AjayMukundS/Indian_Legal_NER_Dataset huggingface dataset:
Thereafter, on 28.11.2007 Vikas Garg, Nidhi Garg W/o Vikas Garg, Vinay Garg and Deepika Garg have taken a total loan of Rs.1,65,80,000/- through loan account nos. 14013241 and 14081767 (hereinafter referred to as the first loan) on an 11.5 % interest from a Non-Banking Financial company known as M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. New Delhi, mentioning themselves to be the Directors of Tirupati Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying to quash the order dated 02.09.2019 under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj and the consequential letter dated 13.10.2020 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (II), Prayagraj.
The minutes of the meeting read thus:
 “Item No.18/2020 Regarding proposed change of land use of Plot Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8.F.20(12)2019/MP  a) The proposal was presented by Joint Secretary (L&E), MoHUA, In-charge of Central Vista Development/Redevelopment Project, who was present as Special Invitee.
As is well known the Supreme Court in case of GKN (83 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), had introduced a requirement of the Assessing Officer providing reasons recorded for issuing notice for reopening of assessment upon being demanded by the assessee and to consider and dispose of his objections to the notice for reopening, if so raised.
Under the said notifications, the BDA proposed to acquire 3839 acres & 12 guntas of land situate in 16 villages namely Dasarahalli, Byrathikhane, Chellakere, Geddalahalli, K.Narayanapura, Rachenahalli, thanisandra, Amaruthahalli, Jakkur, Kempapura, Sampigehalli, Srirampura, Venkateshapura, Hennur, Hebbala and Nagavara, for the formation of Arkavathi Layout.
The next judgment to be noted is Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) Through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) Vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 566, Justice R.V. Raveendran speaking for the Court noted the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 and Rule 3A and recorded his conclusions in paragraph 17 in following words:­ “17.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 788 in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad has referred the decision of Kaushalya Devi Massand Vs. Roopkishore reported in AIR 2011 SC 2566 and has held that it is not like IPC cases wherein the sentence of imprisonment is called.
vii) This Court vide order dated 19.12.2016 in W.P. No.27105 of 2016 while considering the submission of life-convict that he has completed 18 years of actual sentence including remand period and 24 years of a total sentence including remission is entitled and eligible KL,J W.P. Nos.20421 of 2019 & batch for premature release and since he has completed 19 years including remission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 17.02.2016.
{See: Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P.Public Service sh Commission and others-(2003) 11 SCC-584, e Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) ad Ltd. and others-(2003) 2 SCC-111, Indian Pr Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia and another-(2015)10 SCC-161, Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. a Bank of India and others-(2016) 3 SCC-762}.
The ExD9 is the extract of Transfer of Rights Register [Mutation Register] in respect of MR 46/1998-99 dated 06/12/1998 discloses that Sri P. Venkataraju sonof Thayappa and his wife Pullamma and children Arunkumar, Manjunath, Naveen Kumar, minor Jyothi have sold 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.61/1 of Chellaghatta village, Varthur O.S.No.16217/2000 Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 for Rs.1,60,000/-.
Inter alia the defendant i.e. appellant herein denied that the plaintiff no.1 i.e. RSA No. 23/2019 respondent no.1 herein was entitled to any damages whatsoever and denied that there was any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents herein in as much as she reiterated that the plaintiff i.e. the respondents had no right, title or interest in the suit property.
No explanation is forthcoming from these respondents why this time limit was not adhered to while registering the Wakf created MSR,J & TVK,J ::60:: wp_20707_2018&batch under the Wakfnama 01.01.1955 by Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum on 13.12.2013, eighteen years after the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force.
Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.,
(1996) 3 SCC 709] when it is said that a constitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is "disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable", yet such challenge would fail on the very ground of the law being "unreasonable,     unnecessary      or   unwarranted".
DESCRIPTION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Residential building bearing No.14, 3rd Cross, Assessment No.48, Khatha No.1870, Priyadarshini Layout, Malagalu Village, Moodala Palya, Bangalore 560 072 total admeasuring 1200 Sq.ft together with all rights, appurtenances whatsoever whether underneath or above the surface of the property and bounded on the East by: Property of Meena Sudhakar West by: Private property + high tension line North by: 22'' road South by: Property of Munikrishna
(9) With regard to agricultural land owned in rural areas :
 8.66% of Maratha families are landless, 62.74% of Maratha families own agricultural land not more than 2.5 acres, 19% own agricultural land more than 2.5 acres and less than 5 acres, 6% of Maratha families own agricultural land in the range of 5 to 10 acres and just 2.7% of Maratha families have agricultural land more than 10 acres.
It is in that context that the observations made by this Court in the case of Baladin2 assume significance; otherwise, in law, it would not be correct to say that before a person is held to be a member of Crl. Appeal Nos. 1709-1710 of 2019 (@ SLP [Crl.]Nos.2497-2498 of 2019) The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors.
Under this category there were four statements that were recorded, i.e. the statement dated 23rd May 2006 recorded by the CBI under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/DA), the statement dated 10th December 2008 recorded by the MM under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/E), the supplementary statement dated 4 th September 2009 (Ex.PW-1/DB), and the supplementary statement dated 11th April 2009 (Ex.PW-17/DB) both recorded by the CBI.
The Ld. A.R. alternatively submitted that if the composite of rent and hire charges for the furniture and fixtures are taken together that could be taken the ALV and in defence of his proposition the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:
 "1. Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxman 70 (Supreme Court)
 2. CIT vs. Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. "(2001) 116 Taxman 795 (Calcutta High Court)
The seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SBP and Co. (supra) while reversing earlier five-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. vs. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388 held that the power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is not an administrative power but is a judicial power.
It is settled legal position that, by way of interim relief, the final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other, (Mehul Mahendra Thakkar v. Meena Mehul Thakkar ; All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Govt. of T.N., ), as interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa.
The catchment area as depicted in the map prepared by the Survey of India taken on record by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide orders dated 24.09.2004 and adopted by Chandigarh Administration thereafter officially as map of catchment area of 77 of 148 CWP No.18253 of 2009 & other connected petitions #78# Sukhna Lake is hereby published for the information of general public.
CW.14/PW.7- PSI, DCIB and CW.25/PW.15-PSI, Khanapur Crl.A.No.100190/2018 C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017, 100390/2017 AND 100397/2017 had ascertained that accused's calls were coming from Pavagada and Chittoor.
The present Vice-Chancellor under its letter dated 9-1-1993 addressed to the Governors Secretariat by Patna High Court CWJC No.23014 of 2018 dt.23-12-2020 pointing out the provisions of Bihar Medical Educational (Regulation and Control Act, 1981 (herein after State Regulation Act) raised various objections regarding the validity and enforceability of the aforesaid transitory regulation, which contemplated for holding of examination of the students of the petitioner institution.
This Court in Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 497 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 571 : AIR 1975 SC 1727] has laid down that if the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and Crl.A. No.100106/2016 unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.
Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9267 of 2017 dimension was given to the power of the Superior Courts to make investigation into the issues of public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a private interest.
For Crl.Appeal No.567 of 2014 and considering merit of the prosecution case that the accused 2, 3 and 5 made deceased Varma to drink juice mixed with alcohol and thereafter they administered chloroform to stupefy him, the testimony of PW40 Jose M.Philip and his report (Ext.P84), oral evidence tendered by PW66 Prameela S. and her reports (Exts.P160 to P162) and also the testimony of PW69 Dr.N.A.Balaram will be relevant.
In Rajesh (supra), the Apex Court noticed that, after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act by Act 54 of 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994, the report on motor vehicle accident prepared by the police officer and forwarded to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 has to be MACA No. 480 of 2012, etc. treated as an application for compensation.
Prosecution has sought to rely on the evidence of P.W.s 2, 4 to 8 with regard to the recovery of 191 kgs of ganja from the rear seat of a Tata Mahindra Marshal vehicle bearing registration no.WB-26C-3869 at Helabattala, Barasat around 6.15 a.m. of 27.09.2006 which was driven and occupied by the appellants.
The   learned   counsel   appearing      for    the     petitioners     in                  W.P.No.33868 of 2013 submitted that the respondents resorted to acquire                  lands in terms of the impugned notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act is                  unfounded and unsustainable in law, since it doesn't come within the purview                  of the above said Act and the respondents ought to have invoked the provisions                  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
However, the Writ Petitioners before us ultimately succeed because, Article 254(1) by its operation rendered the impugned Tamil Nadu Legislations repugnant, and null and void, as on the date on which the New Act was made, i.e. 27.09.2013, the date of making of the New Act, as held in the case of State of Kerala v Maar AppraemKuri Co. (Supra) and therefore the impugned Acts do not survive.
On 19.12.2012, the learned Single Judge, in connected writ petition No.1980 of 2008,
while refusing the interim relief passed the following order :-
       "Meaning thereby the action of the respondents therein, in        respect of land acquisition and the establishment of        project by the respondents therein was upheld by the        Apex court and thereafter award was delivered in the        matter on 30.10.2004.
To ensure the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.1830, 4130 & 4109 of 2022 weight, weigh bridges to be commissioned at both the entry points (i.e.) at Bannari Check post and at Hasanur. 

 7) Commercial Vehicles (like lorries) will not be allowed to used the ghat road from evening 6.00 P.M to morning 6.00 A.M in interest and welfare of wild animals.
Complainant respondent No.2, lodged FIR No.0254/2018 on 13.6.2018 against the accused/applicants alleging that on 12.6.2018 at about 10:00 P.M., accused/applicants came in Aman Palace Hotel, asked for a room, when complainant asked applicants to complete the formalities, they started searching room online and when applicants were unable to search out the room online, they insisted the complainant to provide rooms without their I.Ds. (Identity card).
Even before the Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudicated the matter and quantified the petitioner's liability, the first respondent bank sought to enforce the security interest under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order dated 12.10.2016 from the second respondent, within the ambit of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to take possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner with an intention to dispossess the petitioner.
2011 (2) SCR 831- a view followed later, in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720 and, more recently, endorsed in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro (2020) 5 SCC 689 that “seniority should not be reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules.
15) In Parmeshwari v. Amirchand the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where on 22.01.2003 at about 12.00 noon the appellant therein, the claimant before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 before the High Court, was going from Baganwala to Tosham on a Motor Cycle (No.HR 16C- 8379), driven by Balwan with the claimant on the pillion seat.
The two judgments (1) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. President Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others MANU/SC/0479/1990 : (1990)IILLJ70SC : (1990)IILLJ70SC and (2) State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and chemicals Ltd. and Another MANU/SC/0616/1991 :
1993(41)ECC326 : 1993(41)ECC326 were cited in support of the argument.
, relied upon the following judgments:

 (i) An unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13320/2006 dated 22.09.2006 paragraphs 2,4,5,9,10. 

 (ii) B.Javarayagouda S/o Boregouda vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1153, para 17. 

 (iii) Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of R. Prasanna Kumar & another vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1378 para 25.
On the facts of that case, on 28.02.2017, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court ruled that Antrix’s petition under Section 9 of the Ar-  bitration Act, 1996 before the Bangalore Court was not maintainable, and that Devas’ petition under Section 9 was maintainable, the bar under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 being inapplicable.
The same was transferred in the name of Bhanwarmal Singhvi on 08.07.1971 and out of the aforesaid land, 7 bigha 7 biswa was sold to Gulab Badi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti who developed another residential scheme namely Murtikala Colony and 90-B proceedings were initiated by JDA thereto on 04.12.1999 and lease has also been issued by the JDA to the land holders.
The jurisdiction to assess u/s. 147 is assumed on the basis of the issue of notice u/s. 148, and not its' service, and which could therefore be served even subsequently (R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shamabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC); Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB)).
Mr. Arun Bharadwaj, ld. CGSC, appearing for the Union of India, has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:09.10.2020 16:15 Digitally Signed By:SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR Signing Date:09.10.2020 16:50:02 reiterated the submissions made by Dr. Singhvi and has further submitted that this petition ought to be heard with the OA No. 291/138/2020 pending before the CAT.
That, on conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) held all the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/­ each and, in case of default in paying the fine, to undergo one year RI.