HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. (Delivered by Indrajeet Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party (for short, the appellant) and Mr. Keshav Hari Dixit, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner (for short, the respondent). 2. The present appeal and the connected one have been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity, the Act, 1984) by the appellant, Smt. Priti Dixit @ Preeti Pachaui @ Preeti Sharma, assailing the correctness and legality of the judgment and decrees dated 18.05.2012, whereby the petition bearing No.805 of 2006, filed by the respondent, Ashish Dixit, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1955), was allowed and a decree of divorce granted, whereas Petition No.336 of 2008, filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was dismissed.

HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. Delivered by Indrajeet Shukla, J. 1. In view of the office report dated 19.01.2026/12.02.2026 service upon the sole respondent is held sufficient. No one is present on her behalf. 2. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal. 3. This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1984) has been instituted by the appellant-petitioner (husband), challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, in Petition No. 286 of 2015, instituted under Section 9 and, alternatively, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for brevity, the Act, 1955) whereby the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner (for short, the appellant) has been dismissed ex parte with costs.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellant and Sri Subodh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Awadhesh. The appeal has been dismissed as abated against appellant no. 1, Mahesh Prasad vide order dated 12.07.2021. 2. The present Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.07.1991 passed by learned Special/Additional Session Judge, Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 1990, arising out of Case Crime No. 1882/1989, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Police Station Phardhan, District Kheri, whereby the accused-respondents Mahesh Prasad and Awadesh have been acquitted.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-appellant. 2. Instant appeal has been filed raising a challenge to the judgment and order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 8, Sitapur in Session Trial No. 191 of 2023 Inre; State Vs. Mohit Tiwari per which the respondent has been acquitted. 3. A First Information Report dated 22.09.2022 was lodged against the respondent by the complainant/victim under Section 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) at Police Station- Pisawan, District Sitapur. During the course of the investigation conducted in pursuance thereof, Section 376 of the IPC was also added against the respondent. A charge sheet was submitted which was taken cognizance of by the learned trial court on 10.01.2023. Upon the respondent having denied the charges against him, the trial commenced.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard. 2. Instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO-I), Ambedkar Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 444 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2021 under Sections 363, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 5 read with Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the accused-respondent Ajaz Khan has been acquitted. 3. According to the prosecution case, the informant Manju, wife of Achhevar Sahu, lodged a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the "FIR") alleging that the accused Ajaz Khan used to visit the informant's house and was acquainted with her family. On 20.06.2021 at about 10:00 a.m., the accused allegedly took away the informant's 14-year-old daughter after luring and enticing her. It is further alleged that the accused induced the victim by offering her money with a view to marrying her. According to the informant, she came to know of these facts from the victim herself. Upon raising an alarm and shouting for help, the accused allegedly left the victim and fled from the spot. The informant thereafter brought the victim back with her.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned AGA for the appellant and Sri Praveen Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 844 of 2021 (State vs. Bheem Saroj) arising out of Case Crime No. 737 of 2020, under Sections 452, 376/511 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, whereby the accused person Bheem Saroj has been acquitted. 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the victim (name has not been disclosed to conceal her identity and hereinafter referred to as the victim) moved an application dated 23.10.2020 at the police station to register the First Information Report (herein after referred to as FIR), alleging therein that her husband is a Chowkidar in Police Station Lalganj. On 16.09.2020, she was sleeping inside a tin shed in her house with her son, Shiv Pratap. At some distance away, her husband was also sleeping with her son, Subhash, aged 10 years. At around 10:00 pm, Bhim Saroj came near the cot of the complainant/victim, caught hold of her dhoti and petticoat, turned her over, and tried to have sexual intercourse forcibly. Then the complainant/victim woke up and screamed. The husband of the complainant/victim woke up and Bhim Saroj ran away, and her husband chased him. Her husband fell down, due to which he got hurt on his left ankle. All the people from the nearby area came and Bhim Saroj ran away. The villagers gathered and everyone recognized Bhim very well.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned AGA for the appellant and Sri Manmohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 332 of 2022 (State vs. Suresh Saroj) arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2021, under Sections 376, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Kohandor, District Pratapgarh, whereby the accused person Suresh Saroj has been acquitted. 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the victim (name has not been disclosed to conceal her identity and herein after referred as victim) moved an application to the police station to register the First Information Report against the accused with the allegations that her maternal home is in village Chiguda, Kohdaur Police station. Since 2017 she have been studying B.T.C. at the home of her maternal uncle. Her date of birth is 07.01.1997. During this time, Suresh Saroj began visiting her maternal uncle's house and upon seeing her began to cast an evil eye on her. He would tease her on her way to and from school. On 17.01.2018, at approximately 4:00 p.m., when she went to her maternal uncle's room located a short distance from her maternal uncle's house to collect wood and straw for cooking dinner, Suresh Saroj who had been waiting in ambush forcibly threw her into the room, forcibly removed her clothes, raped her and took obscene photographs of her with his mobile phone. She protested a lot but he forcibly did wrong things with her by gagging her and threatened her that if she told anyone at home then he would make her obscene photos viral due to which she did not tell her maternal uncle or her parents. Since then, he blackmailed her and did wrong things with her several times and took photos. Her parents had fixed her marriage on 05.12.2021 at another place. When Suresh Saroj came to know about this, he asked her not to marry, abused her and her family members and posted the obscene photos taken earlier on the WhatsApp number of the place where her marriage was held and made them viral due to which her marriage was called off.

HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. Per: Honble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. The instant writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of First Information Report/Case Crime No. 0227 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025 registered at Police Station Hari Parvat, District Commissionerate Agra, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Since both the afore-captioned writ petitions arise out of the same Case Crime Number and involve common questions of fact and law, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of the present judgment, the brief facts, as noticed hereinbelow, are those of Writ Petition No. 15316 of 2025, preferred by Gaurav Jain and 2 others.

HONBLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. (DICTATED BY HONBLE RAJEEV MISRA,J) 1. Vinod, the first informant has approached this Court by means of present criminal appeal under Section 413 BNSS challenging the validity of judgment dated 25.05.2026 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2022 (State Vs. Kuldeep Chaprana and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 697 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Surajpur, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar. 2.​Perused the record. ​3. We have heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. ​4. On 22.08.2021, PW-1 Vinod (first informant/brother of deceased) received a telephone call from an unknown number informing him that an untoward incident has occurred with his brother Pawan @ Jassi at Flat No.-J-002 Lotus Park Society, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar. After receiving this information, Vinod immediately rushed to aforesaid place. Upon reaching the said place, he found his brother Pawan @ Jassi lying dead. He thus informed police on emergency No.-112. Accordingly, the police arrived on the spot.

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of the applicant, Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate on behalf of respondent-State, Shri Kartikeya Saran, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Anuj Srivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Manjari Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent no.7. 2. The present application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though various grounds have been taken in the review application, he is pressing the following grounds:- He places reliance on Ground-D:- "Because, the legality and sanctity of procuring and producing of Annexure No.CA-7 by the respondent no.1 "UPCA" in the above writ petition is liable to be re-evaluated and re-adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court."

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned AGA for respondent-State. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed against judgment and order dated 01.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Balrampur in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2000; State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar Pandey & Ors., arising out of Crime No.183 of 1995, under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149, 325/149 IPC, Police Station Balrampur Dehat, District Balrampur convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:- (i) under Section 325/149 IPC to two years and half months rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.1,500/-each and in default of fine, three months additional simple imprisonment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for opposite parties. 2. Objections filed on behalf of the state are taken on record. 3. Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with following prayers:- "1. ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????-2/2025 ????? ???? ???? ??????- UK 08 CA 3247 (????) ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????-5 (?) 7 ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ????/?????? ?????? 18.08.2025 ?? ??0?0??0-207/2025 ????-3/5?/8 ???? ?????? ??????? ??? 11? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? 318(4) 61(2) ????????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????/?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????/?????? ?????? 25.06.2026 ?? ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????/??? ??????-4621/2025 ????????? ??? ??????-?? 202510000004621 ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ????-5? (8) ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????-1 ? 2 ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????-UK 08 CA 3247 ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ???, ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party/State. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed against judgment and order dated 19/21.8.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Court No.6, Unnao, in Sessions Trial No.935/2008, State v. Gaya Prasad and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 777/07, under Sections 304, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 323/34, 504, 506, and 304/34 I.P.C. with the maximum imprisonment of ten years under section 304/34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per the prosecution version incident is said to have taken place on 02.8.2007 at about 12:30 PM when due to a dispute regarding irrigation of their adjoining field the appellants are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members leading to grievous injuries on such family members and death of one Mana. NCR bearing No.69 of 2007 was lodged. Cross FIR by the family of appellants was also lodged and registered as case crime no.777 A/2007. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed under sections 323/34, 504, 506, 304/34 IPC. Prosecution produced seven witnesses while defence was led under section 313 CrPC leading to conviction.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned AGA for respondent-State. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed against judgment and order dated 30.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No.190 of 1995, State v. Kali Prasad Misra & Another, arising out of Case Crime No.277 of 1995, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:- (i) under Section 304 I.P.C. to three years rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, one year additional imprisonment. 3. In pursuance of directions issued earlier, report dated 18.09.2026 has been furnished by the C.J.M. concerned indicating that due to destruction and unavailability of previous records, the total period of incarceration of appellants could not be ascertained.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Children Court, Hapur, in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 33/2026 in and the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur in Bail Application No.82/2026 in Case No. 22/2026, Case Crime No. 155/2026 under Section 137(2), 65(1) BNS and Section- 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa District Hapur. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits: (i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 17 years months on the date of alleged incident; He is in custody since 11.04.2026;

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 346 of 2026 (Smt. Maya Versus Khushi Ram and another) under Sections 308, 323, 326, 452, 354, 354-B I.P.C., Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur, pending before the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur including the cognizance/summoning order dated 27.05.2026.

HONBLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. (Per : Kunal Ravi Singh, J.) 1. Heard Shri Kartikay Agarwal and Shri Devansh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for Agra Development Authority, Shri Shashi Nandan Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for newly impleaded respondent No. 5 and 6 and Mr. Ajit Singh Rana, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state respondent. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 of cancellation of tender proceedings passed by the Respondents whereby the valid tender process, in which the Petitioner was declared technically qualified and emerged as the lowest bidder, has been arbitrarily cancelled for extraneous and mala fide considerations;

1. A proceeding under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Impositions of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act, 1960) were commenced and a general notice was issued under Section 9 of Act 1960 to tenure holders of Village Karvi, Chitrakoot holding land in excess of ceiling area for submission of statement in respect thereof. 2. Predecessors of petitioners did not submit their respective statements however, later on, no notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1960, immediately to the predecessors of the petitioners herein, therefore, no ceiling proceedings could commence against them. Subsequently, the original tenure holder Baijnath died on 23.5.1984 and his two sons namely Prem Chandra and Raman Lal died respectively on 8.5.1977 and 26.3.1990 therefore, no proceedings were initiated against them.

1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, opposite party No.2 (in person), Sri Kamal Dev Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. These are two applications under section 582 of the B.N.S.S., filed in connection with the same crime number and seeking same relief, i.e., quashing of the proceeding in Case No. 949 of 2024. 3. Application U/S 528 BNSS No.16433 of 2025has been filed byDaraspreet Singh And three Otherswith the following prayer: "It, is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash/set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 12.12.2024, as well as charge sheet No.101 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024, filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 509 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, arising out of Case Crime No.4 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Cantt. District- Prayagraj including entire proceeding of Case No.949 of 2024 (State vs. Daraspreet and others), so that justice may be done."

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 02.11.1993 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1988, arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 1987 (State Vs. Ram Chandra Yadav and others), under Sections 308/34, 325/34, 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows: (a) Appellant No. 1, Ram Chandra Yadav, was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 325 I.P.C., with a further sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine; one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C.; and six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

1. By way of the instant Judgment, this Court shall dispose of both the instant Petitions filed by the Petitioner, one being OMP No. 3/2026 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["Arbitration Act"] for setting aside the Final Arbitral Award dated 17.07.2026 ["Impugned Award"] and the other being OMP (I) No. 10/2026, seeking restraining orders against the Respondent in respect of the Subject Property being land in Khasra Nos. 518 (4-5) *less (2-16), 519 (0- 9), 520 (1-8) *less (1-3), 530 (3-5), 531 (2-3), 532 (4-16), 535/1 (1-4), 535/2 (1-4), and 536 (3-9), comprised in Village Gadaipur, Mehrauli, Delhi ["Subject Property"], till the disposal of the Petition filed under Section 34.

FAO(OS) 93/2026 1. This appeal arises out of suit which was initially filed as a commercial suit, being CS (COMM) No. 236/2024. By order dated 05.05.2025, the learned Single Judge held that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and directed that the suit be proceeded as an ordinary civil suit, thereafter, numbered as CS(OS) No. 367/2025. The written statement was not filed within the prescribed period. On 20.01.2026, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) closed the Appellants' right to file the written statement. The Appellants challenged the said order by way of a Chamber Appeal. By order dated 23.07.2026, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Chamber Appeal and upheld the order of the learned Joint Registrar, holding that the written statement had not been filed even within the outer limit of 120 days reckoned from 05.05.2025. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellants against the said order.

1. These proceedings have their genesis in FIR 194/2013 instituted at PS Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar on 23 August 2013 under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/302 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The respondent Dharambir Singh was one of the accused named in the FIR. As his name was ultimately deleted from the charge-sheet which came to be filed by the police authorities before the competent criminal court, it is not necessary to delve into the allegations against W.P.(C) 7118/2026 KUMAR Signing Date:06.10.2026 17:47:35 the respondent. Suffice it to state that he, along with other alleged assailants, was alleged to have assaulted certain villagers resulting ultimately in the death of one of them and also to have levelled casteist slurs.

1. The 27th of July 1997 proved to be a fateful day for passengers on the 2627 Down Karnataka Express, which collided with the Himgiri Express near the Faridabad Railway Station, resulting in derailment, death of 12 passengers, and injuries to over 50 passengers. 2. The accident occurred because of the failure to apply the emergency brakes of the Karnataka Express when it approached a red signal. The only two persons in the engine of the Karnataka Express were, at that time, N.H. Ellis, the driver of the engine, and Assistant Driver, who is the petitioner before us.

1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the applicability of Rule 121 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 19802. 1 12. Action following judicial acquittal. - When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not unless (a) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds, or (b) in the opinion of the court, or on the Deputy Commissioner of Police the prosecution witnesses have been won over; or

1. Petitioner/accused seeks quashing of FIR No.335/2024 of PS Kalkaji for offence under Section 174A IPC on merits. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned APP for State on 28.09.2026 and reserved the matter for orders. 2. The petitioner, who was arrayed as accused in complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, was declared absconder vide order dated 29.01.2024 and consequently, the impugned FIR under Section 174A CRL.M.C. 500/2025 Page 1 of 14 pages GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569 COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709 Digitally Signed 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.10.09 11:18:29 +05'30' By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Date:09.10.2026 11:33:50 IPC was registered against him. The only ground raised by the petitioner to seek quashing of the impugned FIR is that he was declared absconder without there being service of summons or execution of warrants. According to petitioner, he was not residing or even working at the addresses on which the summons and warrants were sent by the trial court.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. The present Appeal has been filed assailing the correctness of the judgment and Order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge (LDJ), through which the Petition filed by the Respondents [Respondents before the Learned Sole Arbitrator (LSA)] under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, challenging the Arbitral Award dated 09.03.20172, was allowed. 2. The issue which falls for determination of this Court is whether hereinafter referred to as „Act of 1996‟ hereinafter referred to as „Award‟ the LDJ, within the narrow compass of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, was justified in setting aside the Award on the grounds that (i) the Respondents were not given proper notice of the appointment of the LSA and the arbitral proceedings, and (ii) the Award, in fastening liability upon the Directors of the Respondent No.1, suffers from patent illegality. A connected question, also raised by the Appellant, is whether the Section 34 Petition filed by the Respondents was barred by limitation.

1. This writ petition arises out of judgment dated 22 September 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 3608/2026, preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The prayer clause in the OA read as under: "In view of the above premises, the applicant prays for the following relief(s): (1) Declare and direct that the requirement of qualification of B.Ed. for direct recruitment to the posts of "Vice-Principal" and "Principal" under Respondent No.2, as 1 "Tribunal" hereinafter W.P.(C) 14593/2026 KUMAR Signing Date:09.10.2026 12:27:52 advertised by UPSC (Respondent No.3) in the impugned Special Advertisement No. 51/2026 (Annexure: A-1), shall not apply to in-service Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) of Computer Science (which includes the Applicant).

CM APPL. 63841/2026 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 13671/2026 & CM APPL. 63840/2026 1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Ld. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ["DRAT"], refusing to take on record the Petitioner's written statement on record on the ground that it has been filed beyond the maximum time prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ["RDBA Act"].

% 21.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising out of the registered Agreement to Sell2 dated 30.04.2012 read with the Settlement Agreement dated 24.05.2019. 2. The Petitioner entered into the ATS dated 30.04.2012 with Respondent No.1, M/s Zestha Projects Pvt. Ltd., as the Vendor/owner, while Respondent No.2, M/s Vardhman Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd., was the Confirming Party. The ATS pertained to the Hotel Building proposed to be constructed on Plot No. 26/1, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The Hotel Building was contemplated to be completed and furnished in accordance with the specifications of the GINGER brand.

% 17.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the award dated 30.07.20242 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, Sh. Narottam Kaushal, former Principal District and Sessions Judge, in DIAC, Case Ref. No. DIAC/2146/08-18. 2. By way of the Impugned Award, the learned Sole Arbitrator held that the disputes raised by the Petitioner concerning Shop No. 184, "Act" hereinafter "Impugned Award" hereinafter Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi-1100233, including the claims for partition, possession, arrears of rent and future mesne profits, did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement contained in the Partnership Deed dated 08.08.2003. Thus, the Tribunal consequently dismissed the claim as not arbitrable & maintainable.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging an order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Family Court dismissing an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case reveal that the appellant and the respondent got married on 21.11.1997 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRERNA MAT.APP.(F.C.) 33/2026 Page 1 of 17

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. By the present suit, the plaintiffs, inter alia, seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 to 5 from using the Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed Signing Date:05.10.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 11:18:27 Page 2 of 18 KUMAR KAURAV trademarks/trading names "DS GROUP", "RAJNIGANDHA" and variants thereof, including as a domain name, or otherwise dealing in goods/services thereunder, amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks and copyright, passing off, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and dilution. The plaintiffs further seek suspension, locking and transfer of the domain name "www.onlinerajnigandharetail.in" by defendant no. 6; freezing of the bank accounts of defendant nos. 1 to 5 by defendant no. 7; disclosure by defendant no. 8 of their KYC, mobile and GPS details; delivery-up of the impugned materials; rendition of accounts and damages; declaration of the "DS GROUP" marks as well-known trademarks; and costs.

1. The petitioner, via present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter "BNSS") (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "CrPC") seeks quashing of FIR No. 538/2021, dated 24.09.2021, registered at P.S. Hari Nagar, West (Delhi), under Sections 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter "POCSO Act"), and all proceedings arising out of it.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter "BNSS"), the petitioners being aggrieved by the absence of any effective enforcement of the judicial orders whereby maintenance was granted to the petitioners. They seek restoration of Ex. CRL No. 226/2023, dismissed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 05.02.2026, and directions to trace respondent no. 2.

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Mrs Radha Goyal, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.05.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Delhi, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant for Partition, Possession, Rendition of Accounts, and grant of Permanent Injunction, was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (d) of CPC. 2. The Plaintiff filed the Suit bearing CS No. 150/2014 for Partition before the court of learned ASCJ wherein Notice was issued against the Defendants. The Defendant No. 1, in his Written statement, took various objections in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court by asserting that the value of the suit property was more than ₹3,00,00,000/- and the suit was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Judge.

OCTOBER 05, 2026/v/jk

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, assailing the Order dated 05.04.2022 ("Impugned Order") passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi in HMA No. 794 of 2019 titled as "Vijay Kumar Batra vs. Meenakshi Batra", whereby the application filed by the appellant/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ("HMA") seeking pendent lite maintenance was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 16.10.1983 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sector-22, Faridabad. Two children were born from the said wedlock in the years 1984 and 1988 and both have turned major. The appellant alleges that there was persistent discord in the marital relationship and that she was subjected to physical, mental and emotional abuse by the respondent. The matrimonial relationship deteriorated further in 2019. The appellant is stated to have filed a complaint under Section 489-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, both against the respondent in the year 2019.As the matrimonial discord persisted and was escalating, the respondent left the matrimonial home in October 2019.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral) CRL.M.A. 24550/2026 (seeking release of matter) & CRL.M.A. 25055/2026 (filing additional documents) 1. By way of CRL.M.A. 24550/2026, the petitioner, appearing in person, seeks release of the present matter, i.e. CRL.M.C. 1780/2024, from this Bench - in view of the constitution of a fresh roster of Benches with effect from 01.07.2026. The applicant has sought such release primarily on the ground that this Court, on 28.07.2026, had released certain other criminal matters, including CRL.M.C. No. 14/2025 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 1744/2024, and has, accordingly, sought similar treatment in the present case.

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- Signed By:ANSH SRIVASTAVA Signing Date:09.10.2026 "a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the provisions of UCO Bank Circular No. HO/OSD-TMV/KYC&AML Cell/02/2026-27 dated 02.04.2026, titled "Master Circular - Threshold Limit in Customer Account", insofar as they provide for real-time ADC blocking and/or Finacle/over-the-counter debit restriction merely upon breach of an internally fixed threshold limit, as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, ultra vires the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks - Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

% 07.10.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], seeking setting aside of the order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the learned ASJ-01 (POCSO), New Delhi District, RACC, New Delhi, in SC No. 9495/2016, titled State v. Panna Lal, arising out of FIR No. 143/2015, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj (North), South District, Delhi, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'], seeking addition of a charge under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act'], was allowed. The petitioner also assails the consequential order dated 05.05.2026, whereby an additional charge under Section 10 read with This is a digitally signed order.

% 24.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29908/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7157/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['Cr.PC'], corresponding to Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'], seeking quashing of FIR No. 146/18 dated 13.06.2018 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi under Sections 354D/509/500 of Indian Penal Code ['IPC'] and This is a digitally signed order.

% 30.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 ['Cr.P.C.'] (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'] seeking following reliefs: "a) Quash the F.LR. bearing no. 92/2019 354A,354D, 509 IPC & 12 read with Section 11(i) & (iv) and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the POCSO lodged at Tigri." 2. It is stated that FIR No. 92/2019 dated 20.03.20219 ['subject FIR'] This is a digitally signed order.

% 23.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC'] r/w Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'] assailing the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by learned JMFC (N.I. Act)- 05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts in C.C. No. 7659/2019 ['Trial Court'] whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed an application u/s 243/293/91 of CrPC r/w Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 and Section 45/65A/73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

% 28.09.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer(s):- "A. issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction holding that final show cause notice dated 18.09.2026 issued by Regional Director, WRC be treated to be only communication to petitioner institution calling upon information/response of institution to various aspects mentioned in the show cause notices in respect of M.Ed course and permit petitioner to submit response within a period of 30 days..."

% 28.09.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer:- "A. issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction holding that final show cause notice dated 18.09.2026 issued by Regional Director, WRC be treated to be only communication to petitioner institution calling upon information/response of institution to various aspects mentioned in the show cause notices in respect of B.Ed course and permit petitioner to submit response within a period of 30 days"

% 24.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1, seeking quashing of the FIR. No.3/2024 dated 05.01.2024, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 174A and 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['IPC'], and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. 2. Mr. Anish Chawla, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that the present FIR emanates from proceedings arising from Complaint Case No. Corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 This is a digitally signed order.

% 24.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29838/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7139/2026 3. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'] seeking quashing of FIR No. 346/2015 dated 08.07.2015 ['impugned FIR'] registered at Police Station: M.S. Park for offences under Sections 323, 452, and 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

% 23.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1, seeking quashing of FIR No. 689/2025, dated 12.10.2025, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, under Sections 85/316(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 ['BNS'], along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.), accepts notice on behalf of the State.

% 21.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS']1 seeking quashing of FIR No. 164/2018 dated 04.04.2018, registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['IPC'], along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

% 21.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1, seeking quashing of the FIR No. 143/2019 dated 17.07.2019 under Sections 455, 380, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['IPC'] and Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 ['Arms Act'] registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

% 24.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1, seeking the following relief: - "Quash the FIR No.0703/2020, dated 05.08.2020 registered under section 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Khajuri Khas, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom pending before the court of Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court)-01 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi."

% 25.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC']1 for quashing of FIR No. 0189/2023 dated 06.05.2023 under Sections 498-A/406/34 India Penal Code 1860 ['IPC'], Police Station Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi and proceedings, emanating therefrom, on behalf of the petitioners on the ground of compromise. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Chahar, learned APP, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

% 28.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1 seeking quashing of FIR No. 130/2023 dated 08.10.2023 under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['IPC'] registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road. 2. The Petitioner is present in person and is identified by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Investigating Officer. 3. Ms. Nazma Hasan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ['NI Act'], bearing Ct. Case No. 36257/2016 was filed against the Petitioner herein. She states that due to the Petitioner's default in attending the said proceedings, This is a digitally signed order.

% 29.09.2026 CM APPL. 67713/2026 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 67715/2026 1. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in re-filing the present Appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. 3. The delay of 19 days in re-filing the Appeal stands condoned. 4. The Application is disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026, CM APPL. 67714/2026

% 21.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29277/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7006/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC']1, seeking quashing of FIR No. 532/2019, dated 25.11.2019, registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri, Delhi, under corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'] This is a digitally signed order.

% 22.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29431/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7038/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29432/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC']1, seeking quashing of FIR No. 383/2020, dated 01.10.2020, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, Delhi, under Sections 354/323/506/498A/354(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'] This is a digitally signed order.

% 21.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29341/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7027/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1 seeking quashing of the FIR. No. 651/2023 dated 08.07.2023, registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['IPC'], and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

% 22.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29480/2026 (for exemption) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS'], corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC'], seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the annexures. 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 3. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2947/2026 This is a digitally signed order.

% 28.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 30282/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7240/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ['BNSS']1 for quashing of FIR No. 0352/2025 dated 12.07.2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS'), Police Station Govind Puri, Delhi and corresponding to section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC'] This is a digitally signed order.

1. Leave granted. 2. Under the impugned judgment of the High Court, appellants’ statutory appeal under Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, the “Act, 2016”) has been rejected. The said appeal had questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short, the “Appellate Tribunal”), whereby the NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2026.10.08 16:40:17 IST Reason:

IA No. 248233/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 09-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karan Verma, AOR Mr. Aryan Rachh, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv. Ms. Rita Jha, AOR Mr. Amit Vikram Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The genesis of the present writ petitions lies in a series of articles published in the daily newspaper The Hindu on 12.04.2003, 13.04.2003, 23.04.2003 and 25.04.2003, reporting on the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Thereafter, on 26.04.2003, The Murasoli carried a verbatim Tamil translation of the editorial published in The Hindu on 25.04.2003. On the basis of these publications, the Speaker referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges under Rule 226 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, for examination and report. 2. The Committee of Privileges met on 05.05.2003 to examine the news items, articles and editorials in question, and formed the opinion that certain statements contained therein constituted, prima facie, a breach of privilege. Notices were, accordingly, issued to the petitioners, calling upon them to appear before the Committee on 12.05.2003 and to furnish their explanation. The petitioners appeared before the Committee and sought time to submit NITIN TALREJA Date: 2026.10.09 17:34:43 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Mukul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Dhruv Grover, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly report that the matter has been settled. In fact a joint application being IA No.303250 of 2026 has been filed annexing the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement dated 22 nd September, 2026 reads as under: “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is executed between:

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. The appellants before us, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149; Section 307 read with Section 149; Section 148 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Trial Court. The appeals preferred by them before the High Court also came have been preferred.

[ HEARD BY : HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH AND HON'BLE SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ. ] IA No. 37734/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 34374/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING ANNEXTURES IA No. 207852/2026 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 34375/2026 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 241517/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 171221/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 170048/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 152166/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 145643/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 38658/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES Date : 08-10-2026 This matter was pronounced for order today. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritwik Parikh- 3608, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Delay condoned. 3. In view of the order we propose to pass, issuance of notice upon the respondent(s) is considered not necessary. 4. On 30.09.2026, we had passed the following order: “1. List this matter again on 08.10.2026. 2. In the meanwhile, we grant liberty to the appellant or his authorized representative to deposit the demand draft dated 29.07.2026 drawn on State Bank of India, Junagarh University Branch for an amount of ₹26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) 17:31:01 IST Reason:

1. These two contempt petitions have been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.28876/2016 and 2670/2025 and other connected Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5405/2023. On notice being issued of alleged contempt, compliance affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating thereunder that judgment / order / directions issued by this Court has been complied with. However, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners – complainants would vehemently contend that order passed by this Court has not been complied in letter and spirit and as such there is willful disobedience.

1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur, Odisha in Sessions Trial Case No.427 of 2009 and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life. 4. Appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence was rejected by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter), vide the judgment and order dated 29.07.2022.

1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Appellant had lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Faridabad (JMFC) on 20.10.2022, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was registered as NACT No.59289 of 2022. In the complaint, the respondents were arrayed as accused. Learned JMFC had issued summons pursuant to the summoning order dated 11.11.2022.

1. Leave granted. 2. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh whereby the appellant-accused’s appeal was partly allowed. Though the conviction was upheld, yet the sentence under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) was reduced from life imprisonment to 20 years rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the life sentence was the maximum sentence and the same was disproportionate given the appellant- accused’s age and circumstances.

Leave granted. The appellants have been arraigned as accused and seek regular bail in connection with FIR No.272/2025 dated 03.07.2025, registered with Police Station - New Mandi Gharsana, District – Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190, 103(1), 61(2), 332(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

IA No. 220115/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 09-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Azhar Assees, Adv. Ms. Rizwana R. Raj, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal- 909, AOR Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv.

1. Heard Mr. Pranay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for Reason: the State. 2. The present petition calls in question the correctness of the order dated 09-07-2026 in MCRC No.6120/2026 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. By the said order, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of bail in connection with FIR/Crime No.24/2024 registered with Kerlapal Police Station, District Sukuma, Chhattisgarh, for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(II)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).

This is a petition filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The petitioner has filed this transfer petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. Transfer the petition filed under Section 13(1A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing Case No.511/2022 titled as “Rakesh Barua Vs. Tanu Barua” pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharmshala, Himachal Pradesh to Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh; and b. Pass any such other order and further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

1. In the midst of hearing of today’s matters at about 01:00 p.m., an oral mentioning was made by Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Gopal 19:23:55 IST Reason: Sankaranarayanan, Mr. Hariharan N., Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel and Ms. Vrinda Grover, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, and other learned counsel, inter alia, pointing out two communications dated 08.10.2026 issued from the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range, New Delhi to the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (DMRC) and another communication dated 09.10.2026, which seems to have been issued to all the zonal railways. 2. Furthermore, a copy of the order dated 23.08.2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police purportedly exercising authority under Section 70 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which issues certain prohibitory directives, was also referenced.

Leave granted. This appeal challenges the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-32274-2026 (O&M). This Criminal Appeal arises out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.303/2025 dated 18.12.2025 lodged with Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana under Sections 115(2), 117(1), 126(2), 351(2), 191(3), 125, 190, 109 and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant was taken into custody in connection with the aforesaid crime on 20.12.2025. The appellant preferred CRM-M-32274-2026 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking regular bail.

1. We heard Ms. Mukta Gupta, the Chairperson of the Committee, Ms. Aparna Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appointed by us as Amicus, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, the learned ASG, as one of the members of the Committee constituted by this Court, and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, the learned Advocate General for the State of Bihar as the Convenor of the Committee. 2. Ms. Gupta, the learned Chairperson of the Committee has tendered her first Interim Status Report on the issues relating to Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021 and Surrogacy Clinics.

1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals have been filed challenging the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 2043/2023 and 920/2023, whereby, the learned Division Bench upheld the levy of sub-leasing charges by the respondent-SIPCOT, by allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent. Initially, the writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking to quash the communication dated 28.04.2014, wherein, the respondent issued a demand against the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.5,09,52,037/- along with the Service Tax at the rate of 12.36%, within a period of 90 days.

1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State of Punjab. 3. Appellant is aggrieved by order(s) dated 25.07.2024 and 25.02.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter). 4. Appellant was convicted by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala, Punjab vide the judgment and order dated 01.06.2018 for commission of offence under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default stipulation.

A) INTRODUCTION 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist, Anuj Kumar, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397, 399 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), read with the corresponding Sections 438, 440 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS"). The revisionist assails the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Court of Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court)-01/ND, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "the Ld. Trial Court") in Cr. Case No. 7683/2021 titled State v. Anuj Kumar, arising out of FIR No. 363/2019, P.S. IGI Airport, whereby charges for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(ii) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") were framed against him.

1. Vide this judgment the accused namely Ramvati W/o Sh. Harcharan is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009 in this case FIR No. 169/2019 police station Tigri by giving benefit of doubt for the reasons mentioned below. CASE OF PROSECUTION 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') is that on 22.06.2019 at about 09:30 PM at B-625, JJ Camp, Tigri, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of police station Tigri, the accused was apprehended by complainant/ Ct. Virender upon suspicion while the complainant was on patrolling duty. As per the prosecution story the accused was apprehended in possession of 96 quarter bottles of illicit liquor, without any permit or license of National Capital Territory of Delhi in contravention of notification issued by Gov. of NCT of Delhi.

1. Vide this judgment the accused namely Smt. Urmila Singh W/o Sh. Sh. Jai Ram Singh is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act, 2009 in this case FIR No. 359/2020 police station Sangam Vihar by giving benefit of doubt for the reasons mentioned below. CASE OF PROSECUTION 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') is that on 18.06.2020 at about 05:30 PM at H. No. 309, F-3 Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of police station Sangam Vihar, the accused was apprehended by complainant/ Ct. Kalu Ram upon suspicion while the complainant was on patrolling duty. As per the prosecution story the accused was apprehended in possession of 98 CR Cases 354/2021 State Vs. Smt. Urmila Singh quarter bottles of illicit liquor, without any permit or license of National Capital Territory of Delhi in contravention of notification issued by Gov. of NCT of Delhi.

1. The brief facts of the case are that the accused has been charge sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 356/379/411 IPC. The allegations against the accused are that on 17.08.2012 at about 03:20 pm at Gali No.2-A, Zero Block, Krishna Nagar near A 2/52, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, the accused used criminal force and committed theft of gold chain belonging to the complainant and on 19.08.2012, the accused was found in possession of the gold chain mentioned above from under the seat of his motorcycle, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 356/379/411 IPC.

1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2022 at about State V. Suman @ Pooja. FIR No. 263/2022 Page No. 1 of 15 06:45 pm at Gali No. 18, Jeevan Park, Siraspur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS, SP Badli, Delhi, accused was found in possession of illicit liquor (as per seizure memo X) without any permit or license. 2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned. Arguments were heard and thereafter, charge was framed u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act against the accused on 29.11.2024 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined four witnesses.

Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 25 Arms Act. 2. The story of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., at Hussain Chowk, Tigri, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Tigri, the accused was found in possession of one un-licensed country made pistol (katta) and one live cartridge from the right pocket of his lower (pajama) and thereby committed an offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. The same was seized and taken into possession by the police. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. 3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of the charge- sheet and other annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity 'CrPC') were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against him vide order of this Court dated 07.10.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

1. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 22.09.2014 at about 10:00 p.m., in the gali outside House No. 136, Nehru Kutia, Malkaganj, Delhi, a quarrel arose over a motorcycle parked by a tenant of Sunil Kain. It is alleged that the accused persons, acting with common intention, wrongfully restrained Vishnu, Sunil, Kiran and Mohro Devi and beat them, thereby causing simple injuries. Based on the complaint, FIR was lodged u/S 323/341/34 IPC. According to the investigation, a police call about the quarrel was received on the night of the incident. The parties had already gone to Hindu Rao Hospital when the IO reached the locality. Their medical examination was conducted, but no statement was given to the IO that night. On 25.09.2014, Vishnu went to the police station and made complaint Ex. PW-1/A. A rukka was prepared and FIR No. 479/2014 was registered. The site plan was thereafter prepared and the witnesses were examined. A separate case, FIR No. 478/2014, was also registered on the complaint of the opposite party concerning the same occurrence.

1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.02.2021 at about 07:30 pm at Shivpuri, Gali No. 15F, Near House No. RZ-526/405, Near Nala, Sagarpur, New Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one white colour katta containing 152 quarter bottles of illicit liquor, with each bottle having label of "NY Raseela Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for Sale in Haryana only 180 ML" for which she did not possess any license or permit issued by the Excise Authority. 2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.PC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and chargesheet was presented in the court u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act on 13.07.2022.

A: Factual Matrix of the Case 1. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the present complaint case is that the complainant and the accused are known to each other through the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the complainant namely Sh. Brij Mohan Chopra. The accused approached the complainant for investment in his catering and banqueting business namely M/s Silver Petals at Plot no. 9D, Terrace Floor, Aditya Mega Mall, CBD Shahdara, Delhi. Accordingly, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in June-July 2016. 2. Upon demand of repayment, the accused gave an amount of Rs.10,000 in cash and further issued a cheque in favour of the complainant bearing no. 382571 dated 21.12.2017 amounting to Rs. 4,90,000 drawn on Dena Bank, Branch-Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter "cheque in question") in discharge of his liability. The said cheque in question when presented, was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 14.03.2018 for reason "Funds Insufficient". The complainant accordingly, sent a legal notice dated 12.04.2018 to the accused demanding the payment SHUBHANGI of cheque amount in question within fifteen days of receipt of the SRIVASTAVA notice. The accused when failed to pay, the complainant filed the Ct. Case No. 4134/2018 Rajeev Kapoor vs. Dinesh Kumar Narang 2/16 present complaint against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act").

1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 27.04.2018 at about 11:00 am at House No. RZ-B-1560, Gali No. 6, Main Sagarpur, New Delhi, the accused persons were found in possession of quarter bottles filled with illicit liquor as per seizure memo i.e. Mark A, for which they did not possess any license or permit issued by the Excise Authority. 2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.PC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused persons and chargesheet was presented in the court u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act on 04.02.2019.

1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.10.2023 at about 09:10 pm at RZ-238, Brahmpuri, Sagarpur near Railway Line South West Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one plastic sack containing 76 quarter bottles each filled with illicit liquor, having label of "ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharaab for Sale in Haryana only" for which she did not possess any license or permit issued by the Excise Authority. 2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.PC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and chargesheet was presented in the court u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act on 08.07.2024.

1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.05.2023 at about 06:20 pm at RZ-238, Brahmpuri, Sagarpur near Railway Line South West Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one plastic sack containing 90 quarter bottles each filled with illicit liquor, having label of "ADS Fresh Motta Masaledar Desi Sharaab for Sale in Haryana only 180 ML" for which she did not possess any license or permit issued by the Excise Authority. 2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.PC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and chargesheet was presented in the court u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act on 08.07.2024.

(i) Date when judgment was 05.09.2026 reserved (j) Date of judgment 15.09.2026 BRIEF FACTS Digitally signed by ARJINDER ARJINDER KAUR 1 The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 18.02.2017 the KAUR Date: 2026.09.15 17:10:06 +0530 accused Mukesh Kumar was found at a shop at Punja Sharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, and that certain articles bearing the Bosch mark were recovered/seized from the premises. The prosecution alleges that the articles were counterfeit/spurious and that their possession/use infringed the copyright and trademark rights of the complainant. The charge dated 03.07.2019 records allegations under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.

A: Factual Matrix of the Case 1. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the present complaint case is that the accused is in the business of gymnasium and wanted to expand his business. Accordingly, the complainant proposed to arrange a place for the business of the accused. Both the parties entered in an understanding/agreement dated 01.11.2007, wherein, the accused agreed to pay for the services of the complainant that shall be equal to one month of revenue in case the deal gets materialized and further agreed to pay three months revenue in case deal gets materialized for 15 years. 2. As per the agreement, the complainant arranged a place located at Pacific Sports Complex, Inside Kendraiya Vidyala, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter "premises in question") for the accused belonging to one Sh. Prem Pal Kathuria. The accused and Sh. Prem Pal Kathuria entered in an operation and maintenance contract (O&MC) dated 28.11.2007. The said contract was for a period of 15 years and hence, the accused was liable to pay three months revenue to the complainant.

1. The accused has faced trial for offences u/s 279/338 IPC. 2. Stated succinctly, the facts as mentioned in the FIR are that on 05.04.2006 at about 07.30 PM, near building material Shop, Peer Baba Road, Sector 20-21, main dividing road, the accused allegedly hit the motorcycle of the complainant bearing no. DL-3SY-2692 (hereinafter ABHINAV SINGH FIR No. 538/2006 State Vs. Hari Kumar Page No. 1 of 13 Date: 2026.09.18 Dated: 18.09.2026 referred to as "damaged vehicle") while driving tempo no. HR-46A-3840 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of other. It is further alleged that on the above said date, place and time, due to the above driving of the accused, grievous hurt was caused to the complainant namely Devender Gupta, and therefore, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable U/s 279/338 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.07.2022 at about 07:30 pm at I Block, Near Gali No. 8, infront of Naala Road, Sagarpur, New Delhi, the accused was found in possession of four gatta petis (cartons) filled with 48 quarter bottles each of illicit liquor, each bottle having label of 'High Impact Deluxe Whiskey, 180 ML' (total 192 quarter bottles) for which he did not possess any license or permit issued by the Excise Authority. 2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.PC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and chargesheet was presented in the court u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act on 03.08.2024.

1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 08.03.2023 at about 11:45 PM, near Royal Enfield Service Station, Gurjar Gali, Chandan Hola, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Fatehpur Beri, accused Shiv Kumar was found in possession of illicit liquor as per seizure memo Mark A, without having any license or permit issued by the Excise authorities in Delhi and thereby, he committed an offence punishable u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act. 2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offence was taken by Ld. Predecessor on 20.02.2024 and accused was duly summoned. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and a formal charge for commission of offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused on 07.04.2026 by Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 25(1B) Arms Act. 2. The story of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2020 at about 4.00 p.m., at entry point Maidan Garhi cut road, Chattarpur, New Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Tigri, the accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife and thereby committed an offence under Section 25(1B) of Arms Act. The same was seized and taken into possession by the police. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. 3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of the charge- sheet and other annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity 'CrPC') were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 25(1B) Arms Act was framed against him vide order of this Court dated 22.08.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

BRIEF FACTS, COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE 1. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.2026 at about 7:25 PM in front of HMP Park, Ganda Nala Road, Khyala, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Khayla, accused Raju was found in possession of one buttondar knife in violation of notification issued under section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the present charge-sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') seeking interim relief in the nature of appointment of a Receiver to take possession of vehicle /Tractor make SWARAJ MAHINDRA bearing registration no. RJ09RE3151, Engine no. 391355SEM25450 and Chassis No. MBNAN48ADNTM40050. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and registered as a Non-Banking Finance Company under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is engaged in the business of providing Loans/ Financial facilities for purchase of vehicles and agricultural equipment.