\n ...... Respondents\n ---------\n PRESENT\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA\n -------\n For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate;\n Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate\n For the State : Mr. L.G.R.N. Shahdeo, AC to S.C-IV\n For the Resp. Nos.6 &7 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate;\n Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate\n -------\n Oral Order\n th\n 4 July 2023\nPer, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.IA No. 6670 of 2021This Interlocutory Application has been filed to array Mridulata\nMarandi as proforma respondent who is the wife and legal heir of Rajesh\nHansdah, the writ petitioner no.10 in WP(S) No. 3208 of 2014. This\nInterlocutory Application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant no.12.2. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants submits\nthat on account of the defect pointed out by the Registry this Interlocutory\nApplication has been filed.3 LPA No. 565 of 20193. Having regard to the fact that the husband of Mridulata Marandi\nwas the writ petitioner no.10 in WP(S) No. 3208 of 2014, IA No. 6670 of\n2021 is allowed and Mridulata Marandi is directed to be added as proforma\nrespondent.4. However, it is made clear that any decision rendered in the present\nLetters Patent Appeal shall not affect her rights in any manner whatsoever and\nshe shall be entitled to agitate her claim before any Forum including the Letters\nPatent Court.LPA No. 565 of 20195. 19 persons who were appointed on the post of Additional District\nProgramme Officer were aggrieved of the decision taken on 19 th October\n2009 in 19th Meeting of the State Coordination Committee that these\ncontractual employees shall be provided 6% increment.6. WP(S) No. 3208 of 2014, filed by 19 persons out of whom 18\npersons are appellants before us except Rajesh Hansdah, has been dismissed by\nthe order dated 16th July 2019 holding that there is no illegality in the decision\ntaken by the State Coordination Committee7. The writ Court has taken note of the rival contentions and held as\nunder:"5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into\n the nature of dispute, particularly the nature of appointment of the\n petitioners and documents supplied to the petitioners under theRight to Information Act, 2005, from which it is apparent that the\n petitioners have been provided Rs.14,595/-, whereas they were\n entitled to Rs.12,302/- at the time of appointment. Moreover, it\n was the decision of a High Power Committee to give increment at\n the rate of 6% to the petitioners. The post is also contractual and\n no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners to provide\n increment at the rate of 25%."8. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants would\ncontend that the appellants have been discriminated as compared to other\ncontractual employees inasmuch as they have been granted 6% annual\nincrement whereas the others have been given 25% hike.9. Referring to the stand taken by the Jharkhand Education Project\nCouncil that the emolument fixed for Additional District Programme Officers\nwas inclusive of 19% hike, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred\nto the advertisement dated 23rd June 2006 and corrigendum dated 24th June\n2006 to submit that the stand was taken by the Project Director before the writ\nCourt was contrary to what would appear from the aforesaid documents.4 LPA No. 565 of 201910. In the first place, this needs to be indicated that appointment of\nthe Additional District Programme Officers pursuant to the advertisement\nno.09/2006 was purely contractual for one year and liable to be terminated by\none month's notice even before expiry of one year. It is further revealed from\nthe communication dated 24th September 2007 by which the appellants were\ninvited to give consent for appointment on the post of Additional District\nProgramme Officer that they were offered monthly emolument of Rs.14,595/-\nwhich is the consolidated amount paid to them. The expression 'consolidated' is\nquite relevant in the context of the plea urged by the learned counsel for the\nappellants that Rs.14,595/- was the basic pay/salary for the Additional District\nProgramme Officers. The condition no.4 in the letter dated 24 th September\n2007 which uses the expression 'consolidated' makes it quite clear that the\nmonthly emolument paid to the Additional District Programme Officers\nincluded other service linked benefits as admissible to them.11. Before the writ Court, Jharkhand Education Project Council took\na stand that the basic pay/salary for the Additional District Programme Officers\nis Rs.12,302/- whereas the consolidated monthly emolument paid to them, as\nreflected in the advertisement no.09/2006 was inclusive of 19% increment. The\nwrit Court has also taken note of the fact that this information was provided to\nthe appellants in response to their application filed under theRight to\nInformation Act, 2005and there is no other material to contradict the aforesaid\nstand taken by the Jharkhand Education Project Council.12. This is quite an acceptable proposition that the employer shall be\nthe right person to explain the conditions of employment and unless it is\ndemonstrated before the Court by producing indisputable document the stand\ntaken by the employer shall be accepted by the Court. After all it is the\nemployer and not the Court who decides the conditions of service of his\nemployees.13. Having held so, we do not find any reason to interfere in this\nmatter and, accordingly, LPA No. 565 of 2019 is dismissed.(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)\n\n\n (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi\nDated: 4th July, 2023\nS.B./ Nibha-N.A.F.R

05065e65-897d-502f-bebb-4179a719fb5b

court_cases

Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalSunrise Contractural Servise P Ltd vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 1 February, 2021Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal\n West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad\n\n REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO.3\n Service Tax Appeal No.11172 of 2016\n(Arising out of OIA-AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-112-113-15-16 dated 29/02/2016 passed by\nCommissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-III)\n\nSunrise Contractural Servise P Ltd .........Appellant\n45 Karmacharinagar Society,\nSomnath Road, Highway Road, Mehsana, Gujarat\n\n VERSUS\nC.C.E. & S.T.-Ahmedabad-iii .........RespondentCustom House... 2nd Floor,\nOpp. Old Gujarat High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380009\n\nAPPEARANCE:None appeared for the Appellant\nShri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR\n HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU\n Final Order No. A/ 10353 /2021\n\n DATE OF HEARING: 01.02.2021\n DATE OF DECISION:01.02.2021\nRAMESH NAIR\n\n The concerned Commissionerate of Central Goods and Service Tax\nsubmitted a list of cases including the present case which have been settled\nunder Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 and\ndischarge certificate has been issued.2. Considering this position, we find that since the case has been settled\nunder Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 the appeal\nlying pending in this tribunal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn in\nterms of section 127(6) of Chapter V of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019.3. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)\n\n\n (RAMESH NAIR)\n MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\n\n\n\n\n (RAJU)\n MEMBER (TECHNICAL)\nMehul

78af522b-a106-524e-b900-39bca33a947e

court_cases

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Genius Consultants Limited & Anr vs New Town Kolkata Development Authority ... on 11 November, 2022Author:Amrita SinhaBench:Amrita SinhaSl. No.2\n11.11.2022\n Court No.24\n B.M.\n In The High Court At Calcutta\n Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction\n Appellate Side\n\n WPA 16042 of 2022\n\n Genius Consultants Limited & Anr.\n v.\n New Town Kolkata Development Authority & Ors.\n\n Mr. Arijit Bardhan\n Mr. Biswajib Ghosh\n Mr. Avirup Chatterjee\n ... for the petitioners.\n Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. Chayan Gupta\n Mr. Sandip Dasgupta\n Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui\n Mr. Aviroop Mitra\n ... for the N.K.D.A/respondent nos.1 to 3The petitioner no.1 claims to be a Company\n\n registered under theCompanies Act, 2013and the\n\n petitioner no.2 claims to be the authorised\n\n representative of the petitioner no.1.The petitioner no.1 is the owner of two office\n\n spaces at Synthesis Business Park under the New Town\n\n Kolkata Development Authority.The submission of the petitioners is that the\n\n petitioner no.1 paid property tax dues in respect of the\n\n said property till the 4th quarter 2020-2021 but\n\n thereafter stopped paying the property tax allegedly on\n\n the ground of erroneous calculation of the property tax\n\n bill raised in respect of the said property. A2representation was filed by the petitioner no.1 before\n\nthe Administrative Officer in February, 2022 and the\n\npetitioners allege that the said representation has not\n\nbeen taken up for consideration till date.The petitioner no. 1 applied for renewal of trade\n\nlicense on 25th May, 2022 but the same has not been\n\nrenewed allegedly on account of non-payment of the\n\nproperty tax.According to the petitioners, as the bills raised\n\nwere erroneous, the petitioners applied for revision of\n\nthe same. The authority failed to take into\n\nconsideration the objection seeking revision and, as\n\nsuch, it was not possible for the petitioners to deposit\n\nthe current property tax.It has been contended that non-payment of\n\nproperty tax ought not to be a ground for not renewing\n\nthe certificate of enlistment. The representation filed by\n\nthe petitioners objecting to the non-renewal of the\n\ncertificate of enlistment is also pending consideration.The petitioners rely upon the provision ofSection\n\n36Aof the New Town Kolkata Development Authority\n\nAct, 2007 in support of the contention that the person\n\nengaged or intending to be engaged in any profession or\n\ntrade is not required to submit the clearance of\n\nproperty tax prior to either obtaining or renewing the\n\ncertificate of enlistment.3Provision of Section 36ZE has been placed before\n\nthis Court. It has been submitted that the authority\n\nhas the power to impose penalty for non-payment of\n\nproperty tax.The petitioners rely upon the judgment delivered\n\nby this Court in the matter ofLayeeque Ahmed Akhtar\n\nvs. State of West Bengal & Ors.reported in (2006 ) 1\n\nCHN 634, in respect of the contention that the\n\nmunicipal authority at the time of grant of certificate of\n\nenlistment is only required to consider as to whether\n\nthe person is engaged or is intending to be engaged in\n\nany profession, trade or calling in the municipal area.It has been submitted before this Court that the\n\nnature of the business of the petitioner is such that\n\nsame cannot be held up under any circumstances and\n\nthe petitioners are compelled to continue with the\n\nbusiness despite the fact that the certificate of\n\nenlistment is pending renewal at the end of the\n\nauthority.Prayer has been made for a direction upon the\n\nMunicipal Authority to renew the certificate of\n\nenlistment without insisting upon the property tax\n\nreceipt.On behalf of the New Town Kolkata Development\n\nAuthority it has been submitted that, as per the New\n\nTown Kolkata Development Authority (Certificate of\n\nEnlistment of Profession, Trade & Calling) Regulations,42010, a person engaged or intending to be engaged in\n\nany profession, trade and calling is required to submit\n\nthe property tax receipt in respect of the place of\n\nbusiness.It has been pointed out that till the last renewal\n\nthe petitioners produced the property tax receipt at the\n\ntime of renewal of the certificate of enlistment.\n\nPresently, renewal could not be made as the petitioners\n\nfailed to submit the property tax receipt as required\n\nunder the aforesaid regulations.It has been contended that the petitioners never\n\nfiled any objection to the scheme that was published by\n\nthe authority and there is hardly any provision for\n\nrevision of the property tax at this stage.It has been submitted that erroneous calculation\n\nof property tax is not a ground for not paying the tax.According to the authority, the petitioner no.1 is\n\nobliged to produce the current property tax receipt for\n\nobtaining renewal of the certificate of enlistment.Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of\n\nboth the parties and upon perusal of the materials on\n\nrecord, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner no.1\n\nstopped paying the property tax on and from the 1st\n\nquarter of the year 2021-2022.The petitioner is carrying on business even\n\nthough the certificate of enlistment has expired and the\n\nrenewal is pending.5At this stage without deciding the issue as to\n\nwhether payment of property tax will be a pre-condition\n\nfor renewal of the certificate of enlistment, the matter is\n\nremanded to the Chairman, New Town Kolkata\n\nDevelopment Authority to take a decision with regard to\n\nthe objection raised by the petitioners regarding\n\nerroneous calculation in the property tax bill.The Chairman is also directed to consider the\n\nrepresentation filed on behalf of the petitioners praying\n\nfor renewal of the Trade License.The Chairman shall take a decision upon\n\nconsideration of both the objections filed by the\n\npetitioners strictly in accordance with law, after giving\n\nreasonable opportunity of hearing to the representative\n\nof the petitioners and pass a reasoned order in the\n\nmatter at the earliest, but positively within a period of\n\nsix weeks from the date of communication of this order.\n\nThe aforesaid respondent shall pass a reasoned order\n\nand communicate the same to the petitioners\n\nimmediately thereafter.It is made clear that this Court has not entered\n\ninto the merits of the claim of the petitioners and all\n\npoints are left open to be decided by the aforesaid\n\nrespondent at the time of consideration of the\n\nrepresentations.Learned advocate for the petitioners is directed to\n\nforward a copy of the representations dated 11 th6February, 2022 and 9th June, 2022 to the aforesaid\n\nrespondent at the time of communicating the order of\n\nthe Court.As the petitioners is continuing with the\n\nbusiness, accordingly, the petitioners is directed to\n\ndeposit with the Chairman the outstanding property tax\n\nin respect of the said property prior to consideration of\n\ntheir representations.The amount that is due and payable by the\n\npetitioners shall be calculated and intimated to the\n\npetitioners positively within a fortnight from date.The said amount shall be deposited with the\n\nChairman without prejudice to the rights and\n\ncontentions of the parties and the said amount will be\n\nduly adjusted by the Chairman against the property tax\n\nwhich will be adjudicated by the Chairman after\n\nconsideration of the objections filed by the petitioners.The Chairman shall also take a decision with\n\nregard to renewal of the certificate of enlistment which\n\nis kept pending for quite some time keeping in mind\n\nthat it will not be proper for the petitioners to run the\n\nbusiness without the license.The writ petition stands disposed of.\n\n As the writ petition is being disposed of without\n\ncalling for affidavits, the allegations made in the writ\n\npetition are deemed not to have been admitted by the\n\nrespondents.7Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if\n\napplied for, be given to the parties on completion of\n\nusual formalities.( Amrita Sinha, J.)

b2294210-f34e-5183-b180-bdeac5f9e36e

court_cases

Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurM/S Shree Rajendra Agro Service Centre vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 9 May, 2023Author:Pushpendra Singh BhatiBench:Pushpendra Singh Bhati[2023/RJJD/013634]\n\n HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n JODHPUR\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4160/2023\n\nM/s Shree Rajendra Agro Service Centre, Through Its Proprietor\nMahendra Kumar Mewara S/o Sukha Ram Mewara, Aged About\n39 Years, Resident Of Ramdevra Gali, At Post Sindru, Sumerpur,\nPali (Raj.).\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\n1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Through Its Chief Manager,\n Jodhpur Divisional Officer, Sector 12, Chopasani Housing\n Board, Jodhpur-342008.\n2. Divisional Retail Sales Head, Divisional Office Indian Oil\n Bhawan, Plot No.1162-63, Sector No.11, Hiran Magri,\n Udaipur - 313002.\n3. M/s Gilbarco Veedeer Root India Pvt Ltd., Through Its\n Head /director Art Guild House, B Wing, 1St Floor Pheonix\n Market City, L.b.s. Road, Kurla West, Mumbai - 400 070.\n ----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora\n\n\n\n HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATIJudgment\n\nReserved on 03/05/2023\nPronounced on 09/05/20231. This writ petition underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n\nIndia has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that\n this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed\n and record of the case may kindly be called for:-1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of\n termination of dealership retain outlet dated 10.02.2023\n (Annex.14) passed by the respondents may kindly be\n quashed and set aside.(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (2 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this\n Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and\n circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour\n of the petitioner.3. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the\n petitioner."2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned\n\ncounsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner-Firm has been\n\noperating a Retail Outlet/Petrol Pump Dealership (RO) at Village -\n\nSanderao, District-Pali, Rajasthan in pursuance of the agreement\n\nentered between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation on\n\n16.04.2019. The petitioner has two Dispensing Units (DU) i.e.\n\nMIDCO and GILBARCO VEEDER ROOT (GVR).2.1. Upon the petitioner's RO faced certain difficulties on\n\n15.12.2020, the petitioner contacted the concerned persons,\n\nnamely, Shri Atul Kumar and Shri Chetan Pandya, whereupon the\n\npetitioner was instructed to restart the DU in order to rectify the\n\nhindrance in operation. However thereafter, the MDT Committee\n\nvisited the RO of the petitioner-Firm on 30.12.2020 for inspection\n\nof the said RO regarding certain errors (Error E09 and E28). Upon\n\nthe said inspection by the Committee, the authorities shut down\n\nthe DU in question.2.2 Thereafter, the IOCL Retails Outlet MDT Inspection Report\n\ndated 30.12.2020 was prepared, stating therein that no\n\nmanipulation or error has been found in the RO.\n\n2.3. Subsequently, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)\n\nsubmitted a Lab Analysis Report - Rev.1.0 on 25.02.2021 wherein\n\nit was stated that E09/E28 errors were observed from 30.09.2020(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (3 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\nto 30.12.2020; it was also stated therein that the manipulation\n\nwas found in Dispensing Units (DU) of the RO in question.\n\nThereafter, the concerned Officials, on 12.04.2021, arrived at the\n\nRO in question for the purpose of investigation, and collected all\n\nthe relevant documents from the RO in question for Lab test.\n\nThereafter, another Lab Analysis Report dated 23.08.2021 was\n\nsubmitted by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), wherein\n\nit was stated that no external component/device was found.\n\n2.4. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter/notice dated\n\n08.09.2021 to the petitioner, while concluding that based on the\n\nDU error log analysis and investigation, it was established that the\n\nDU has been manipulated for delivery of fuel, and asked the\n\npetitioner-Firm to file reply thereto within 10 days regarding to the\n\naforementioned allegation; failing which the proceedings, as per\n\nMarketing Disciplinary Guidelines-2012, were stipulated to be\n\ninitiated.2.4.1. The petitioner-Filed replied the said letter/notice along with\n\nthe relevant service report on 16.09.2021, and stated that no\n\ndevice was ever found in the RO to derive the conclusion of\n\nmanipulation by way of spurious external device. The respondents\n\nhowever, again issued a notice on 15.12.2021 with regard to the\n\nsame DU error, while proposing termination of petitioner-Firm's\n\ndealership as per clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Disciplinary\n\nGuidelines-2012; the same was received by the petitioner through\n\nE-mail on 24.12.2021. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the\n\nsaid notice, along with the relevant documents on 29.12.2021\n\nthrough Email and R.P.A.D.(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (4 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\n2.5 However, against the aforementioned notice dated\n\n15.12.2021, the petitioner-Firm preferred S.B.C.W.P No.543/2022\n\nbefore this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed of on 10.02.2022\n\nby a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, with a direction to\n\nthe respondent-Corporation to give opportunity of hearing to the\n\npetitioner-Firm, along with some technical expert, so as to enable\n\nthe petitioner to put forth its case in its proper perspective.\n\n2.6. Thereupon, the petitioner, vide letter dated 14.05.2022,\n\ninformed the respondent-Corporation with regard to passing of the\n\naforementioned order dated 10.02.2022; whereupon, in\n\ncompliance of the aforesaid order dated 10.02.2022, the\n\nrespondent-Corporation conducted the personal hearing of the\n\npetitioner on 07.10.2022. However subsequently, the respondent-\n\nCorporation vide the impugned order dated 10.02.2023\n\nterminated the dealership retail outlet of the petitioner-Firm;\n\naggrieved thereby, the present petition has been preferred\n\nclaiming the afore-quoted reliefs.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the\n\nimpugned order is violative of the clause 5.1.4 read with clause\n\n8.2 of the Guidelines-2012, wherein it was provided that in order\n\nto attract the impugned action, it is necessary that any type of\n\nmechanism or fitting or gear has been found in a condition that is\n\nfitted to the DU for manipulation of delivery of fuel.\n\n3.1 He further submitted that no substantial proof or the service\n\nhistory records were available to establish that the ECAL connector\n\nhas been manipulated with any external spurious device.(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (5 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\n3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the inspection was\n\nconducted on 15.12.2020 and notice to show cause was given\n\nafter expiry of a period of one year, and therefore, the entire\n\naction of the respondents is clearly contrary to the Guidelines-\n\n2012; hence, as per learned counsel, the impugned termination\n\norder is liable to be quashed and set aside.3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the report on GILBARO\n\nVEEDER ROOT (GVR) is completely incorrect, so far as it concludes\n\nthe manipulation of the dispensing unit, and thus, the respondents\n\nhave wrongly passed the impugned order on the basis of the said\n\nreport. He further submitted that the entire problem has arisen\n\ndue to some manufacturing defects in the Dispensing Units (DU)\n\nof the RO in question.3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the IOCL Retail\n\nOutlet MDT Inspection Report dated 30.12.2020 stated that no\n\nirregularity was found in RO in question, but despite the same, the\n\nrespondents passed the impugned termination order, which is\n\nunsustainable in the eye of law.3.5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon\n\nthe following judgments:(a) E. Venkatakrishna Vs Indian Oil Corporation & Anr.(2000) 7 SCC 764 and;(b) Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs Indian Oil Corporation &\n\nOrs., (2003) 2 SCC 107.4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\n\nthe respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made\n\non behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (6 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\ntermination order was passed on the basis of the report of Original\n\nEquipment Manufacturer, wherein the petitioner's RO was opined\n\nto have suffered with manipulation of the DU, and therefore, once\n\nthe allegation in question is proved, then the respondents were\n\nleft with no other option, but to pass the impugned termination\n\norder, which is justified in law.4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that in case of any\n\nproblem in the Dispensing Unit, the complaint has to be booked\n\nthrough E-ledger; once the complaint is registered, the service\n\nengineer visits the retail outlet to attend such complaint.\n\n4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Original Equipment\n\nManufacturer (GILBARCO VEEDER ROOT) has filed its reports on\n\n25.02.2021 and 23.08.2021, which clearly reveal that the\n\nDispensing Unit has been manipulated for delivery of fuel.\n\n4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has\n\nviolated clause 42 of the Guidelines-2012, because if the dealer\n\ndoes not follow the instructions/guidelines issued by the\n\nrespondents, pertaining to the marketing discipline and safe\n\npractices for supply and storage of the products, then as per the\n\nagreement, the concerned dealership is liable to be terminated.\n\nThus, as per learned counsel, the present petition deserves to be\n\ndismissed.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the\n\nrecord of the case, along with judgments cited at the Bar.6. This Court observes that the dealership agreement was\n\nexecuted between petitioner and respondent on 16.04.2019. The\n\npetitioner had faced certain difficulties, whereupon the MDT(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (7 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\nCommittee visited the RO regarding the errors in question.\n\nThereafter, first report was prepared, wherein no\n\nmanipulation/error in the form of external spurious has been\n\nfound. Subsequently, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OME)\n\nhas submitted its reports, indicating therein that the manipulation\n\nhas been done in RO; on the basis whereof, the impugned\n\ntermination order was passed, after affording the petitioner\n\nadequate opportunity of hearing, as per law.7. This Court further observes that in the present case, when\n\nthe errors were found for the first time, the complaint was booked\n\nthrough E-ledger, whereupon the MDT Committee visited the RO\n\nfor inspection only, and thereafter, prepared a report dated\n\n30.12.2020.8. This Court also observes that the service report and MDT\n\nCommittee Inspection Report were prepared only on the basis of\n\ninspection, without any technical assistance; thereafter, the errors\n\nin questions were sent for testing at Original Equipment\n\nManufacturer (OEM) Lab, whereupon, it was clearly found that the\n\nManipulation of the Dispensing Unit (DU) was done for\n\ndisconnecting the original E-car connector of the Dispensing Unit\n\n(DU) with external spurious device; the Dispensing Unit (DU) was\n\nmanipulated for delivery of fuel\n\nRelevant portion of the said report dated 23.08.2021 is\n\nreproduced as hereunder:"DU ERROR LOG ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION\n Findings:(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (8 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\n ➢ The Automation error logs were analyzed for the\n period of "30th Sep 2020 to 30th Dec 2020".(Analysis Time Period).➢ E28/E09 errors were observed on following days\n • "14th Oct 2020, 23rd - 24th October 2020, 29th\n - 30th October 2020,\n • 27th Nov 2020 - 15th Dec 2020 and 15th -\n 29th Dec 2020"\n ➢ The repetitive series of data pattern shown bythe E-28/E-09 errors establish a modus operandi of\n Ecal cable disconnection from the CPU Ecal port.➢ Based on the analysis of the DU Error Logs\n during the Analysis Time Period and a review of our\n service records during the same Analysis Time Period,\n we note that no technical issues were observed on the\n dispensing unit which could result in the occurrence of\n the E-28/E-09 errors. It is clarified for the avoidance of\n doubt that based on the DU service records analyzed\n from complaints captured in GVR IFS service\n management system which is integrated with the oil\n company complaint management system, no service\n requests were raised by the dealer during the Analysis\n Time Period.INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS RESULTS\n ➢ Manipulation of the dispensing unit was\n done by disconnecting the original Ecal connector\n of the DU with an external spurious device."9. This Court further observes that as per the clause 42 of the\n\nGuidelines-2012, the Dealer shall, at all times, faithfully, promptly\n\nand diligently observe and perform and carry out, at all times, all\n\ndirections, instructions, guidelines and orders given or as may be\n\ngiven from time to time by the Corporation or its representatives\n\non safe practices and Marketing discipline and/or for the proper\n\ncarrying on of the Dealership of the Corporation; failing which, as(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)[2023/RJJD/013634] (9 of 9) [CW-4160/2023]\n\n\n per clause 45, the Corporation shall be at liberty at its entire\n\n discretion to terminate the agreement forthwith upon or at any\n\n time, after the stipulated failures on the part of the Dealer.10. The judgment cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the\n\n petitioner do not render any assistance to the case of the present\n\n petitioner.11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into\n\n the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a\n\n fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present\n\n petition.12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending\n\n applications stand disposed of.(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.SKant/-(Downloaded on 10/05/2023 at 10:51:35 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

3e8b4494-9ebd-54ac-bb1d-ba7dcf847123

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi\nBehat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs Ito Ward-4(3), New Delhi on 15 January, 2020\n IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n DELHI BENCHES "A": DELHI\n\n BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n AND\n SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019\n Assessment Year 2010-2011\n\nM/s. Behat Holdings Ltd.,\n The Income Tax Officer,\n14, 4380/4B Murari Lal\nStreet, Ansari Road, vs., Ward-4(3), Room No.385A,\nDaryaganj, Central Delhi C.R. Building,\nPIN - 110 002.\n New Delhi.\nPAN AADCB7691L\n (Appellant) (Respondent)\n\n Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A.\n Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate,\n For Assessee :\n Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And\n Shri Arpit Goel, C.A.\n For Revenue : Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR\n\n Date of Hearing : 08.01.2020\n Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2020\n\n ORDER\n\nPER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.\n This appeal by Assessee has been directed\n\nagainst the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi, Dated\n\n13.09.2019, for the A.Y. 2010-2011.\n 2\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n2. Briefly the facts of the case are that return of\n\nincome for the A.Y. 2010-2011 was filed by the assessee.\n\nNotice under section 148 was issued on 27.03.2017 and\n\nserved upon the assessee. In response to the notice under\n\nsection 148, assessee filed copy of the return of income\n\ndeclaring loss of Rs.(-)95,916/- already filed on 15.10.2010.\n\nThe A.O. issued statutory notices for completion of the\n\nassessment. Though the assessee attended the proceedings\n\nand furnished relevant requisite details which have been\n\nexamined by the A.O. A.O. in the re-assessment order from\n\nparas 1 to 8 reproduced the copy of the reasons recorded\n\nunder section 148 of the I.T. Act. Thereafter, A.O. noted that\n\nassessee was provided copy of the reasons and objections\n\nraised have been disposed of. The assessee has filed\n\nsubmissions giving confirmation copy of the account and\n\ncopy of the ITR in respect of the parties from whom share\n\ncapital/share premium were raised during the year under\n\nconsideration. The A.O. issued notices under section 133(6)\n\nof the I.T. Act for verification. Only one party responded. The\n\nassessee has not produced the Directors of the concerned\n 3\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nparties. Therefore, the A.O. made addition of Rs.7 crores\n\nunder section 68 of the I.T. Act and also made addition of\n\nRs.14 lakhs on account of Commission paid @ 2%. The\n\nassessment order was passed under section 147/143(3) of\n\nthe I.T. Act. The assessee challenged the reopening of the\n\nassessment as well as additions on merit before the Ld.\n\nCIT(A). The detailed submissions of the assessee are\n\nreproduced by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A)\n\ndismissed the appeal of assessee.\n\n\n3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to\n\nproceedings recorded for reopening of the assessment, copy\n\nof which is filed at page-16 of the PB and submitted that\n\nreasons are undated. PB-23 is letter of the assessee dated\n\n06.06.2017 requesting the A.O. to supply copy of the\n\nsanction accorded by Pr. CIT under section 151 along with\n\ncopy of the reasons recorded along with all the Annexures,\n\ncopy of proposal sent for approval and as to when proposal\n\nwas sanctioned and when proposal was received back. The\n\nassessee also asked for copy of the letter of SFIO Dated\n\n05.01.2017 mentioned in the reasons so that the assessee\n 4\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nwill be able to file objections against the reopening of the\n\nassessment. PB-41 is letter of the A.O. whereby approval of\n\nthe Pr. CIT have been conveyed to the assessee. PB-42 is\n\nproforma for recording reasons and approval to be granted\n\ndated 09.10.2019. PB-28 is letter of the A.O. dated\n\n27.09.2017 in which it is intimated to the assessee that all\n\nthe facts on the basis of the report of SFIO (Inv.) Wing of the\n\nDepartment have been incorporated in the reasons which\n\nhave been provided to him. Further, copy of the report of\n\nSFIO (Inv.) Wing of the Income Tax Department is\n\nconfidential in nature, therefore, same cannot be provided\n\nor part with as requested by assessee. Learned Counsel for\n\nthe Assessee, therefore, submitted that A.O. has refused to\n\nsupply all the Annexures referred to in the reasons,\n\ntherefore, assessee was not able to file detailed objections to\n\nthe reopening of the assessment. PB-13 is notice under\n\nsection 148 in which A.O. has mentioned that notice have\n\nbeen issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of Addl.\n\nCIT/Pr. CIT/Pr. CCIT. He has submitted that it is not clear\n\nfrom the notice as to which Authority has granted approval\n 5\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nunder section 151 of the I.T. Act. He has referred to PB-43\n\nin which the approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax\n\nis blank and that Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax while\n\ngranting approval has mentioned "Yes, I am satisfied". He\n\nhas submitted that there is no application of mind before\n\ngranting approval and such approval is not find valid by\n\nvarious Courts. The A.O. has not applied his mind to the\n\nfacts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the re-\n\nassessment order is invalid and bad in law. Since complete\n\ncopy of the reasons along with Annexures have not been\n\nsupplied to the assessee, therefore, there is no basis to\n\ninitiate proceedings under section 148 of the I.T. Act.\n\nLearned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon Judgment of\n\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SABH Infrastructure\n\nLtd., vs. ACIT [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Del.) (HC) in which the\n\nHon'ble Delhi High Court has directed the Revenue\n\nDepartment to adhere to the following guidelines in the\n\nmatter of reopening of the assessment.\n 6\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n"(i) while communicating the reasons for reopening the\n\n assessment, the copy of the standard form used\n\n by the Assessing Officer for obtaining the approval\n\n of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to\n\n the assessee. This would contain the comment or\n\n endorsement of the Superior Officer with his name,\n\n designation and date. In other words, merely\n\n stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the\n\n Assessing Officer to the assessee is to be avoided.\n\n\n\n(ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the\n\n reasons and grounds available with the Assessing\n\n Officer for reopening the assessment - especially\n\n in those cases where the first proviso to section\n\n 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to\n\n also paraphrase any investigation report which\n\n may form the basis of the reasons and any\n\n enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer on the\n\n same and if so, the conclusions thereof;\n 7\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another\n\n document, whether as a letter or report, such\n\n document and/or relevant portions of such report\n\n should be enclosed along with the reasons ;\n\n\n (iv) the exercise of considering the assessee's\n\n objections to the reopening of assessment is not a\n\n mechanical ritual. It is a quasi-judicial function.\n\n The order disposing of the objections should deal\n\n with each objection and give proper reasons for the\n\n conclusion. No attempt should be made to add to\n\n the reasons for reopening of the assessment\n\n beyond what has already been disclosed.\n\n\n 20. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.\n\n There will be no order as to costs."\n\n\n3.1. He has submitted that since satisfaction/\n\napproval of Pr.CIT is without application of mind and\n\ngranted in a mechanical manner, therefore, re-assessment\n\norder is invalid. In support of his contention, Learned\n 8\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nCounsel for the Assessee relied upon the following\n\ndecisions:\n\n\n 01. Chhugamal Rajpal vs., S.P. Chaliha\n [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC)\n 02. CIT vs., M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals\n Ltd., [2015] 231 Taxman 73 (MP).\n Department's SLP Dismissed in [2016] 237\n Taxman 378 (SC).\n 03. United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd., [2002] 258 ITR\n 317 (Del.)\n 04. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd., vs., DDIT\n [2017] 397 ITR 665 (Del.)\n 05. Hirachand Kanuga vs., DCIT [2015] 68 SOT\n 205 {Mum.).\n\n\n3.2. He has also relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble\n\nDelhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic\n\nManufacturing Company vs., CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del.)\n\n(HC) in which the assessee challenged the validity of the re-\n\nassessment proceedings under section 147. The Hon'ble\n\nDelhi High court quashed the proceedings inter alia, held\n\nthat "if reasons are not served within the limitation period of\n\nsix years, the proceedings initiated will be illegal". Learned\n 9\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nCounsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that\n\ninitiation of re-assessment proceedings and approval is\n\ninvalid, bad in Law and as such liable to be quashed.\n4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the\n\nOrders of the authorities below and submitted that reasons\n\nwere supplied to the assessee. The crux of SFIO (Inv.) Wing\n\nof the Income Tax Department is mentioned in the reasons.\n\nThe approval is valid in law because there is no requirement\n\nto use specific language while granting sanction/approval.\n\nHe has, however, admitted that copy of the report of the\n\nSFIO was not provided to the assessee.\n\n\n5. We have considered the rival submission and\n\nperused the material on record. It is well settled Law that\n\nvalidity of re-assessment proceedings shall have to be\n\ndetermined with reference to the reasons recorded for\n\nreopening of the assessment. Learned Counsel for the\n\nAssessee filed copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of\n\nthe assessment at pages 16 to 22 of PB. The same reads as\n\nunder:\n 10\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 11\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 12\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 13\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 14\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 15\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 16\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n 17\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n5.1. The reasons are un-dated. The A.O. in the\n\nassessment order has reproduced the same reasons without\n\napplication of his mind to the relevant material and\n\nthereafter by referring to notice under section 133(6) and\n\nnon-production of the Directors of the Investor Companies\n\nmade the addition against the assessee. The A.O. in the\n\nreasons has mentioned that information was forwarded by\n\nSerious Fraud Investigation Office, Delhi which were\n\nreceived through Pr. CIT vide Letter Dated 05.01.2017. The\n\nA.O. has also referred to such report based on search and\n\nseizure in the case of third parties. The assessee made a\n\nrequest to the A.O. to supply complete copy of the reasons\n\nalong with Annexures and Report of SFIO Dated 05.01.2017\n\nand approval granted by Pr. CIT. The A.O, however\n\nintimated that since SFIO report is confidential, therefore,\n\nsame cannot be provided to the assessee. Thus, the\n\ncomplete Annexures to the reasons were not provided to the\n\nassessee and A.O. has also failed to provide copy of the\n\nreport dated 05.01.2017 to the assessee which is the basis\n\nfor reopening of the assessment. Assessee cannot be given\n 18\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nsurprise to file objections without providing all the relevant\n\nmaterial. The report Dated 05.01.2017 is the basis for\n\nreopening of the assessment and since it is not confronted\n\nand provided to assessee, the assessee may not be able to\n\nfile proper objections to the reopening of the assessment.\n\nThus, the direction given in the case of SABH\n\nInfrastructure Ltd., vs., ACIT (supra), have not been applied\n\nbecause it is the duty of the A.O. to provide all the\n\ndocuments and reports which are part of the reasons to the\n\nassessee before taking steps into the matter. Further the\n\nAddl. CIT while granting or forwarding copy of the reasons\n\nto the Pr. CIT for his approval did not mention any fact in\n\nthe proforma which is blank and no remarks have been\n\nmentioned by him despite his signature appeared thereon.\n\nThe Pr. CIT while granting sanction/approval to reasons\n\nrecorded for reopening of the assessment has simply\n\nmentioned "Yes, I am satisfied". Such type of approval was\n\nnot found valid in many cases. The ITAT Delhi C-Bench in\n\nthe case of M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi\n\nvs., ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi in ITA.No.1579/Del./2019\n 19\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nfor the A.Y. 2010-2011 vide Order Dated 07.11.2019\n\nquashed the reopening of the assessment in the similar\n\ncircumstances. The entire order is reproduced as under :\n "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n DELHI BENCHES "C": DELHI\n\n BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n AND\n SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\n ITA.No.1579/Del./2019\n Assessment Year 2010-2011\n\nM/s. Ganesh Ganga The Income Tax Officer,\nInvestments Pvt. Ltd., Ward - 10 (1), Room\nA-52, Top Floor, Street vs., No.206A, C.R. Building, I.P.\nNo.1, Gurunanakpura,\n Estate, New Delhi.\nLaxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092.\n PIN - 110 002.\nPAN AAACG2710J\n (Appellant) (Respondent)\n\n Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. And\n For Assessee : Shri Rajeev Ahuja, Advocate\n Shri Sumit Goel, C.A.\n For Revenue : Ms. Parmit M. Biswas, CIT-DR\n\n Date of Hearing : 10.10.2019\n Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2019\n\n ORDER\n\nPER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.\n 20\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n This appeal by Assessee has been directed\n\nagainst the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi, Dated\n\n26.12.2018, for the A.Y. 2010-2011.\n\n\n2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee\n\ncompany filed its return of income on 04.02.2011 for the A.Y.\n\n2010-2011 declaring loss of Rs.9,616/- which was processed\n\nunder section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee\n\ndeclared income from brokerage and commission, interest on\n\nloan and profit on sale of investment also.\n\n\n2.1. An information was received from the O/o. CIT,\n\nCentral-2, New Delhi, vide letter Dated 14.02.2014\n\nmentioning therein that a search/survey operation under\n\nsection 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was\n\nconducted by the Investigation Wing at the business and\n\nresidential premises of Shri Himanshu Verma and his Group\n\non 29.03.2012 wherein after intensive and extensive inquiry\n\nand examination of documents seized during the course of\n\nsearch, it has been gathered that the said persons are\n\ninvolved in providing accommodation entries to the persons\n\nwho were named in the report. During the course of inquiry\n 21\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nmade by the Investigation Wing, it also came to the notice\n\nthat Shri Himanshu Verma was engaged in the business of\n\nproviding accommodation entries through cheques/PO/DD in\n\nlieu of cash to large number of beneficiary companies through\n\nvarious paper and dummy companies floated and controlled\n\nby him. The cash received from the parties for providing\n\naccommodation entries was first deposited in the account of\n\nthese dummy firms/companies in the guise of cash received\n\nagainst the bogus sales duly shown in the books of account.\n\nOn the basis of the material available on record, the A.O.\n\nafter recording reasons for reopening of the assessment,\n\nissued notice under section 148 to the assessee on\n\n31.03.2017 which was served upon the assessee. The\n\nassessee objected to the reopening of the assessment and\n\nrequested to provide copy of the approval of Competent\n\nAuthority under section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The\n\nAssessee also contended that whatever material was\n\ncollected at the back of the assessee was not confronted and\n\nrequested to supply statement of Shri Himanshu Verma,\n\nreport and data complied / received from Investigation Wing,\n 22\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nreport and data complied/received by ITO, Ward-10(1), New\n\nDelhi, diaries and registers considered as incriminating\n\nmaterial seized from Shri Himanshu Verma and any other\n\ndocuments which Department wanted to rely. It was further\n\nsubmitted that proceedings under section 147/148 of the I.T.\n\nAct, cannot be invoked for making inquiry or verification\n\npurposes. The assessee denied receipt of any accommodation\n\nentry from any such person. The A.O, however, rejected the\n\nobjections of the assessee and proceeded to make\n\nassessment in the matter. The A.O. noted that in assessment\n\nyear under appeal, assessee has received Rs.11,05,00,000/-\n\non account of share capital and share premium from 38\n\nparties as noticed during the course of assessment\n\nproceedings. The summary of the same is reproduced in the\n\nassessment order. The assessee was asked to file complete\n\npostal address, PAN and other details of these 38 parties.\n\nThe A.O. also issued notice under section 133(6) to all 38\n\nshare subscriber companies and asked for the details from\n\nthem. The A.O. received replies from 26 companies. In 06\n\ncases, although notice issued under section 133(6) of the I.T.\n 23\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nAct were issued as per new name as well as old name of the\n\ncompany, but, the same were returned back un-served by the\n\nPostal Authorities. In the remaining 06 cases, no replies have\n\nbeen received. The A.O. noted that replies received from 26\n\nparties under section 133(6) have been analysed and these\n\ncompanies furnished copy of the acknowledgment of ITR,\n\nbalance sheet as on 31.03.2010, P & L A/c, copy of the bank\n\nstatement. The A.O. however, did not accept the replies filed\n\nby the 26 investor companies on the reasons that replies\n\nhave been received in bunch for similar style of envelopes\n\nand posted from three post offices. The A.O. also noted that\n\nnone of the parties explained as to why high premium was\n\npaid and parties have not explained source of the investment.\n\nThe A.O. also noted that 26 parties filed copy of the ITR,\n\nbalance sheet, P & L A/c and bank statement, but, it shows\n\nthat their income shown is very meagre in the return of\n\nincome. The assessee was asked to produce the\n\npersons/Principal Officers of these entities for verification.\n\nHowever, assessee did not produce the same. The A.O. also\n\nanalysed the statement of Shri Himanshu Verma through\n 24\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nwhom amount have been received and the A.O. ultimately\n\nrejected the explanation of assessee on genuine share\n\napplication money received from 38 parties and made\n\naddition of Rs.11.05 crores. The A.O. further noted that\n\nassessee has paid commission in cash for arranging these\n\nentries, on which, addition was made of Rs.22,10,000/- i.e.,\n\n@ 2% of the amount in question which was also added to the\n\nreturned income.\n\n\n3. The assessee challenged the reopening of the\n\nassessment as well as additions on merit before the Ld.\n\nCIT(A). It was contended that assessment framed on the\n\nbasis of material / documents / information received from\n\nthird party and without application of mind by the A.O,\n\ntherefore, whole assessment is invalid and bad in law. It was\n\nfurther submitted that assessee has shown all the amounts\n\nin his books of account and return of income filed with the\n\nDepartment. The A.O. has reopened the assessment by\n\nmentioning in the reasons that assessee has received entries\n\nof Rs.2.45 crores which fact is incorrect. The initiation of re-\n\nassessment have been made merely on the basis of\n 25\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nInvestigation Wing report without applying the mind. No right\n\nof cross-examination have been provided to the assessee to\n\nthe statement of Shri Himanshu Verma and others. The\n\nassessee relied upon the following decisions.\n\n\n3.1. In the case of Pr. CIT vs., RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.,\n\n396 ITR 5 (Del.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:\n "In the present case too, the information received\n\n from the Inv. Wing cannot be said to be tangible\n\n material per se without a further enquiry being\n\n undertaken by the learned assessing officer"\n\n3.2. In the case of Pr. CIT vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P)\n\nLtd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as\n\nunder :\n\n\n "Reassessment notice condition precedent\n\n recording of reasons to believe that income has\n\n escaped assessment mere reproduction of\n\n investigation report in reasons recorded absence of\n 26\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n link between tangible material and formation of\n\n ceding illegal Income Tax Act, 1961, Sec.147, 148"\n\n\n3.3. In the case of Pr. CIT vs., G And G Pharma India\n\nLtd., [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Del.), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court\n\nheld as under :\n\n\n "Reassessment condition precedent application of\n\n mind by assessing officer to materials prior to\n\n forming reason to believe income has escaped\n\n assessment - No independent application of mind\n\n to information received from Directorate of\n\n Investigation and no prima facie opinion formed-\n\n reassessment order invalid".\n\n\n3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329\n\nITR 110 (Del.), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under :\n\n\n "No independent application of mind by the\n\n Assessing officer but acting under information\n\n from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed".\n\n\n3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is\n\nbarred by time. The assessee further submitted that approval\n 27\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nunder section 151 have been granted in a most mechanical\n\nmanner without applying independent mind by the Pr.\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax. He has submitted that Pr.\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax has recorded in the approval as\n\nunder :\n\n\n"Form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings u/s\n\n147 and for obtaining the approval of the Ad CIT/CIT/CBDT\n\n\n M/s. Ganesh\n Ganga Investment\n1. Name and address of the P. Ltd., A-52, Top\n assessee Floor Street No.l,\n Guru Nanak\n Pura, Laxmi Nagar,\n Delhi\n 110092\n2. PAN AAACG2710J\n3. Status Company\n4. Ward/Circle Ward-10(1)\n5. Asstt. Year in respect of which it\n 2010-11.\n is proposed to issue notice u/s\n 148\n6. The quantum of income which has Rs.2,45,00,000/-\n escaped assessment\n7. Whether the provisions of section\n 147(b)\n147(a) or 147(b) are applicable or\n both the sections are applicable.\n 28\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n8. Whether the assessment is\n proposed to be made for the first Yes\n time. If the reply is affirmative,\n please state\n (a) Whether any voluntary\n return has already been Yes\n\n filed.\n (b) If so, the date of filing of 04.02.2011\n return\n\n\n9. If answer to item 8 is negative,\n please state\n(a) Income originally assessed NA\n Whether it is a case of under\n assessment, at lower rate,\n(b) NO\n assessment which has been made\n the subject of excessive relief or\n allowing excess loss/depreciation.\n Whether the provision of Sec. 150(1)\n are applicable. If the reply is in\n affirmative the relevant facts may be\n stated against Item No. 11 and 8\n10. NO\n may also be brought out that the\n provisions of Sec. 150(2) would not\n stand in the way of initiating\n proceedings u/s. 147.\n11. Reasons for the belief that the As per annexure.\n 29\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n income has escaped assessment.\n\n Sd/- H.K. Sharma\nDated: 29.03.2017. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi.\n\n Whether the Addl. Commissioner\n of I. Tax is satisfied on the In view of the facts\n12. reasons recorded by the ITO that notice u/s.148 to\n it is a fit case for the issue of be issued.\n notice u/s.148.\n\n13. Whether the Pr. Commissioner of I. Yes I am satisfied\n Tax is satisfied on the reasons that it is a fit case\n recorded by the ITO that it is a fit for issue of notice\n case for the issue of notice u/s.148 of the I.T.\n u/s.148. Act, 1961.\n\n\n Sd/-S.K. Mittal,\n Pr. Commissioner of I. Tax, New Delhi."\n\n\n3.6. This approval is not valid in Law because it would\n\nshow that approval have been granted without application of\n\nmind. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon\n\nJudgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\n\nUnited Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income\n\nTax 258 ITR 317 in which approval by Addl. Commissioner of\n 30\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nIncome Tax under section 151 was given in the following\n\nterms - "Yes" I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of\n\nnotice under section 148 of the I.T. Act." The Hon'ble Delhi\n\nHigh Court considering the similarly worded approval did not\n\napprove the same and held that "in the present case, there\n\nhas been no application of mind by Addl. Commissioner of\n\nIncome Tax before granting the approval." The assessee also\n\nrelied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax vs., S. Goyanka Lime &\n\nChemical Ltd., [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) approving\n\nthe Judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the\n\ncase of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur vs., S.\n\nGoyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd., [2015] 56 taxmann.com 390\n\n(M.P.) in which the Departmental SLP has been dismissed on\n\nthe same reason because the Joint Commissioner of Income\n\nTax recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and\n\nwithout application of mind. The assessee also relied upon\n\nJudgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case\n\nof Arjun Singh vs., ADIT [2000] 246 ITR 363 (M.P.) in which\n\nalso similarly worded sanction under section 148 was not\n 31\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nfound valid. The assessee also relied upon Judgment of\n\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of\n\nIncome Tax vs., N.C. Cables Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649\n\n(Del.) in which also on similarly worded sanction, it was held\n\nthat re-assessment was not valid. The assessee also\n\nsubmitted that since no right of cross-examination have been\n\nallowed to the statement of Shri Himanshu Verma, therefore,\n\nsuch statement cannot be read in evidence against the\n\nassessee. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs.,\n\nCommissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II reported in 281\n\nCTR 241.\n\n\n4. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the\n\ncontention of assessee and confirmed the reopening of the\n\nassessment. The assessee also made submissions on merit\n\nto show that addition is wholly unjustified. However, the Ld.\n\nCIT(A) did not accept the contention of assessee and upheld\n\nthe addition on merit as well. The appeal of assessee was\n\naccordingly dismissed.\n 32\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n5. The assessee in the present appeal challenged the\n\nreopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the\n\nI.T. Act, 1961, on several grounds, addition of Rs.11.05\n\ncrores under section 68 of the I.T. Act and addition of\n\nRs.22,10,000/- on account of commission.\n\n\n6. We have heard the Learned Representatives of\n\nboth the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated\n\nthe submissions made before the authorities below and\n\nreferred to reasons recorded in this case for reopening of the\n\nassessment, copy of which is filed at page-15 of the PB. PB-\n\n29 is approval/sanction granted by the Pr. Commissioner of\n\nIncome Tax, New Delhi. PB-6 is balance-sheet to show that in\n\npreceding assessment year the share capital was of Rs.3.01\n\ncrores and in assessment year in increased to Rs.14.06\n\ncrores. Thus, about Rs.11 crores have increased and this fact\n\nwas also disclosed to the Revenue Department. Such details\n\nare filed in the return of income. No verification could be\n\nallowed in the garb of proceedings under section 148 of the\n 33\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. The name of M/s. Management\n\nServices Pvt. Ltd., in the reason from whom alleged entry\n\nhave been taken by the assessee do not figure in the\n\nappellate order because such party does not exist. M/s.\n\nShubh Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., has been mentioned in the reasons\n\ndo not belong to Shri Himanshu Verma. In assessment order\n\nname of M/s. Management Services Pvt. Ltd., do not appear.\n\nPB-13 of the assessment order referred to the statement of\n\nShri Himanshu Verma in which name of M/s. Shubh\n\nPropbuild Pvt. Ltd., does not appear. The A.O, therefore,\n\nrecorded incorrect reasons and did not apply his mind to the\n\nmaterial on record. The A.O. has not gone through the record\n\nand the balance Company do not belong to the assessee. The\n\nstatement of Shri Himanshu Verma was not subjected to\n\ncross-examination on behalf of assessee, despite making a\n\nrequest to the A.O. [PB-19]. In the statement of Shri\n\nHimanshu Verma filed on record, no such companies have\n\nbeen mentioned, therefore, no adverse inference could be\n\ndrawn against the assessee. The assessee did not receive\n\nany notice for production of the parties before A.O. There is\n 34\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nno evidence on record of any payment of commission paid by\n\nassessee for arranging share capital. Learned Counsel for the\n\nAssessee relied upon Order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the\n\ncase of Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT\n\nITA.No.132/Del./2018 Dated 06.08.2018 in which in similar\n\ncircumstances the re-assessment have been quashed which\n\ncase also relates to entry provided by Shri Himanshu Verma.\n\nLearned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the A.O.\n\nissued notices to all the parties under section 133(6) of the\n\nI.T. Act. In response to the same, 26 parties filed reply\n\nsupported by documentary evidences to prove genuine share\n\napplication money have been received. The A.O. did not take\n\nhelp of any handwriting export before forming any opinion. If\n\nreplies were not in order, assessee should have been\n\nconfronted with the material so that assessee could rebut the\n\nsame. Therefore, such fact could not be taken adversely\n\nagainst the assessee. The assessee never received notice\n\nDated 11.12.2017 for production of the parties for\n\nexamination. In reasons 06 parties are mentioned which\n\nbelong to Shri Himanshu Verma, but, in his statement he\n 35\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nsays 08 parties, but, the A.O. made addition for 38 parties.\n\nA.O. made the addition only on the statement of Shri\n\nHimanshu Verma, but, the parties did not belong to him.\n\nLearned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that since\n\napproval is not in accordance with Law, therefore, reopening\n\nof the assessment is bad in Law and relied upon the same\n\nJudgments as were relied upon before Ld. CIT(A). He has\n\nsubmitted that A.O. did not apply his mind to the reasons\n\nand recorded incorrect facts and approval is also given on\n\nincorrect facts. The initiation and approval on the basis of\n\nwrong facts is not legally valid. He has relied upon Judgment\n\nof Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of\n\nIncome Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 248 CTR 33\n\nand other decisions as was relied upon before the authorities\n\nbelow. The amount received from 30 companies is Rs.8.13\n\ncrores only out of total amount of Rs.11.05 crores. Therefore,\n\nthere is no other material on record to justify the addition. He\n\nhas submitted that A.O. cannot ask to explain source of the\n\nsource. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore,\n 36\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nsubmitted that reopening of the assessment is invalid and no\n\naddition could be made against the assessee even on merits.\n7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the\n\nOrders of the authorities below and submitted that A.O. dealt\n\nwith the objections of the assessee, but, for re-assessment\n\nproceedings no manner is provided as to how sanction is to\n\nbe granted. A.O. recorded details in the reasons on which Pr.\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax was satisfied. Therefore,\n\nreopening of the assessment is valid because information\n\nwas received from Investigation Wing that assessee has\n\nreceived accommodation entries. The name of assessee was\n\nappearing. Sufficiency of reasons is not required at this stage\n\nof formation of re-assessment proceedings. The A.O. cannot\n\ndo any roving enquiry at initial stage. The assessee failed to\n\nprove creditworthiness of the Investor Companies as they\n\nwere having meagre income. The assessee did not prove\n\ngenuineness of the transaction in the matter. The A.O. made\n\nenquiry from Investors and assessee did not produce parties\n\nbefore A.O. Even a premium have been charged for allotment\n\nof shares for which no reasons have been explained. The\n 37\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\ncompanies are having meagre income only. Apart from\n\nstatement of Shri Himanshu Verma, there is enough material\n\nto justify the addition on merit. The assessee also did not\n\nprove identity and creditworthiness of the Investors even if no\n\ncross-examination to the statement of Shri Himanshu Verma\n\nhave been allowed. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgment of\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills\n\n236 ITR 34 (SC). He has submitted that information is prima\n\nfacie relevant and there is sufficient material on record to\n\njustify the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The\n\nassessee failed to prove that no notice Dated 11.12.2017\n\nhave been received. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following\n\ndecisions.\n\n\n1. PCIT vs., Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 2017-\n TIOL-253-SC-IT.\n\n2. PCIT vs., Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., [2017]\n 392 ITR 444 (Del.) (HC)\n\n3. Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2018] 91\n taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat) (HC).\n\n4. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2017] 85\n taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat) (HC).\n5. Ankit Financial Services Ltd., vs. DCIT [2017] 78\n taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) (HC).\n 38\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n\n6. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd., vs. DCIT [2017] 83\n taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) (HC).\n\n7. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd., vs. JCIT [2018] 89\n taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) (HC).\n\n8. Yogendrakumar Gupta vs., ITO [2014] 227 Taxman 374\n (SC).\n\n\n8. We have considered the rival submissions. It is\n\nwell settled Law that validity of re-assessment proceedings is\n\nto be examined with reference to the reasons recorded for\n\nreopening of the assessment. The Counsel for Assessee has\n\nfiled copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the\n\nassessment at Page-15 of the Paper Book which reads as\n\nunder :\n\n\n "M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd.,\n\n\n PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11\n\n\n The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y.\n\n 2010-11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-)\n\n 14,162/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1).\n 39\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n Information was forwarded to this office through\n\nthe Addl.CIT, Range-10, New Delhi that search &\n\nseizure action was conducted by Inv. Wing at the office\n\nof Sh. Himanshu Verma where various incriminating\n\ndocuments/materials were seized during the course of\n\nsearch. During the post search investigation and\n\nperusal of seized documents it was observed that Sh.\n\nHimanshu Verma was engaged in the business of\n\nproviding accommodation-' entries by providing\n\ncheques/PO/DD in lieu of cash to a large number of\n\nbeneficiary companies thorough various paper and\n\ndummy companies floated and controlled by them. It\n\nwas also evidently established by the Investigation\n\nWing that Sh Himanshu Verma is known entry\n\nproviders and is the actual controller of more than 100\n\ncompanies/proprietary firms/partnership firms. They\n\ncontrol these entities through various persons by\n\nappointing them as directors/partners/proprietors\n\napart from nominating them as authorized signatories\n\nfor maintaining the bank accounts of these entities but\n 40\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nin fact all these persons act only as their stooges. The\n\ncash received from the recipient parties for providing\n\nthe accommodation entries was first deposited in the\n\naccounts of these dummy firms/companies in the\n\ndisguise of the cash received against the bogus sales,\n\nduly shown in the books of accounts. From there, this\n\ncash was transferred to the different paper companies\n\nfloated by Sh. Himanshu Verma through a complex\n\ntrail of transactions, so as to hide the actual sources of\n\nfunds of the last set of recipient companies of Sh.\n\nHimanshu Verma\n\n\n In this way, the reserve & surpluses and the\n\ncapital account of a specific set of companies are\n\nenhanced with the help of the unexplained cash\n\nreceived by Himanshu Verma, which is routed to these\n\ncompanies through their dummy firm/companies. Once\n\nthe funds of these companies have been enhanced\n\nsufficiently, accommodation entries through RTGS/\n\nCheque in the shape of the share capital, capital gains\n\nor loans as per the specific requirement of the recipient\n 41\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n clients were provided to them in lieu of the cash\n\n received from them. In this way, the chain for providing\n\n an accommodation entry gets completed.\n\n\n It is noticed from the list of entries that the\n\n assessee M/s Ganesh Ganga Investment P. Ltd. has\n\n taken following accommodation entries during the\n\n financial year 2009-10 :-\n\nS.No. Amount Conduit companies through which\n cheque issued.\n 1. 4000000 Shubh Propbuild P Ltd.,\n 2. 4000000 Jaguar Softech P. Ltd.,\n 3. 4000000 Join Fashion P. Ltd.,\n 4. 4500000 Management Services P. Ltd.,\n 5. 4000000 Greenvision Construction P. Ltd.,\n 6. 4000000 USK Exim P. Ltd.,\nTOTAL 2,45,00,000/-\n\n On the basis of the reports received from the\n\n Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from\n\n the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear\n\n that the assessee company has not disclosed fully and\n\n truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for\n\n the assessment year under consideration as it emerges\n\n that transactions shown in the return are not genuine.\n\n Apart from the above the assessee company is not\n 42\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n doing any real business and keeping in view the huge\n\n investments, disallowances u/s 14A read with rule 8D\n\n also applicable in the case. The statement given by\n\n Shri Himanshu Verma also establishes the link with\n\n the self-confessed "accommodation entry providers",\n\n whose business is to help assessees bring back their\n\n unaccounted money into their books of account. Thus,\n\n there is a direct link between the information/available\n\n with the department and the income escaping\n\n assessment.\n\n I have, therefore, reasons to believe that income\n\nto the extent of Rs.2,45,00,000/- has escaped\n\nassessment relevant to A.Y.2010-11. Thus, the same is\n\nto be brought to tax under section 147/148 of the I.T.\n\nAct 1961.\n\n\n Moreover, as the case pertains to a period beyond\n\nfour years from the end of relevant assessment year, for\n\nissuing the notice u/s 148, necessary approval /\n\nsanction may kindly be accorded by the Pr.\n 43\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-4, New Delhi in view\n\n of the amended provision of section 151 w.e.f\n\n 01.06.2015.\n\n Sd/- H.K. Sharma,\n Dated : 27.03.2017. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi."\n\n\n\n8.1. PB-29 is the sanction granted by Pr. Commissioner\n\nof Income Tax for reopening of the assessment in which it is\n\nmentioned as under :\n\n\n Whether the Pr. Commissioner of I. Yes I am satisfied\n Tax is satisfied on the reasons that it is a fit case\n13. recorded by the ITO that it is a fit for issue of notice\n case for the issue of notice u/s.148 of the I.T.\n u/s.148. Act, 1961.\n\n\n Sd/-S.K. Mittal,\n Pr. Commissioner of I. Tax, New Delhi."\n\n\n8.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon\n\nJudgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of United\n\nElectricals Company (supra) in which the Addl. Commissioner\n\nof Income Tax similarly recorded the approval "Yes" I am\n\nsatisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section\n 44\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n148 of the I.T. Act." In this case the Hon'ble Delhi High Court\n\nheld as under :\n\n\n "On a careful perusal of the statement made by V'\n\n it was found that facts mentioned in reasons were\n\n de hors the facts available on record. It was\n\n evident that the said statement was too general. It\n\n did not mention any name much less the name of\n\n the assessee. It was not the stand of the revenue\n\n that a list of the creditors, which included the\n\n name of the assessees, was furnished by V'\n\n subsequently and the same was forwarded to the\n\n Assessing Officer of the assessee. Applying the\n\n aforenoted settled principles governing an action\n\n under section 147, there could be no hesitation in\n\n holding that there was no information on record\n\n which could provide foundation for the Assessing\n\n Officer's belief that the assessee's transaction with\n\n 'V' Ltd. was not genuine and its income had\n\n escaped assessment on that account. Therefore,\n\n the impugned action of the Assessing Officer could\n 45\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nnot be sustained. Even the Addl Commissioner\n\nhad accorded his approval for action under section\n\n147 mechanically. If the Addl. Commissioner had\n\ncared to go through the statement of said V\n\n'perhaps he would not have granted his approval,\n\nwhich is mandatory in terms of proviso to sub-\n\nsection (1) of section 151 as the action under\n\nsection 147 was being initiated after the expiry of\n\nfour years from the end of the relevant assessment\n\nyear. The Legislature has provided certain\n\nsafeguards to prevent arbitrary exercise of powers\n\nby an Assessing Officer particularly after a lapse\n\nof substantial time from completion of assessment.\n\nThe power vested in the Commissioner to grant or\n\nnot to grant the approval is coupled with a duty.\n\nThe Commissioner is required to apply his mind to\n\nthe proposal put up to him for approval in the light\n\nof the material relied upon by the Assessing\n\nOfficer. The said power cannot be exercised\n\ncasually and in a routine manner. In the instant\n 46\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n case, there had been no application of mind by the\n\n Addl. Commissioner before granting the approval.\n\n The petition was, thus, allowed and impugned\n\n notice was quashed."\n\n\n8.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court approving the\n\nJudgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case\n\nof Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur (MP) vs., S.\n\nGoyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd., [2015] 46 taxmann.com 313\n\nheld as under :\n\n\n "SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that\n\n where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in\n\n mechanical manner and without application of\n\n mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under\n\n section 148, reopening of assessment was\n\n invalid."\n\n\n8.4. Similar view have been taken by Hon'ble Madhya\n\nPradesh High Court in the case of Mr. Arjun Singh vs., Asst.\nDirector of Income Tax [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP) (supra), copy\n\nof which is filed at page-97 of the paper book. The ITAT, Delhi\n 47\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\nBench in the case of M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.,\n\nvs., DCIT (supra) in paras 7 to 22 on similar facts relating to\n\nentry provider Shri Himanshu Verma held as under :\n "7. Apropos these legal grounds , we have heard the\n\n arguments of both sides and carefully perused the\n\n relevant material placed on the record of the\n\n Tribunal. As agreed by both the parties, we have\n\n heard argument of both the sides on these legal\n\n grounds of the assessee, wherein the assessee\n\n has challenged to the initiation of reassessment\n\n proceedings and reopening of assessment u/s.\n\n 147/148 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the\n\n impugned order of assessment is invalid and\n\n unsustainable in law as the same has been\n\n passed by the AO without providing the\n\n reasonable time of four weeks for taking remedy\n\n against the order of disposal of preliminary\n\n objection against the incorrect assumption of\n\n jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act in\n\n violation of principles enunciated by Bombay High\n 48\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90.\n\n He further submitted that the Impugned orders of\n\n authorities below need be set aside as the\n\n reassessment proceedings have been initiated\n\n without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the\n\n Pr. CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151\n\n is mechanical and without application of mind.\n\n\n8. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that the\n\n reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO\n\n is based on the information received from\n\n investigation wing and there was no material\n\n before him to substantiate the allegation contained\n\n in the information and therefore initiation of\n\n proceedings is bad in law. He also contended that\n\n the order under appeal is bad in law as the\n\n assessing officer has passed the order of\n\n assessment u/s 143(3) r/w. s. 147 of the Act\n\n without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act.\n\n\n9. The ld. AR drew our attention towards copy of\n\n proforma of obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act\n 49\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nalong with reasons recorded, which are placed at\n\npgs. 16-18 of the assessee's paper book,\n\nsubmitted that in column 12 Addl. CIT has granted\n\napproval without application of mind by writing\n\nonly 'Yes, I am satisfied'. The ld. AR submitted\n\nthat as per decision of Hon Madhya Pradesh High\n\nCourt in the case of CIT vs. M/s. S. Goyanka Lime\n\nand Chemicals Ltd. 231 Taxman 0073 (MP), where\n\nthe Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in\n\nmechanical manner and without application of\n\nmind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s. 148\n\nof the Act and has only recorded so "Yes, I am\n\nsatisfied" then, the reopening assessment has to\n\nbe held as invalid. The ld. AR also placed reliance\n\non the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO vs.\n\nVirat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in ITA\n\nNo.89/Del/2012 dated 09.02.2018. The ld. AR\n\nsubmitted that as per decision of Hon'ble High\n\nCourt of Bombay in WP (L) No.3063/2017 in the\n\ncase of Smt. Kalpana Shantilal Haria vs. ACIT\n 50\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n dated 22.12.2017, sanction for issuing a reopening\n\n notice cannot be mechanical but has to be on due\n\n application of mind. Sanction accorded despite\n\n mention of non-existent section in the notice is\n\n prima facie evidence of non-application of mind on\n\n the part of the sanctioning authority. Their\n\n lordship in this judgment categorically held that\n\n such defect cannot be cured u/s. 292B of the Act.\n\n\n10. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of\n\n Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 31.08.2017 in\n\n WP(C) No. 614/2014 in the case of Yum\n\n Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT it was held that\n\n the glaring mistakes in the proforma for approval\n\n is the valid ground for quashing the assessment on\n\n the premise of non-application of mind by all the\n\n authorities involved in the process of recording\n\n reasons and providing satisfaction/s. 151 of the\n\n Act. Further placed reliance on the decision of\n\n ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT\n\n reported in 37 ITR (Trib.) 0376 (Mum.), notice u/s.\n 51\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n 148 of the Act does not mention the fact that the\n\n same is issued after the satisfaction of the\n\n authority u/s. 151 of the Act, such non-mentioning\n\n of this fact renders the consequent assessment\n\n invalid in law, Relied on the judgment of DSJ\n\n Communication vs. DCIT 222 Taxman 129 (Bom.).\n\n\n11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation\n\n reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the\n\n ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the\n\n decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case\n\n of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to\n\n wait for four weeks to begin assessment after\n\n disposing of the objection and non-compliance of\n\n the same renders assessment proceedings void.\n\n He submitted that in the present case the\n\n objections of the assessee vide dated 29.11.2016\n\n filed before the AO were disposed of/dismissed by\n\n the AO by the order dated 12.12.2016 and he\n\n passed impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3)\n\n r/w s. 147 of the Act on 22.12.2016 which is clear\n 52\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n violation of directions given by Hon'ble High Court\n\n in the case of Asian Paints (supra) and on this\n\n count also reassessment proceedings and\n\n consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law.\n\n This view was again approved by Hon'ble High\n\n Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision\n\n in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT\n\n reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by\n\n ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand\n\n Kanuga vs. DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012\n\n dated 27.02.2015.\n\n\n12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not\n\n controvert the facts that the AO disposed of\n\n objections of the assessee by way of passing order\n\n on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order\n\n u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act was passed only\n\n after 10 days of disposal of objections. These\n\n facts trigger the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble\n\n Bombay High Court in the case of Asian paints\n\n (supra), wherein their lordship directed that the AO\n 53\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after\n\n disposing of the objections of the assessee and\n\n non-compliance the same renders assessment\n\n proceedings void and bad in law. Present\n\n impugned reassessment order cannot be held\n\n sustainable and valid as the AO has passed the\n\n same immediately after 10 days of disposal\n\n of/dismissal of objection of the assessee which is\n\n clear violation of direction of Hon'ble High Court of\n\n Bombay in the case of Asian paints (supra) and\n\n legal contention of the assessee on this issue are\n\n found to be acceptable and we hold so.\n\n\n13. The ld. AR drew our attention towards reasons\n\n recorded and submitted that there is no date in the\n\n reasons recorded which shows casual approach of\n\n the AO while recording the reasons. The ld. AR\n\n submitted that as per decision of Hon'ble\n\n Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of\n\n PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. 395 ITR 677\n\n (Del) if the reasons failed to demonstrate the link\n 54\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nbetween the tangible material and formation of the\n\nreasons to believe that the income has escaped\n\nassessment then, it would amount to borrowed\n\nsatisfaction and it has to be presumed that there is\n\nno independent application of mind by the AO to\n\nthe tangible material which forms the basis of the\n\nreason to believe that income has escaped\n\nassessment. The ld. AR submitted that from the\n\nthree pages of reasons recorded, it is discernable\n\nthat in first four paras the AO has noted facts of\n\nthe information received from DDIT (investigation),\n\nFaridabad, in para 6 modus operandi of entry\n\nproviders has been noted thereafter, in para 7 & 8,\n\nit has been arisen that either during survey or post\n\nsurvey proceedings the assessee company has not\n\nsubmitted satisfactory explanation to prove\n\nidentity, genuineness and creditworthiness of\n\nshare capital/premium introducers and thus, the\n\nsame is from paper companies of entry operator\n\nand then, he recorded satisfaction that the\n 55\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n assessee company taken bogus/ accommodation\n\n entries. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that\n\n thereafter in last para 9 & 10, the AO, without\n\n applying mind to the information received from the\n\n Investigation Wing, recorded that he has reason to\n\n believe that the an income has escaped\n\n assessment which clearly shows that the AO\n\n proceeded to initiate initiatory assessment\n\n proceedings and reopening of assessment without\n\n having any valid satisfaction on the basis of\n\n borrowed satisfaction as there was no\n\n independent application of mind to the tangible\n\n material received from Investigation Wing, which\n\n could form the basis reason to believe that income\n\n has escaped assessment.\n\n\n14. Further placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\n\n High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. G&G\n\n Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 (Del),\n\n the ld. AR submitted that reopening of assessment\n\n by an AO based on the information received from\n 56\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n the Director of Investigation without making any\n\n effort to discuss the materials on the basis on\n\n which he formed a prima facie opinion that income\n\n had escaped assessment. The Court held that the\n\n basic requirement of s. 147 of the Act that AO\n\n should apply independent mind in order to form\n\n reasons to believe that income had escaped\n\n assessment had not been fulfilled.\n\n\n15. The ld. AR submitted that as per ratio of the\n\n decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case\n\n of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396\n\n ITR 5 (Del), where information was received from\n\n investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary\n\n of accommodation entries but no further inquiry\n\n was undertaken by AO, said information could not\n\n be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus,\n\n reassessment on said basis was not justified.\n\n Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned\n\n initiation of reassessment proceedings, notice and\n\n all consequent proceedings and orders are not\n 57\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n valid and bad in law therefore, the same may\n\n kindly be quashed.\n\n\n16. Replying to the above, the ld. DR submitted that\n\n the copy of proforma for obtaining approval u/s.\n\n 151 of the Act and reasons recorded by the AO are\n\n the internal departmental communication between\n\n the PCIT and ACIT and the PCIT being\n\n administrative head and senior to the ACIT has\n\n power to peruse the approval u/s. 151 of the Act\n\n and his sings thereon does not make the same as\n\n mechanical and without application of mind and\n\n the same cannot be termed or alleged as invalid or\n\n bad in law. The ld. DR submitted that in column\n\n 12 of approval the ACIT Shri Sarabjeet Singh has\n\n granted valid approval by noting that "Yes, I am\n\n satisfied" which is sufficient to comply with the\n\n provisions of s. 151 of the Act. He also submitted\n\n that if there is any defect therein the same is\n\n rectifiable u/s. 292B of the Act and thus, the\n\n reassessment proceedings and orders cannot be\n 58\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n challenged on this count. The ld. DR further\n\n submitted that the format/proforma for granting\n\n approval u/s. 151 of the Act has been designed by\n\n the Department and there is no role of AO in\n\n framing and designing the same and the allegation\n\n of non-application of mind on the basis of such\n\n proforma or words used by the approving authority\n\n cannot be made.\n\n\n17. The ld. DR submitted that the team of Revenue\n\n officers work under the supervision and guidance\n\n of PCIT and the Department is very careful about\n\n the compliance of the provision of the Act as well\n\n as directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble\n\n High Court and CBDT Circulars and also towards\n\n working of the Revenue Officers in the cases of\n\n initiation of reassessment proceedings and\n\n framing of reassessment orders. The ld. DR\n\n submitted that the proforma of approval u/s. 151\n\n of the Act is being followed all over India and the\n\n ACIT applied his mind to the all material placed\n 59\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n before him by the AO prior to granting approval\n\n u/s. 151 of the Act in column 12 of the proforma.\n\n Therefore, allegations made by the ld. AR are not\n\n sustainable and tenable and the same may kindly\n\n be dismissed.\n\n\n18. Placing rejoinder to the above, the ld. AR submitted\n\n that in the reasons para 6 the information of DDIT\n\n (Investigation) has been given and reference of\n\n various entry providers such as Shri Himanshu\n\n Verma, Shri Praveen Aggarwal etc. who are\n\n engaged in providing accommodation entries\n\n through dummy companies with dummy directors.\n\n The ld. AR submitted that in the table given in\n\n para 3 is taken along with para 6 of the reasons\n\n recorded then, it is clear that the names of\n\n companies are 13 and above named two persons\n\n at serial No. 11 & 12 have been noted and there is\n\n no name of entry provider in the other 11 columns\n\n and there is no link in the reasons recorded with\n\n regard to these 11 companies. The ld. AR\n 60\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nsubmitted that these facts clearly show that the\n\nAO has acted on suspicion only and not on any\n\ncredible input available to him through DDIT\n\n(investigation) information or otherwise on the\n\nbasis of any exercise or application of mind by\n\nhimself. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings\n\nand all consequent orders are not sustainable and\n\nbad in law. Reiterating his earlier arguments, the\n\nld. AR vehemently pointed out that the\n\napproval/sanction given in para 12 of the\n\nproforma is not a valid sanction as per ratio of the\n\nvarious decisions including decision of Hon'ble\n\nHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of S.\n\nGoyanka Lime and chemicals Ltd. (supra), which\n\nhas been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court by\n\ndismissing SLP of the Revenue reported in 237\n\nTaxman 378 (SC) therefore, initiation of\n\nreassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act,\n\nnotice u/s. 148 of the Act, reassessment\n 61\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n proceedings and all consequent orders may kindly\n\n be quashed.\n\n\n19. On careful consideration of above rival\n\n submissions, first of all, we may point out that\n\n from the proforma of approval u/s. 151 of the Act\n\n placed at pgs. 16-17 of the assessee paper book, it\n\n is clear that in column 12 the ACIT has granted\n\n approval for the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\n\n by writing that "Yes, I am satisfied" which is not\n\n sufficient to comply with the requirement of s. 151\n\n of the Act. As per ratio of the decision of High\n\n Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v.\n\n M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (supra),\n\n where the JCIT/ACIT has only recorded "Yes, I am\n\n satisfied" then, it has to be held that the approving\n\n authority has recorded satisfaction in a\n\n mechanical manner and without application of\n\n mind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s. 148\n\n of the Act for reopening of assessment and in this\n\n situation initiation of reassessment proceedings\n 62\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n and reopening of assessment has to be held as\n\n invalid and bad in law. Therefore, we are inclined\n\n to hold that the reopening of assessment and\n\n notice u/s. 148 of the Act are bad in law and\n\n consequently all subsequent proceedings in\n\n pursuant thereto are also bad in law and the same\n\n cannot be held as valid and sustainable.\n20. So far as legal contention of the ld. AR on behalf of\n\n the assessee regarding non-application of mind by\n\n the AO, while recording reasons for reopening of\n\n assessment, is concerned from careful perusal and\n\n reading of the three pages of reasons recorded, we\n\n observe that in first four paras the AO has noted\n\n facts of the information received from DDIT\n\n (Investigation), Faridabad, further, in para 6\n\n modus operandi of entry providers has been noted\n\n thereafter, in para 7 & 8, it has been arisen that\n\n either during survey or post survey proceedings\n\n the assessee company has not submitted\n\n satisfactory explanation to prove identity,\n 63\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\ngenuineness and creditworthiness of share\n\ncapital/premium introducers and thus, the same is\n\nfrom paper companies of entry operator and then,\n\nhe recorded satisfaction that the assessee\n\ncompany taken bogus/accommodation entries.\n\nThereafter, the AO in last para 9 & 10, without\n\napplying mind to the information received from the\n\nInvestigation Wing states/writes that he has\n\nreason to believe that the income has escaped\n\nassessment. The text and words used by the AO\n\nin the reasons recorded for reopening of\n\nassessment clearly show that the AO proceeded to\n\ninitiatory assessment proceedings and reopening\n\nof assessment without having any valid\n\nsatisfaction and only on the basis of borrowed\n\nsatisfaction as there was no independent\n\napplication of mind by the AO to the tangible\n\nmaterial received from Investigation Wing which\n\ncould form the valid basis and reason to believe\n\nthat income has escaped assessment.\n 64\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n21. In view of decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi\n\n in the cases of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Oversaes\n\n (supra), PCIT vs. G&G Pharma (I) Ltd. (supra) and\n\n decision in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyviny (I)\n\n Ltd. (supra), where information was received from\n\n investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary\n\n of accommodation entries but no further inquiry\n\n was undertaken by AO, said information could not\n\n be said to be tangible material per se and, thus,\n\n reassessment on said basis was not justified. In\n\n the case of Meenakshi Overseas (supra), their\n\n lordship speaking for the Hon'ble Jurisdictional\n\n High Court held that where the reasons recorded\n\n by the AO failed to demonstrate the link between\n\n the tangible material and the formation of the\n\n reasons to believe that income has escaped\n\n assessment then, indeed it is a borrowed\n\n satisfaction and the conclusion of the AO based on\n\n reproduction of conclusion drawn in the\n\n investigation report cannot be held as valid reason\n 65\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n to believe after application of mind. In this\n\n judgment their lordship also held that where\n\n nothing from the report of investigation wing is set\n\n out to enable the reader to appreciate how the\n\n conclusions flow there from then there is no\n\n independent application of mind by the AO to the\n\n tangible material which form the basis of the\n\n reasons to believe that income has escaped\n\n assessment.\n\n\n22. In the present case, as we have noted above, the\n\n conclusion recorded by the AO in para 9 & 10 of\n\n the reasons is based on the information received\n\n from the director of investigation wing and the AO\n\n without making any effort to examine and discuss\n\n the material received from the Investigation Wing\n\n and without application of the mind to the same\n\n formed a reason to believe that income had\n\n escaped assessment. This shows that the AO\n\n proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings on\n\n the basis of borrowed satisfaction without any\n 66\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\napplication of mind and exercise on the information\n\nreceived from the Investigation Wing of the\n\nDepartment. Therefore, we have no hesitation to\n\nhold that the AO proceeded to initiate\n\nreassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and\n\nto issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of\n\nborrowed satisfaction and without any application\n\nof mind and examination of the so called material\n\nand information received from the investigation\n\nwing to establish any nexus, even prima facie,\n\nwith the such information. Therefore, in our\n\nconsidered opinion the initiation of reassessment\n\nproceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of\n\nthe Act, reassessment proceedings and all\n\nconsequent proceeding and orders, including\n\nimpugned reassessment and first appellate order,\n\nare bad in law and thus, not sustainable and we\n\nhold so. Accordingly, on the basis of foregoing\n\ndiscussion, grounds No.2, 3, 4 and additional\n\nground of the assessee are allowed and impugned\n 67\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n proceedings, notice u/s. 148 of the Act and all\n\n consequent orders are quashed."\n\n\n8.5. The statement of Shri Himanshu Verma is also\n\nfiled on record which did not find mention if M/s. Shubh\n\nPropbuild Pvt. Ltd., as mentioned in the reasons belong to\n\nShri Himanshu Verma. There is no investor exist in the name\n\nof M/s. Management Services Pvt. Ltd., and no addition in\n\nrespect of the same company have been made by the A.O.\n\nThe A.O, therefore, recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for\n\nreopening of the assessment. Thus the same cannot be\n\napproved under the Law. It is well settled Law if wrong facts\n\nand wrong reasons are recorded for reopening of the\n\nassessment, reopening of the assessment would be invalid\n\nand bad in Law. We rely upon Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab &\n\nHaryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries 180\n\nITR 319 (P&H). It is well settled Law that note already filed\n\nwith return disclosing nature of capital receipt and no other\n\ntangible material found, therefore, reopening of the\n\nassessment under section 148 was quashed. We rely upon\n\nJudgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.,\n 68\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nAtul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Del.) and Judgment\n\nof Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Texel\n\nP. Ltd., 406 ITR 353 (Alld.). Similarly, in the case of CIT vs.,\n\nVardhaman Industries [2014] 363 ITR 625 (Raj.), the Hon'ble\n\nRajasthan High Court has held that "reasons must be based\n\non new and tangible materials. Notice based on documents\n\nalready on record, 148 not valid." In the instant case under\n\nappeal, the A.O. has reproduced the information received\n\nfrom Investigation Wing and reproduced the same in the\n\nreasons recorded under section 148 of the I.T. Act. This\n\ninformation shows that assessee has received the amount of\n\ncredit from 06 parties, but, one of the party i.e., M/s.\n\nManagement Services Pvt. Ltd., do not exist and that M/s.\n\nShubh Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., do not belong to Shri Himanshu\n\nVerma. It, therefore, appears that A.O. has not gone through\n\nthe details of the information and has not even applied his\n\nmind and merely concluded that he has reason to believe that\n\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the\n\nreasons A.O. has recorded that assessee has received\n\naccommodation entry of Rs.2.45 crores, but, ultimately made\n 69\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nan addition of Rs.11.05 crores without bringing any material\n\nagainst the assessee. The reasons to believe are, therefore,\n\nnot in fact reasons, but, only conclusion of the A.O. In the\n\ncase of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the A.O. in the\n\nreasons has even mentioned that he has gone through the\n\ninformation received which is lacking in the present case. The\n\nA.O. being a quasi-judicial authority is expected to arrive at\n\nsubjective satisfaction independently on his own. The A.O.\n\nhowever, merely repeated the report of the Investigation Wing\n\nin the reasons and formed his belief that income chargeable\n\nto tax has escaped assessment without arriving at his\n\nsatisfaction. Thus, there is no independent application of\n\nmind by the A.O. to the report of Investigation Wing to form\n\nthe basis for recording the reasons. The reasons recorded by\n\nthe A.O. are also incorrect as noted above. The reasons failed\n\nto demonstrate the link between the alleged tangible material\n\nand the formation of reasons to believe that income\n\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The decisions\n\nrelied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the\n\ncases of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., RMG Polyvinyl\n 70\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\n(I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del.), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs.,\n\nMeenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.), Pr.\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax vs., G and G Pharma India Ltd.,\n\n384 ITR 147 (Del.) and Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329\n\nITR 110 (Del.), clearly apply to the facts and circumstances of\n\nthe case. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon\n\nOrder of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Pioneer Town\n\nPlanners Pvt. Ltd., (supra) in which on identical facts\n\nreopening of the assessment have been quashed. The Ld.\n\nD.R. relied upon certain decisions in support of the contention\n\nthat reopening of the assessment is justified, but, the same\n\nare distinguishable on facts of the present case. Considering\n\nthe facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above\n\ndiscussion and decisions referred to in the Order, we are of\n\nthe view that reopening of the assessment is bad in law and\n\nthat sanction/approval granted by Pr. Commissioner of\n\nIncome Tax is also invalid. We may also note that vide Order\n\nsheet Dated 23.08.2019 the case was re-fixed for hearing\n\nbecause the Ld. D.R. argued that approval have been granted\n\nby Commissioner of Income Tax after due discussion of the\n 71\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nmatter and perusal of the relevant information and thereafter\n\napproval in prescribed proforma sent to the A.O. and he has\n\nmentioned that I am satisfied. However, no record was\n\nproduced. Therefore, this case was re-fixed for fresh hearing.\n\nHowever, on the date of hearing no such record have been\n\nproduced for the inspection of the Bench. Therefore,\n\nsatisfaction recorded by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax\n\nis invalid and without application of mind. Therefore, the\n\nreopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in Law and\n\ncannot be sustained in Law. We, accordingly, set aside the\n\nOrders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of\n\nthe assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n\nResultantly, all additions stands deleted. Since we have\n\nquashed the reopening of the assessment, therefore, there is\n\nno need to decide the addition on merit which is left with\n\nacademic discussion only.\n\n\n9. In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed."\n\n\n5.2. Considering the facts of the case in the light of\n\nabove decisions, it is clear that all the documents and\n\nAnnexures referred to in the reasons have not been supplied\n 72\n ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat\n Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi.\n\n\nto the assessee and that approval granted by Pr. CIT is\n\ninvalid. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is wholly\n\ninvalid and void abinitio. Resultantly, the reopening of the\n\nassessment is liable to be quashed. Following the reasons\n\nfor decision in the case of M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments\n\nPvt. Ltd., vs., ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi (supra), we set\n\naside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the\n\nreopening of the assessment. In the result, all the additions\n\nstand deleted.\n\n\n6. In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed.\n\n\n Order pronounced in the open Court.\n\n Sd/- Sd/-\n (N.K. BILLAIYA) (BHAVNESH SAINI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER\nDelhi, Dated 15th January, 2020\nVBP/-\nCopy to\n1. The appellant\n2. The respondent\n3. CIT(A) concerned\n4. CIT concerned\n5. D.R. ITAT "A" Bench\n6. Guard File\n // BY Order //\n\n Asst. Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches : Delhi.

a5246728-a7fd-5e6d-9cc0-d4e3dcdb3bec

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nKerala High Court\nSavin vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2020Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 1\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\n PRESENT\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN\n\n WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942\n\n Crl.MC.No.3114 OF 2020(H)\n\n AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2076/2018 OF JUDICIAL\n MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR\n\n CRIME NO.506/2018 OF Nedupuzha Police Station , Thrissur\n\n\nPETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:\n\n 1 SAVIN,\n AGED 34 YEARS\n S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR\n VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.\n\n 2 GEETHA,\n AGED 58 YEARS\n W/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR\n VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.\n\n 3 SUDHAKARAN,\n AGED 64 YEARS\n S/O.KRISHNAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR\n VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.\n\n 4 LEVIN,\n AGED 31 YEARS\n S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR\n VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.\n\n BY ADVS.\n DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)\n SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)\n SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN\n SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR\n SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN\n Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 2\n\n\n\n SRI.SABU PULLAN\n SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN\n\nRESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:\n\n 1 STATE OF KERALA\n REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.\n\n 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680007.\n\n 3 GREESHMA,\n AGED 31 YEARS\n D/O.GANGADHARAN, CHETTIKKATTIL HOUSE,\n KOORKKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-\n 680007.\n\n R3 BY ADV. K.K.RAJEEV\n\n THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON\n12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3116/2020(H), THE COURT ON THE\nSAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\n PRESENT\n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN\n\n WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942\n\n Crl.MC.No.3116 OF 2020(H)\n\n CRIME NO.509/2018 OF Nedupuzha Police Station , Thrissur\n\n\nPETITIONER/ACCUSED:\n\n SAVIN\n AGED 34 YEARS\n S/O. SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR\n VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.\n\n BY ADVS.\n DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)\n SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)\n SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN\n SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR\n SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN\n SRI.SABU PULLAN\n SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN\n\nRESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:\n\n 1 STATE OF KERALA\n REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF\n KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.\n\n 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE\n NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 007.\n\n 3 GREESHMA\n AGED 31 YEARS\n D/O. GANGADHARAN, CHETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERRY\n VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.\n\n R3 BY ADV. K.K.RAJEEV\n\nOTHER PRESENT:\n PP SREEJA V.\n\n THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON\n12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3114/2020(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME\nDAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:\n Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 4\n\n\n\n\n ORDER\n\n [ Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020 ]\n\n Dated this the 12th day of August 2020\n\n\n Petitioners in Criminal M.C.3114/2020 are the\n\n accused in Crime No.506/2018 registered at the\n\n Nedupuzha Police Station for offences punishable\n\n under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC, now\n\n pending as C.C.No.2076/2018 on the files of the\n\n Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. The\n\n petitioner in Criminal M.C.No.3116/2020, who is the\n\n first petitioner in Criminal M.C.No.3114/2020, is the\n\n accused in Crime No.509/2018, registered at the\n\n Nedupuzha Police Station, for offences punishable\n\n under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC.\n Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 5\n 2. The de facto complainant in both crimes, is the\n\n wife of the first petitioners in Criminal\n\n M.C.No.3114/2020, the other petitoners being her in-\n\n laws. The de facto complainant, arrayed as the 3 rd\n\n respondent, has filed affidavits (Annexure-II) in both\n\n cases, stating that the complaint, leading to\n\n registration of the crimes, was submitted by her on a\n\n misunderstanding, which has since been cleared and\n\n the disputes resolved amicably. It is stated that she\n\n has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.\n\n 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who,\n\n on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no\n\n criminal antecedents.\n\n 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences\n\n alleged, nature of the injury caused and having\n\n perused the affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, the\n Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 6\n\n\n\n contents of which are submitted to be true and\n\n voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and\n\n no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover,\n\n in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal\n\n proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such,\n\n continuance of the proceedings will amount to an\n\n abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the\n\n legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme\n\n Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab\n\n [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of\n\n Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is\n\n no impediment in granting the relief sought.\n\n In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The\n\n proceedings in C.C.No.2076/2018 of the Judicial First\n\n Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur and Annexure-I\n\n FIR and the further proceedings in Crime\n Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 7\n\n\n\n No.509/2018 of Nedupuzha Police Station are\n\n quashed.\n\n\n Sd/-\n V.G.ARUN\n SB/13/08/2020 JUDGE\n APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3114/2020\nPETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:\n\nANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT\n FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE\n JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-\n II, THRISSUR TAKEN COGNIZANCE AS\n C.C.NO.2076/2018.\n\nANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT\n BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED\n 18.06.2020.\n Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020\n\n 9\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3116/2020\nPETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:\n\nANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME\n NO.509/2018 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION\n DATED 7.9.2018.\n\nANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT\n BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 18.06.2020.\n\n // true copy //\n\n P.A to Judge

4aa8ec17-b66c-53c3-9d7b-03d360a3cac6

court_cases

Uttarakhand High CourtNational Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ganga Devi And Another on 17 August, 2021Author:Sharad Kumar SharmaBench:Sharad Kumar SharmaHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL\n\n Appeal from Order No. 443 of 2015\n\nNational Insurance Company Limited .....Appellant\n\n Versus\nSmt. Ganga Devi and another .... Respondents\nPresent :-\nMr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the appellant.\nMr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate for respondent No.1.\nMr. Dinesh Chandra Gahatori, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n Dated: 17th August, 2021\n\n JUDGEMENTHon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.(Through Hybrid Mode)\n\n The appellant, Insurance Company, herein, has put a\nchallenge to the impugned award, as it had been rendered by the\nWorkmen Compensation Commissioner / Presiding Officer, Labour\nCourt, Haldwani, District Nainital, in the proceedings of Employee\nCompensation Application No. 274 of 2014, Smt. Ganga Devi Vs.\nShri Pitamber Kandpal and another, whereby, the learned Presiding\nOfficer, Labour Court, Haldwani, while adjudicating upon the award\nand the claim which was raised by the claimant, respondent No. 1,\nherein, had partially decreed the award in favour of the claimant,\ndirecting therein, to the Insurance Company to pay an amount of\nRs.3,20,773/-, along with Rs. 5,000/- as an amount payable towards\nthe funeral expenses, i.e. totalling to an amount of Rs.3,75,773/- to the\nclaimants, as a compensation along with an interest payable on it @\n8%, from the date of accident, till the date of its actual payment.2. The appellant, herein, i.e. the Insurance Company, and\nhad invoked,Section 30of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923,\nhereinafter to be called as an Act of 1923, putting a challenge to the\naward on various counts, and particularly, the basic ground of\nchallenge to the award dated 27.07.2015, was based on a premise, that2since the death had not occurred due to the "accident", and because of\nfact that, accordingly to the appellant, the cause of death was not or it\ncannot be attributed to have chanced during the course of\nemployment, no compensation, at all could be paid to the claimants\nand particularly, by the Insurance Company itself, with whom, the\noffending vehicle, in question, was registered.3. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the\nappellant is that, if the provisions which are contained under theWorkmen Compensation Act, 1923, are taken into consideration, in\nfact, the amount of compensation, which could be awarded by the\nCompensation Commissioner, he does not have a power to award the\nfuneral expenses, as according to him none of the provisions\ncontained therein under the Act, provides for the payment of funeral\nexpenses, apart from it, it was contended that the interest as awarded,\non the awarded amount, apart from the fact that, it was on the higher\nside, but the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, since has no\npower to levy interest on the awarded amount and hence, levying of\nthe interest @ 8% from the date of the accident, too was not\nsustainable, in the eyes of law, being contrary to the provisions of Act\nof 1923.4. It was further contended by the appellant's Counsel, for\nthe Insurance Company, that since the claimant, prior to the initiation\nof the proceedings before the Compensation Commissioner, in the\nabsence of there being a prior notice issued to them underSection 10of the Act, the entire proceedings would be vitiated.5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance\nCompany, had submitted, that after the occurrence of the alleged\naccident, the deceased, when he fainted and became unconscious, he\nwas taken to the hospital and before he could reach, to the hospital, he\nmet with the sad demise, however, later on, an FIR was also alleged to\nhave been registered and a post mortem was conducted on the3deceased, but as per the opinion which was expressed by the Doctor,\nwho conducted the post mortem on the deceased, had not been able to\nascertain or opined any specific reason for the cause of death, and\nrather the visera was preserved, which was later on sent for\nexamination in the FSL Laboratory.6. But, for the purposes of scrutinizing the aforesaid set of\narguments, the brief facts, which are necessarily required to be\nconsidered by this Court, for the purposes of arriving at a logical\nconclusion, are that the facts, which apparently engages consideration,\nare that the bus, in question, i.e. bearing registration No. UK-04-\nPA/0170, the owner of which, was respondent No. 2, was being plied\nunder a contract with the KMOU Limited, and on the date of the\nincident, i.e. 11th March, 2012, it was contended that the bus, in\nquestion, was being used for purposes of carrying a marriage party,\nfrom Ratighat to Vishalkote, in which, the deceased late Mr. Shankar\nSingh, the husband of the claimant respondent No.1, was working as a\nConductor, in the Bus.7. It is the case pleaded by the parties before the\nCompensation Commissioner, that on the date of incident of 11th\nMarch, 2021, when the aforesaid marriage party reached at the place\nof marriage of the bride, after attending the marriage party and after\nhaving dinner, the deceased late Mr. Shankar Singh, is said to have\nreturned back and was sitting in a stationery bus, which had carried\nthe marriage party, and there while sitting in the bus, he suffered a\nsevere pain in his chest, which however, could be witnessed and\nrecognized by the Driver of the bus Mr. Ramesh Chandra, who took\nthe deceased late Mr. Shankar Singh, to a nearby hospital at Kherna,\nwhere on reaching the hospital, he was declared to be dead.8. The claimant's case was that, at the time of the incident\nof 11th March, 2012, the deceased late Mr. Shankar Singh, who was\nthen working as a Conductor, in the bus was drawing a salary of RS.48,000/- p.m., apart from it, he was given an additional amount of\nRs.50/- per day, to meet his personal expenses, and at the time, when\nthe accident has occurred since he was 46 years of age, she would be\nentitled for the payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,65,160/-,\napart from the interest payable on it @ 12% per annum.9. In support of her contention, in the proceedings which\nwere held before the Compensation Commissioner, the claimant had\nfiled the written statement, apart from recording her statement as\nPW1, and the driver, who had appeared in the witness box in support\nof the witness of the claimant as PW2, apart from recording the oral\nstatement, had also placed before the Court the copy of the FIR, the\nregistration of licence of the deceased as a Conductor, panchanama,\nthe copy of the post mortem report, the phot ID card, the fitness\ncertificate of the bus, which was being plied on the date of the\nincident, the permit of the bus, the registration certificate, as well as\nthe insurance policy, in order to substantiate, that on the date of the\nincident the bus was being validly plied, under the valid documents.10. The owner of the bus, i.e. respondent No.2, herein, has\nin his statement, accepted the fact that the bus on the date of the\nincident was validly insured with the appellant which was valid for\nthe period from 7th August, 2011 to 6th August, 2012. But, however,\nbesides admitting the fact that the bus was validly insured and was\ncarrying the requisite documents, and a valid permit, when it was\nbeing plied for the purposes of carrying the marriage party, but in\norder to deny the claim of compensation, in the written statement\nwhich was filed by the Insurance Company, appellant, herein, was on\nthe ground that since in the absence of there being any valid ground or\nany fact of evidence which was ever adduced by the claimant, to\nsubstantiate that the cause of death, caused on account of an incident\nhad accrued during the course of employment, the claimant would not\nbe entitled for any claims as it has been prayed for in the Claim\nPetition.511. The Insurance Company further submitted, that when the\nsaid incident occurred on 11th March, 2012, in fact, it was rather, it\nwas incumbent on the owner of the vehicle, that a prior notice ought\nto have issued to the Insurance Company, parting with the information\nto the appellant, about the occurrence of the said incident, resulting to\nthe death of Conductor, late Mr. Shankar Singh. Hence, in the\nabsence of there being, any such prior notice, which was sent to the\nappellant, the claimant, would not be entitled for any compensation\nfrom the Insurance Company, though they might raise their claim\nfrom the principle employer of the deceased underSection 3of the\nAct of 1923.12. In the written statement which was thus filed, the\nInsurance Company, who has also specially had come up with the\ncase before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, to the\neffect, that since there is no nexus or relationship of the cause of the\ndeath, having chanced during the course of employment, and as a\nresult of an "accident", the Insurance Company cannot be made liable\nto pay the compensation because, there liability could be harnessed\nonly when the fact is proved and established by evidence that the\ncause of death was an "accident". Though, during the course of\nargument, the learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly\nadmitted the fact that he is not disputing the award, from the\nperspective that the death of the deceased late Mr. Shankar Singh, has\nnot occurred during the "course of the employment". Hence, this\nquestion may not be of much concern to be answered by this Court,\nwhile deciding this matter, particularly, when the appellant himself\nadmits the fact that the incident of 11th March, 2012, has chanced\nduring the course of employment of the deceased late Mr. Shankar\nSingh. But the only distinction, which has been carved out by the\nappellant while pressing, the present Appeal from Order underSection\n30of the Act of 1923, was that for the purposes of claiming a\ncompensation under the Act, it is not the exclusive employment,6which is a necessary fact and a factor to be considered for the grant of\ncompensation, but what is more important is that the injury or death\nmust have been caused because of the "accident".13. The exception, which has been carved out by the learned\ncounsel for the appellant, is that, under the given set of facts and\ncircumstances of the present case, since there was no actual accident\nwhich has caused and since, the vehicle was not involved in any\naccident and in fact, the deceased after having his dinner, was casually\nsitting in the bus and hence it cannot be said that the cause of death,\nwas an accident, which has chanced during the course of employment\nand, particularly, because of the fact that no cause of death, could be\nascertained even by the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem on\nthe deceased. His case is, that the appellant cannot be made liable to\npay the amount of compensation under the Act of 1923, in view of\nthe provisions contained underSection 64 (v) (B)of the Insurance\nAct. Because for harnessing liability of compensation on him both the\naspect, i.e. 'during course of employment' and the 'accident' have\nto chance simultaneously.14. Under the aforesaid backdrop and the tenacity of the\nargument, ultimately boiled down on a very confined conspicuous,\nwhich was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was that\nsince there was no accident, as such, no compensation would be made\npayable by the Insurance Company.15. In order to meet the arguments, which had been extended\nby the learned counsel for the appellant, if the principle intention of\nthe legislation is taken into consideration, it was an act which was\nnotified on 5th March, 1923, whereby, it intended to protect a certain\nclass of employees to be adequately compensated, for the injuries or\ndeath, caused because of the accident, and hence, the Act intended to\nprovide for payment of compensation to the employees or their\ndependants in the case of injury or a death, which may or might have7chanced on account of his / or her engagement during the course of\nemployment, and particularly because of accident.16. If the basic intention of the Act, is taken into\nconsideration, the amount thus made payable to an employee by way\nof compensation or his dependants in case of death, there are three\nbasic elements, which are simultaneously and necessarily required to\nbe satisfied :-i. An accident;\n ii. Injury or a death;iii. That injury or death was during the course of\n employment.17. Unfortunately, under the Act, the term accident has not\nbeen defined and, hence, the interpretation of the term 'Accident'\ncould only be borrowed from the judicial precedence, which has\ndetermined as to how the term 'accident' would be interpreted, and to\nthe situations, where the employer or the Insurance Company, could\nbe made liable to pay the compensation for the injury or the death of\nan employee which is caused during the course of employment. The\nemployer's liability underSection 3of the Act, has been limited from\nthe view that, if personal injuries are caused to an employee by an\naccident, arising out of in the "course of employment", the argument\nof the learned counsel for the appellant is that, since it was not an\n"accident" of the bus in its true and literal sense, in that eventuality,\nthe liability of paying the compensation underSection 3of the Act,\nought not to have been fastened upon the employer. For the purposes\nof better dealing with the case,Section 3of the Act of 1923 is\nextracted hereunder :-"3. Employer's liability for compensation (1) If\n personal injury is caused to a 14[employee] by accident arising\n out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall\n be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions\n of this Chapter:8Provided that the employer shall not be so liable --(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in\n the total or partial disablement of the [employee]\n for a period exceeding [three] days;(b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting in\n death 3[or permanent total disablement] caused by]\n an accident which is directly attributable to--(i) the [employee] having been at the time\n thereof under the influence of drink or\n drugs, or(ii) the wilful disobedience of the\n [employee] to an order expressly given, or to\n a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of\n securing the safety of [employees], or(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the\n [employee] of any safety guard or other\n device which he knew to have been\n provided for the purpose of securing the\n safety of [employee], [***].[***]\n [(2) If a [employee] employed in any employment\nspecified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease\nspecified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to\nthat employment, or if a [employee], whilst in the\nservice of an employer in whose service he has been\nemployed for a continuous period of not less than six\nmonths (which period shall not include a period of\nservice under any other employer in the same kind of\nemployment) in any employment specified in Part B of\nSchedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an\noccupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a\n[employee] whilst in the service of one or more\nemployers in any employment specified in Part C of\nSchedule III for such continuous period as the Central\nGovernment may specify in respect of each such\nemployment, contracts any disease specified therein as an\noccupational disease peculiar to that employment, the\ncontracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury\nby accident within the meaning of this section and, unless\nthe contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to\nhave arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment:[Provided that if it is proved,--(a) that a [employee] whilst in the service of one\n or more employers in any employment specified in\n Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease9specified therein as an occupational disease\n peculiar to that employment during a continuous\n period which is less than the period specified under\n this sub-section for that employment; and(b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the\n course of the employment, the contracting of such\n disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident\n within the meaning of this section:Provided further that if it is proved that a\n[employee] who having served under any employer in\nany employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or\nwho having served under one or more employers in any\nemployment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a\ncontinuous period specified under this sub-section for\nthat employment and he has after the cessation of such\nservice contracted any disease specified in the said Part B\nor the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational\ndisease peculiar to the employment and that such disease\narose out of the employment, the contracting of the\ndisease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident\nwithin the meaning of this section.]\n [(2A) If a [employee] employed in any\nemployment specified in Part C of Schedule III contracts\nany occupational disease peculiar to that employment,\nthe contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by\naccident within the meaning of this section, and such\nemployment was under more than one employer, all such\nemployers shall be liable for the payment of the\ncompensation in such proportion as the Commissioner\nmay, in the circumstances, deem just.]\n (3) [The Central Government or the State\nGovernment], after giving, by notification in the Official\nGazette, not less than three months' notice of its intention\nso to do, may, by a like notification, add any description\nof employment to the employments specified in Schedule\nIII and shall specify in the case of employments so added\nthe diseases which shall be deemed for the purposes of\nthis section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those\nemployments respectively, and thereupon the provisions\nof sub-section (2) shall apply [,in the case of a\nnotification by the Central Government, within the\nterritories to which this Act extends or, in case of a\nnotification by the State Government, within the State]\n[***] as if such diseases had been declared by this Act to\nbe occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.]\n (4) Save as provided by [sub-sections (2), (2A)]\nand (3) no compensation shall be payable to a10[employee] in respect of any disease unless the disease is\n [***] directly attributable to a specific injury by accident\n arising out of and in the course of his employment.(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to\n confer any right to compensation on a [employee] in\n respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a\n suit for damages in respect of the injury against the\n employer or any other person; and no suit for damages\n shall be maintainable by a [employee] in any Court of\n law in respect of any injury -(a) if he has instituted a claim to\n compensation in respect of the injury before a\n Commissioner; or(b) if an agreement has been come to\n between the [employee] and his employer\n providing for the payment of compensation in\n respect of the injury in accordance with the\n provisions of this Act."18. He further submitted that if the proviso toSection 3of\nthe Act, is taken into consideration, it is rather the onus, which has to\nbe discharged by the employer, as well as the claimant themselves, to\nshow and establish beyond doubt, that the injuries or the death was\ncaused and was directly attributable to the accident and, in the absence\nof there being any established evidence or proof on record to the said\nfact on record, the claimants, would not be able to succeed in being\nawarded with the compensation by the appellant until and unless, they\ndischarged their burden to prove, that the cause of death was an\naccident, which has chanced during the course of employment.19. The issue, which would be of much more concern and\nwhich has also been alternatively argued by the claimant, before the\nCourt below too, that though despite of the admitted fact that the\ndeceased has died, while sitting in the bus, due to severe pain in the\nchest and because of the heart stroke, their contention is that since the\ndeath was caused during the course of employment, they would be\nentitled for the compensation, from the Insurance Company and the\nlogic behind it, as it had been raised by the claimant in the written11statement, as well as the statement recorded by the witness PW1,\nGanga Devi and PW2, i.e. Ramesh Chandra, the Driver of the bus.\nThey have submitted that the cause of death of the deceased late Mr.\nShankar Singh, was on account of the work stress, because he was\ncontinuously engaged in loading and unloading of the luggage of the\nmembers of the marriage party from the roof carrier of the bus, which\nhas led to an extreme stress and, hence, the claimant would be entitled\nfor the compensation from the insurance company, as stress being the\ncause of death, would make the appellant to pay the compensation, as\nit would fall within the ambit of policy.20. On the contrary, the argument of the learned counsel for\nthe Insurance Company, was that even if it is presumed for sake of\nargument, as extended by the claimant, that the cause of death was the\nstress, in that eventuality too, apart from the fact that the stress was\nnot shown or pleaded as to be a cause of death, in the post mortem\nreport, apart from it, the factum of stress was required to be proved by\nthe claimants by leading evidence and since the claimants have not\ndischarged their burden, they would not be entitled for the\ncompensation, even if they contend that the cause of death was\nbecause of stress.21. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the parties, to the\npresent Appeal from Order, and particularly, the learned counsel for\nthe appellant, has only solicited an answer and pressed his appeal\nfrom only one major perspective, i.e. "whether the sufferance of\npain in the chest of the deceased, while sitting in the stationary\nbus, which ultimately, led to a heart stroke, causing the death,\nwould amount to be an accident for the purposes of the Act of\n1923" ?22. As this Court has already observed that the term\n'accident', has not been defined under the Act, hence, the learned\ncounsel for the appellant, in order to substantiate his arguments, has12made reference to the various pronouncements, which had been\nrendered by the different Courts in order to substantiate his argument,\nthat the fact and circumstances, under which, the death of the\ndeceased was caused would not amount to be an accident to bring it\nwithin the ambit of the Act of 1923, which would be a pre condition\nto be established before, settling the compensation to be paid by the\nappellant.23.In relation thereto, the reference has been made by the\nlearned counsel for the appellant to the judgment reported inAIR\n2006 SC 2830, Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore and\nanother, and particularly, he has made a reference to para 8 ofthe\nsaid judgment, which had laid down, that the accident arising out of,\nin the course of the employment and the workmen having died as a\nresult of the heart stroke at the work place, would only be taken into\nconsideration, particularly, when the fact, that the deceased was\nsuffering from a heart problem at the time when the death was caused\nand, in the absence of there being any proof to the contrary, if the fact\nof the reason for death is not attributable to the course of employment,\nit will not amount to be accident, for the purposes of the act for\ndetermining the compensation, payable by the Insurance Company.24. According to the principleslaid down bythe aforesaid\njudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not an exclusive stress of\nwork, which is obviously bound to be proved, but that stress has to be\nalso co-related to the nature of work and nature of work responsibility,\nwhich is being discharged, which would always be variable under a\ndifferent set of cases and facts as involved therein, and since the\nclaimant has not been able to establish and prove the fact of stress,\nhence, in view of the principlelaid down inpara 8 ofthe said\njudgment, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the\ncompensation. Para 8 ofthe said judgmentis extracted hereunder :-13"8. In the present case it has been brought on record that\n the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was\n previously being treated for such disease. The High Court also\n noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off\n and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no\n scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In view of the factual\n findings recorded, the High Court's judgment does not suffer\n from any infirmity."25. The learned counsel for the appellant, in order to further\nsubstantiate his argument has made reference to certain paragraphs\nof the judgment ofJyothi Ademma(Supra) whereby, while\ninterpreting the impact of personal injuries as contemplated underSection 3of the Act, for making a person entitled for compensation,\nbecause the injuries were caused to him during the course of\nemployment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, that it is always the\nburden of the claimants or the prosecution to establish by cogent\nevidence, that there was a casual connection between the death of the\nworkmen and his nature of employment. Meaning thereby, the\nHon'ble Apex Court has laid down that the employment exclusively\nin itself must be contributory to the cause of death, merely because of\nthe fact that a person was suffering from a disease and had died\nbecause of the heart stroke, as it is in the instant case, that in itself\nexclusively will not fall to be an accident, though it might be that the\nincident has chanced during the course of employment.26.In relation thereto, a reference may be had to para 5, 6, 7\nand 8 ofthe said judgment, and ultimately, the conclusion, which has\nbeen drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court inthe said judgment, the\nreference of which, has been made by the learned counsel for the\nappellant, is that there has had to be an expression of accident to be\nproved by evidence and it cannot be in an ordinary sense it cannot be\nused as a word denoting a mis-happening or an untoward incident,\nexclusively, which has not been pre-conceived, nor expected or\ndesign, but it is a sudden occurrence, which takes place and that\nsudden occurrence for the purposes of the Act, would be treated to be14an accident, only when the claimant proves the fact by evidence that\nthe act complained of, was directly had a nexus and relativity to the\nnature of employment and nature of work which was being discharged\nat the time when the incident has occurred. This could not have been\nthe case in the present case because, according to the pleadings of the\nclaimant themselves, the deceased after having his dinner, came inside\nthe bus and was casually sitting and hence, the alleged period of\nstress, apart from that it was not proved, it was not prevailing at the\ntime when the incident has chanced on 11th March, 2012, resulting to\nthe death of the deceased. Hence, it could be said that the cause of\ndeath be directly made relatively applicable, to be the cause of an\naccident in order to make the appellant liable to pay the compensation.\nPara 5, 6, 7 and 8 ofthe said judgmentare extracted hereunder :-"5.Section 3(1)of the Act which is relevant for the purpose\n of this case reads as follows:"3. Employer's liability for compensation.--(1) If personal\n injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in\n the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to\n pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this\n Chapter:Provided that the employer shall not be so liable--(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the\n total or partial disablement of the workman for a period\n exceeding three days;(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or\n permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is\n directly attributable to--(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the\n influence of drink or drugs, or(ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order\n expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the\n purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of\n any safety guard or other device which he knew to have\n been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of\n workmen;"6. UnderSection 3(1)it has to be established that there was\n some causal connection between the death of the workman and his\n employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease\n which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease\n he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the\n employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if15the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the\n death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the\n disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the\n death arose out of the employment and the employer would be\n liable.7. The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap\n which is not expected or designed. "Injury" means physiological\n injury. In Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. it was observed that the\n expression "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of\n the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event\n which is not expected or designed. The above view of Lord\n Macnaghten was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane, L.C. in\n Trim Joint District School Board of Management v. Kelly as\n follows:"I think that the context shows that in using the word 'designed'\n Lord Macnaghten was referring to designed by the sufferer."""8. In the present case it has been brought on record that\n the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was\n previously being treated for such disease. The High Court also\n noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off\n and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no\n scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In view of the factual\n findings recorded, the High Court's judgment does not suffer\n from any infirmity."27. On another judgment, on which, the reliance has been\nplaced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that reported in\n(2009) 13 SCC 405, Malikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. Branch\nManager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another. In that\ncase, the factual backdrop was that while determining the\ncompensation underSection 3of the Act, the driver of the owner's\nvehicle, who was instructed to carry the passengers to a particular\ndestination, on reaching the place of destination, the driver on his own\nwent to a nearby pond and while taking his bath, he slipped and was\ndrowned, which had resulted into the death. In that case, the Hon'ble\nHigh Court had held that the insurer will not be liable to pay the\ncompensation, but rather it would be recoverable from the employer,\nunderSection 3of the Act, for the reason being that the death, which\nwas caused was not during the course of employment or because of a\ncause of accident, because it was after completing his professional\nresponsibility of taking the passengers, to a particular pre-determined16destination, the deceased has on his own had travelled to the pond,\nwhere he met with the sad demise due to drowning. Hence,in that\ncase, the Hon'ble Apex Court, was considering the principles, and\nparticularly, the terminology used under law, i.e. "arising out of" and\n"in the course of employment". Since both these aspects were not\nestablished in the facts of the said case, the Court held that the\nInsurance Company, would not be liable to pay the compensation, that\nis what has beenlaid down inpara 12 and 13 and ofthe said\njudgment, which is extracted hereunder :-"12. "5.Section 3(1)of the Act which is relevant for the\n purpose of this case reads as follows:'3. Employer's liability for compensation.--(1) If personal\n injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in\n the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to\n pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this\n Chapter:Provided that the employer shall not be so liable--(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total\n or partial disablement of the workman for a period\n exceeding three days;(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or\n permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is\n directly attributable to--(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under\n the influence of drink or drugs, or(ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an\n order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for\n the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman\n of any safety guard or other device which he knew to\n have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety\n of workmen.'6. UnderSection 3(1)it has to be established that there was\n some causal connection between the death of the workman and his\n employment. If the workman dies [a natural death because] of the\n disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular\n disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the\n employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if\n the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the\n death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the\n disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the\n death arose out of the employment and the employer would be\n liable.177. The expression 'accident' means an untoward mishap which\n is not expected or designed. 'Injury' means physiological injury. In\n Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. it was observed that the expression\n 'accident' is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as\n denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is\n not expected or designed. The above view of Lord Macnaghten\n was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane, L.C. in Trim Joint\n District School Board of Management v. Kelly as follows: (AC p.676)\n '... I think that the context shews that in using the word\n "designed" [Lord Macnaghten] was referring to designed by the\n sufferer.' "The above position was highlighted by this Court inJyothi\nAdemma v. Plant Engineerat SCC pp. 514-15, paras 5-7.13. "20. This Court in ESI Corpn. v. Francis De Costa4\nreferred to, with approval, the decision of Lord Wright in Dover\nNavigation Co. Ltd. v. Isabella Craig wherein it was held: (Isabella\ncase, AC p. 199)\n '... Nothing could be simpler than the words "arising out of\n and in the course of the employment". It is clear that there are\n two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises "in the course" of the\n employment is to be distinguished from what arises "out of the\n employment". The former words relate to time conditioned by\n reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every\n accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on\n his employment--that is, directly or indirectly engaged on what\n he is employed to do--gives a claim to compensation, unless it\n also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a\n distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and\n unqualified.'21. We are not oblivious that an accident may cause an internal\n injury as was held in Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. by the Court of\n Appeal: (AC p. 448)\n '... I come, therefore, to the conclusion that the expression\n "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word\n as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event\n which is not expected or designed.'\n Lord Lindley opined: (Fenton case, AC p. 453)\n 'The word "accident" is not a technical legal term with a\n clearly defined meaning. Speaking generally, but with reference\n to legal liabilities, an accident means any unintended and\n unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. But it is\n often used to denote any unintended and unexpected loss or\n hurt apart from its cause; and if the cause is not known the loss\n or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident. The word\n "accident" is also often used to denote both the cause and the\n effect, no attempt being made to discriminate between them.\n The great majority of what are called accidents are occasioned18by carelessness; but for legal purposes it is often important to\n distinguish careless from other unintended and unexpected\n events.'22. There are a large number of English and American\ndecisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn.\ncase in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests\nattracting the provisions ofSection 3of the Act. The principles are:(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury\n and the accident and the accident and the work done in the\n course of employment.(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the\n work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated\n the injury.(3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater\n probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work\n contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be\n enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would\n depend upon the fact of each case.* * *25. An accident may lead to death but that an accident had\ntaken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place\nin course of employment will not amount to accident. In other\nwords, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption\nthat an accident had occurred.26. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken\nplace, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are:(1) stress and strain arising during the course of\n employment,\n (2) nature of employment,\n (3) injury aggravated due to stress and strain.* * *31.InB.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes, referring to the decision\nof the Court of Appeal in Jenkins v. Elder Dempster Lines Ltd. this\nCourt opined therein that a wider test, namely, that there should be\na nexus between accident and employment was laid down.It also\nfollowed the decision of this Court in Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co. v.Bai Valu Raja.* * *33.InMackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim\nMahmmed Issak9this Court held: (SCC p. 611, para 5)\n '5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise\n both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the\n course of the employment" mean "in the course of the work\n which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental\n to it". The words "arising out of employment" are understood to\n mean that "during the course of the employment, injury has\n resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service,\n which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is19reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have\n suffered". In other words there must be a causal relationship\n between the accident and the employment. The expression\n "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere\n nature of the employment. The expression applies to\n employment as such--to its nature, its conditions, its\n obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors\n the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the\n injury would be one which arises "out of employment". To put\n it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk\n which is an incident of the employment, the claim for\n compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has\n exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act.' "28. In the aforesaid judgment, yet again, the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt has reiterated the fact that for a claimant to be made entitled for\nthe payment of the compensation, it is his burden which was\nmandatorily required to be discharged, that there is a casual\nconnection of the "injury" and the "accident", during the "course of\nemployment", and the onus to establish the same has to be discharged\nby the claimant, which was not performed in the instant case and\nhence, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay the\ncompensation, as it has been determined by the impugned award dated\n27.07.2015, under challenge. Also for the reason being that the\nclaimants or the owner, had not been able to prove either by pleadings\nor by way of any evidence on record or even in their oral testimony,\nthat, even the theory of stress is to be brought within the ambit of an\naccident, for the purposes of applying a welfare legislation, it was\nperhaps their burden, which was to be discharged to show, that while\nperforming an official duty, there was an aggravation of stress on\naccount of work, which has contributed to the accident.29. Hence, it was held that the sudden and unexpected\nincident, which chances resulting into the death, cannot always be\ninvariably made applicable in all circumstances, be treated as to be an\naccident, which could be related to have chanced during the course of\nemployment because there are certain events, which chances even20beyond the course of employment, as it has happened in the instant\ncase also.30. Yet, another judgment, on which the reference has been\nmade , by the appellant's Counsel is that reported in 1992 (1) TAC206. Primarily, this judgment, it was on the backdrop that the\nemployee, whose dependents have claimed a compensation, had\ncontended in pleadings that the death in the said case was caused on\naccount of stress and hence, they would be entitled for the\ncompensation, but since the factum of stress, being always attributable\nto the nature of employment, was not proved to be established, the\nburden of which was required to be discharged by the claimants, the\namount of compensation was not liable to be paid, by the appellant\nInsurance Company.31.In yet, another judgment reported in 2007 (11) SCC 668,\nShakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali\nand another, this was a case, yet again, where a person died because\nof the heart attack, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that,\nthat in itself exclusively cannot result into an automatic resumption\nthat the same was caused by an accident. The said judgement of the\nHon'ble Apex Court has quite elaborately had dealt with the said fact\nin its para 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 28. The same are\nextracted hereunder :-"15. The said Act was enacted to provide for payment by\n certain classes of employers to workmen for compensation against\n injury by accident. The term "accidental injury" has not been\n defined under the Act. The liability of the employer for payment of\n compensation, however, would arise if a personal injury is caused\n to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his\n employment. What is necessary for attracting the charging\n provision contained inSection 3of the Act is that (i) an injury must\n be caused to a workman; (ii) such injury must have been caused by\n an accident; and (iii) it arose out of or in the course of his\n employment.16. Before we analyse the provisions of the Act, we may notice\n that in the claim petition, there was no allegation that (i) the\n deceased met with his death by reason of any strain of work; (ii)21appellant had no personal knowledge as regards quantum of or\nnature of work required to be performed by the deceased; and (iii)\nas to how severe strain during his service was caused.19. Sufferance of heart disease amongst young persons is not\nunknown. A disease of heart may remain undetected. A person may\nsuffer mild heart attack but he may not feel any pain. There must,\nthus, be some evidence that the employment contributed to the\ndeath of the deceased. It is required to be established that the\ndeath occurred during the course of employment.20. This Court in ESI Corpn. referred to, with approval, the\ndecision of Lord Wright in Dover Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Isabella\nCraig3 wherein it was held: (All ER p. 563 G-H)\n "Nothing could be simpler than the words 'arising out of\n and in the course of the employment'. It is clear that there are\n two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises 'in the course' of the\n employment is to be distinguished from what arises 'out of the\n employment'. The former words relate to time conditioned by\n reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every\n accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on\n his employment--that is, directly or indirectly engaged on what\n he is employed to do--gives a claim to compensation, unless it\n also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a\n distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and\n unqualified."22. There are a large number of English and American\ndecisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn. in\nregard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests\nattracting the provisions ofSection 3of the Act. The principles\nare:(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury\n and the accident and the accident and the work done in the\n course of employment.(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the\n work and the resulting strain which contributed to or\n aggravated the injury.(3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater\n probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work\n contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be\n enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend\n upon the fact of each case.23. Injury suffered should be a physiological injury. Accident,\nordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or\nuncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended. A\nfinding of fact, thus, has to be arrived at, inter alia, having regard\nto the nature of the work and the situation in which the deceased\nwas placed.2225. An accident may lead to death but that an accident had\n taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place\n in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other\n words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption\n that an accident had occurred.26. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken\n place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are:(1) stress and strain arising during the course of\n employment,\n (2) nature of employment,\n (3) injury aggravated due to stress and strain.28. Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does\n not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was by way of\n accident. A person may be suffering from a heart disease although\n he may not be aware of the same. Medical opinion will be of\n relevance providing guidance to court in this behalf."32.In a nutshell, if the principles, which had been laid down\nby the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment ofShakuntala\nChandrakant Shreshti(Supra), are taken into consideration, a\ndistinction has been made out therein, that since in the absence of\naccidental injury or accidental death, has not been defined under the\nAct, the liability of the employer from the payment of the\ncompensation, would however still arise if a personal injury is caused\nor workmen dies during the course of employment.In fact, while\nconsidering the implications drawn from a judgment reported in 1940\nAC 190, Dover Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Isabella Craig. In the said\njudgment, which was reported from the All Indian Reporter, it had\ndealt with, as to what would be the "course of employment",\nwherein, it has been held that it has to be distinguished from the\nwords, "arising out of the employment", because the word relates to\nthe condition, by reference to a man's service and the subsequent, part\nfrom it, deals with causality.Hence, being merely in the course of\nemployment, if an incident changes resulting into the death, it may not\nalways be universally said that it was arising out of an employment\nand since, as already observed above, in the instant case, it was not\narising out of the employment, the compensation cannot be said to be\nfallen with in its specific definition, which yet again has been dealt23with by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in an another judgment reported in\n(1969) 2 SCC 607, Makinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs.\nIbrahim Mohd. Issak. Para 5 of the same is extracted hereunder :-""5. To come within the Act the injury by accident\n must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The\n words 'in the course of the employment' mean 'in the course of\n the work which the workman is employed to do and which is\n incidental to it'. The words 'arising out of employment' are\n understood to mean that 'during the course of the employment,\n injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the\n service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master,\n it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise\n have suffered'. In other words there must be a causal\n relationship between the accident and the employment. The\n expression 'arising out of employment' is again not confined to\n the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to\n employment as such--to its nature, its conditions, its\n obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those\n factors the workman is brought within the zone of special\n danger the injury would be one which arises 'out of\n employment'. To put it differently if the accident had occurred\n on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the\n claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the\n workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own\n imprudent act.""33. In which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that on\nthe basis of the principles, which has been laid in the judgment\nreported in 1914 AC 667, Trim Joint District School Board of\nManagement Vs. Kelly, in All Indian Reporter, it has been observed\nthat accident means an untoward mis-happening, which is not\nexpected or designed or planned and known to the human being, or\nthe injuries, which means a psychological injuries too, there it has\nbeen held that the expression accident, in a popular and ordinary sense\nof word as denoting a mishap, which was not expected and invariably\nthe said principle of mishap cannot be universally made applicable,\nunder all the set of circumstances of the each case, which may be\ndistinguishable under the facts of the said case.34. In one of the recent judgments which has been rendered\nby the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1836 of 2020,24Poonam Devi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., it was a\ncase, yet again, where a driver of a truck TATA 407, after parking the\nvehicle, had went to river Yamuna to fetch water for bath, he slipped\nand got drowned in the canal and ultimately died. The Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in para 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11 of the said judgement has held, which is\nextracted hereunder :-"2. The deceased was aged 21 years, in the employment\n of respondent no.2 (since deleted), and was driving her TATA\n 407 vehicle bearing registration No.UP 15P 1689 on\n 11.06.2003 from Ambala to Meerut, a distance of\n approximately 200 Kms. At about 12.30 PM, when he\n approached the bridge near village Fatehpur, the deceased went\n to the Yamuna canal to fetch water and also to have a bath.\n Unfortunately, he slipped into the canal and died. The vehicle\n was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. P.W.2,\n who was standing near the bridge, deposed that the deceased\n had gone to fetch water in a can along with the cleaner who\n tried to save him, but both slipped into the canal. The\n Workmen's Compensation Commissioner by order dated\n 12.12.2005 allowed the claim as aforesaid.3. The High Court in appeal by the Insurance Company\n held that the deceased may have died during the course of the\n employment but death did not arise out of the employment, as\n bathing in the canal was not incidental to the employment but\n was at the peril of the workman. There was no casual\n connection between the death of the workman and his\n employment. He had gone to fetch water for personal\n consumption and it was not his case that the truck was over\n heated.7.The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(now\n christened as "Employee's Compensation Act, 1923") is a piece\n of socially beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore\n have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of the\n legislation, rather than to stultify it. In case of a direct conflict,\n when no reconciliation is possible, the statutory provision will\n prevail only then.8. Relevant to the discussion isSection 3of the Act. The\n relevant extract reads as follows:"3. Employer' s liability for compensation. (1) If\n personal injury is caused to a workman by accident25arising out of and in the course of his employment, his\n employer shall be liable to pay compensation in\n accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:XXXX"11. Coming to the facts of the present case, the deceased\nwas driving the truck of respondent no.2 from Ambala to\nMeerut. Indisputably he was in the course of his employment.\nWe can take judicial notice of the fact that considering the\nmanufacturer's specification, the cabin of the truck was not air\nconditioned and would have been a baking oven in the middle\nof the afternoon in the sultry monsoon heat of June 2003, when\nthe temperature was touching 42.60C in Yamunagar (Haryana)\n(source: weatheronline.in). It was a compulsion for the\ndeceased to stay fresh and alert not only to protect the truck of\nrespondent no.2 from damage but also to ensure a smooth\njourney and protect his own life by safe driving. We can also\ntake judicial notice of the fact that the possibility of the truck\nalso requiring water to prevent overheating cannot be\ncompletely ruled out.In these circumstances, can it be said that\nthe act of the deceased in going to the canal to fetch water in a\ncan for the truck and to refresh himself by a bath before\ncontinuing the journey was not incidental to the employment?\nEvery action of the driver of a truck to ensure the safety of the\ntruck belonging to the employer and to ensure his own safety by\na safe journey for himself has to be considered as incidental to\nthe employment by extension of the notional employment\ntheory. A truck driver who would not keep himself fresh to\ndrive in such heat would be a potential danger to others on the\nroad by reason of any bonafide errors of judgement by reason\nof the heat. The theory of notional extension noticed in theAgnes(supra) and followed in Leela Bai (supra) is extracted\nhereunder:"9.In the facts of the present case and the nature of\n evidence, there was a clear nexus between the accident\n and the employment to apply the doctrine of "notional\n extension" of the employment considered inAgnes(supra) as follows: "...It is now wellsettled, however,\n that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of\n the employer's premises so as to include an area which\n the workman passes and repasses in going to and in\n leaving the actual place of work. There may be some\n reasonable extension in both time and place and a\n workman may be regarded as in the course of his\n employment even though he had not reached or had left\n his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of\n each case will have to be examined very carefully in\n order to determine whether the accident arose out of and\n in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping\n in view at all time this theory of notional extension."2635. There in the said ratio, it was held that the said nature of\nthe accident, will not be exclusively treated as to be an accident,\narising during the course of employment and, hence, the heirs of the\ndeceased were held to be entitled for the benefit from the employer\nhimself underSection 3of the Act.36. Hence, on overall scrutiny of the factual backdrop of the\npresent case, and particularly in the light of the judgments referred to\nhereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the cause of death of late\nMr. Shankar Singh, when he suffered a heart stroke, though it was\nadmittedly caused during the course of employment, which is a fact\nadmitted to the parties to the proceedings, but one of the basic\nimportant elements, which was required to be satisfied and proved,\nwhether it was as a result of an accident, since it was missing to be\nestablished, the cause of death of the deceased will not amount to be\nan accident, during the course of employment nor it would be treated\nas to be a death caused on account of the stress of work, because there\nwas a sufficient time gap between the date and time of the incident\nand the alleged theory of stress of work (though not proved). Hence,\nthe liability of the payment of compensation would be exclusively\nvested on the employer with whom the deceased was employed and\nnot on the Insurance Company, in the light of the provisions contained\nunder theInsurance Act.37. Hence, the Appeal stands allowed qua the appellant only.\nHowever, the employer of the bus in question, i.e. respondent No. 2,\nherein, is directed to pay the amount of compensation as it had been\ndetermined. However, the said amount would be paid by the\nInsurance Company, to the claimants and would be recovered from\nthe employer/respondent No. 2.38. Subject to the above conditions, the Appeal from Order\nstands allowed. The impugned award is quashed qua the Insurance27Company and modified so far it relates to the owner of the vehicle, i.e.\nrespondent No.2, herein.(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)\n 17.08.2021\nShiv

8d88e7c7-da6b-5899-be9c-8829c7b001f0

court_cases

Delhi High Court - OrdersVikram Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 1 February, 2021Author:Yogesh KhannaBench:Yogesh Khanna$~36\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n + CRL.M.C. 285/2021\n VIKRAM KAPOOR & ORS ...... Petitioners\n Through : Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate.\n versus\n STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents\n Through : Mr.M.S.Oberoi, APP for State.\n CORAM:\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA\n ORDER% 01.02.20211. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.CRL.M.A. 1473/20212. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.3. The application stands disposed of.CRL.M.C. 285/20214. This petition is filed for quashing of the FIR bearing No.1128/14,\n underSections 498-A/406/34IPC, registered in P.S. Tilak Nagar, New\n Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.5. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was\n solemnized on 11.08.2013 at Delhi as per Hindu Rites and Customs.\n However, due to temperamental differences between petitioner no.1 and\n respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial house on\n 29.05.2014 and since then, they are living separately.6. On 20.06.2014, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the CAW\n Cell at West Kirti Nagar, Delhi and accordingly the present FIR was\n registered. In the year 2016, the petitioner no.1 filed a petition for divorce on\n grounds of cruelty and desertion, but it was also dismissed.7. However, on 30.10.2019, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 haveSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed By:KAPILSHARMASigning Date:01.02.2021 19:11settled all their matrimonial disputes and differences before the Mediation\n Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The respondent no.2 has agreed for receiving\n an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claim\n including maintenance, past present and future, permanent alimony,\n istridhan, dowry etc. It is stated she has received the entire amount, except\n Rs.1,50,000/-, which is now being paid to her by a Demand Draft.8. This fact has been admitted by the respondent no.2 who is present\n along with her counsel and she submits after receipt of this DD of\n Rs.1,50,000/-, she is left with no claims against the petitioner herein. She\n has also no objection if the FIR is quashed against the petitioners. The State\n has also no objection, if this petition is allowed.9. In view of the above, there is no use to proceed with the present FIR\n and hence, the FIR No.1128/14, underSections 498-A/406/34IPC,\n registered at P.S. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating\n therefrom are quashed.YOGESH KHANNA, J.FEBRUARY 01, 2021\n NehaSignature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed By:KAPILSHARMASigning Date:01.02.2021 19:11

c13247dd-4e59-59bd-bf27-9df77f64f321

court_cases

Rajasthan High CourtJagdish@Sethi S/O Kalla vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 June, 2020HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6522/2020\n\nJagdish@sethi S/o Kalla, R/o Bada Harijan Mohalla Ps Gangapur\nCity Raj. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Gangapur City)\n ----Petitioner\n Versus\nState Of Rajasthan, Thruogh Pp\n ----RespondentFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal (through\n video conference)\nFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP\n\n\n\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA ( VJ )\n\n Order\n\n19/06/20201. Defects are overruled for time being.2. Learned Advocate for petitioner is directed to remove the\n\ndefects after situation become normal.3. The present bail application has been filed underSection 439Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.\n\n205/2020 Registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangapur City,\n\nDistrict Sawaimadhopur for the offence(s) underSection 8/20of\n\nN.D.P.S. Act.4. Counsel for the petitioner (through video conference)\n\nsubmits that quantity of recovered contraband article "Ganja" is\n\nbelow the commercial quantity. He is behind the bars since long\n\nand conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioners be\n\nreleased on bail.5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.(Downloaded on 19/06/2020 at 08:39:17 PM)(2 of 2) [CRLMB-6522/2020]6. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the\n\n petitioner (through video conference) and taking into account the\n\n facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any\n\n opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and\n\n proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is\n\n allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner\n\n Jagdish@sethi S/o Kalla shall be enlarged on bail provided he\n\n furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one\n\n surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned\n\n trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all\n\n the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA ( VJ )),J\n\n ashu /82(Downloaded on 19/06/2020 at 08:39:17 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

df1fad72-f8ae-5176-817f-b5221bb2c3c9

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nNational Green Tribunal\nShashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry Of Environment And Forest And ... on 17 October, 2022\nItem No.7 (Pune Bench)\n\n BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL\n WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE\n\n (By Video Conferencing)\n ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2022 (WZ)\n\nShashikant Vittal Kamble ....Applicant\n\n Versus\n\nMinistry of Environment and Forest\nAnd Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and Ors. ....Respondent(s)\n\nDate of hearing: 17.10.2022\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER\n\n\nApplicant : --\n\nRespondents : Mr. Atul J. Pathak, Advocate for R-2\n Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6\n Mr. Yashwant Dhanegave, Advocate for R-7\n Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Advocate for R-8 and R-9\n Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate for R-13\n\n\n ORDER\n\n1. In pursuance to the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal,\n\nthe Registry had issued notice to the applicant through email in order to\n\nengage the counsel on his behalf in view of the earlier counsel having\n\nwithdrawn his vakalatnama. In response thereto, today, we have received an\n\nemail from the side of the applicant praying for adjournment and requesting\n\nthat the vakalatnama from the earlier counsel Mr. Viraj Pawar may be\n\naccepted because he had earlier withdrwan his vakalatnama due to some\n\nmisunderstanding. By way of last opportunity, we direct learned counsel Mr.\n\nViraj Pawar to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant within a period\n\nof one week.\n\n2. From the side of respondent No.2, learned counsel Mr. Atul J. Pathak\n\nhas appeared.\n\n\n Page 1 of 2\n 3. From the side of respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6, learned counsel Mr.\n\nAniruddha Kulkarni has appeared.\n\n4. On behalf of respondent No. 7, learned counsel Mr. Yaashwant\n\nDhanegave has appeared.\n\n5. From the side of respondent Nos.8 and 9, learned counsel Mr. Vilas\n\nJadhav has appeared.\n\n6. From the side of respondent No.13, learned counsel Mr. Saket Mone\n\nhas appeared.\n\n7. All the respondents have filed their respective reply-affidavits.\n\n8. Put up the matter on 30.11.2022 for final hearing..\n\n\n\n\n Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM\n\n\n\n\n Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM\n\nOctober 17, 2022\nOriginal Application No.42 of 2022\nnpj\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 2

172215ff-e881-55b5-9e27-e94bbe96cfa6

court_cases

Securities Appellate TribunalDr. Kailash S. Choudhari vs Sebi on 24 December, 2020BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n MUMBAI\n\n\n Date:24.12.2020\n\n\n Appeal No.534 of 2019\n\nP.F. Sundesha & Ors. ...Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\n\nMr. Sumit Garg, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Varun, Ms.\nRashi Verma and Kamal Budhiraja, Advocates for the\nAppellants.\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody and Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar &\nCo. for the Respondent.\n\n\n With\n Appeal No.535 of 2019\n\nAksh Optifibre Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\nMr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Garg,\nMr. Nishant Varun, Ms. Rashi Verma and Mr. Kamal\nBudhiraja, Advocates for the Appellant.\n 2\n\n\n\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody and Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar &\nCo. for the Respondent.\n\n\n With\n Appeal No.536 of 2019\n\nDr. Kailash S. Choudhari ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\nMr. Sumit Garg, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Varun, Ms.\nRashi Verma, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Kamal Budhiraja,\nAdvocates for the Appellant.\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody and Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar &\nCo. for the Respondent.\n\n\n With\n Appeal No.438 of 2019\n\nAksh Optifibre Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\nMr. Kavin Gulati, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Garg,\nMr. Nishant Varun, Mr. Rashi Verma, Mr. Kamal\nBudhiraja, Advocates for the Appellant.\n 3\n\n\n\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody and Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar &\nCo. for the Respondent.\n\n With\n Appeal No.439 of 2019\n\nDr. Kailash S. Choudhari ...Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\nMr. Sumit Garg, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Varun, Ms.\nRashi Verma, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Kamal Budhiraja,\nAdvocates for the Appellant.\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody and Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar &\nCo. for the Respondent.\n\n\n With\n Appeal No.440 of 2019\n\nP.F. Sundesha & Ors. ...Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent\n\nMr. Sumit Garg, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Varun, Ms.\nRashi Verma and Mr. Kamal Budhiraja, Advocates for\nthe Appellants.\n\nMr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir\nMody and Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar &\nCo. for the Respondent.\n 4\n\n\n\n\nOrder:\n\nAppeal nos.438, 439 and 440 of 2020\n\n1.Since common issues are raised all these appeals are\n\n taken up together. Connect with appeal no.534 of\n\n 2019.2. Three weeks time is allowed to the respondent to file\n\n reply. Two weeks thereafter to the appellant to file\n\n rejoinder. The matter would be listed for admission\n\n and for final disposal on 1st February, 2021.\n\nAppeal nos.534, 535 and 536 of 20193. The other appeal nos.534, 535 and 536 of 2019 will\n\n also be taken up for consideration on 1st February,\n\n 2021.4. Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hours\n\n before the date fixed to find out as to whether the\n\n hearing would take place through video conferencing\n\n or through physical hearing.5. The present matter was heard through video\n\n conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it5is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a\n\n certified copy of this order could be issued by the\n\n registry. In these circumstances, this order will be\n\n digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of\n\n the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act\n\n on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will\n\n act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax\n\n and/or email.Justice Tarun AgarwalaDigitally signed byRAJALAKSH RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Presiding Officer\n MI H NAIR Date: 2020.12.28\n 15:41:50 +05'30'\n\n\n\n\n Dr. C.K.G. Nair\n Member\n\n\n\n Justice M.T. Joshi\n Judicial Member\n\n24.12.2020\nRHN