Employee Compensation Claim – Dismissal of Claim for Lack of Employer-Employee Relationship – Death of Brij Kishore Gupta @ Brij Kishore Sah while plying vehicle TSR No. DL-lRF-0941 – Claim based on assertion of employment with Respondent No.1, but dismissed due to insufficient evidence establishing an employer-employee relationship. [Paras 1, 9]

Factual Background – Deceased was purportedly the employee of respondent No.1, involved in an accident resulting in his death – Claimants sought compensation under Employee Compensation Act, 1923. [Paras 2-3]

Respondent’s Submission – Respondent No. 1 denied any employment relationship with the deceased, stating the vehicle was driven on a sharing basis – Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) also denied liability for compensation. [Paras 4-5]

Issues Considered – Primary issues included the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No. 1, and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment. [Para 6]

Labour Commissioner's Findings – Both issues regarding the employer-employee relationship and the connection of the accident with employment were answered negatively – Reliance placed on case law to support conclusions. [Paras 7, 13]

High Court’s Analysis – The High Court upheld the Commissioner’s decision on the employer-employee relationship but noted a flaw in the reasoning regarding the applicability of the Employee Compensation Act to cases of murder during employment. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to failure to prove employer-employee relationship – Academic note on the applicability of Employee Compensation Act in cases of murder during employment. [Para 11]

Property and Tenancy Dispute – Eviction and Recovery of Arrears – Appeal challenging judgment of Additional District Judge and Senior Civil Judge for eviction of Rajender Bhardwaj (Appellant) and recovery of arrears and user charges – Dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal by First Appellate Court and upholding Trial Court's order. [Paras 1, 4]

Legal Principles for Second Appeal – Limited scope of second appeal under CPC – Supreme Court's precedent in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamal outlining criteria for substantial question of law in second appeals – Appellant's arguments primarily factual, not raising substantial legal questions. [Paras 5-6, 29]

Undertaking and Extension of Time for Vacating Property – Appellant's undertaking to vacate property by 21.01.2024 – Conditional agreement to pay increased user charges in case of non-compliance – Extension granted for vacating property, subject to the fulfillment of undertakings. [Para 7]

Execution Stayed and Directions for Compliance – Stay on execution of decree until 21.01.2024 – Appellant directed to file affidavit of undertaking and appear before Executing Court for handing over possession. [Para 8]

Appeal Outcome – Disposal of appeal with upholding of judgments of First Appellate Court and Trial Court – Decree of possession affirmed. [Para 9]

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Associate Decor Limited – Challenge to the minutes of the 22^nd Committee of Creditors meeting for being non est and illegal – Petitioner contending inadequate notice period for Committee of Creditors’ meeting contrary to Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations. [Paras 3, 7, 9, 13-15]

Notice Requirements and Legal Provisions – Insufficiency in notice period for the Committee of Creditors meeting – Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations necessitate a minimum notice period, reducible to 24 hours – Inadequate notice rendering the meeting and its resolutions unsustainable and non est. [Paras 14-15]

Resolution Professional Conduct – Allegations against the resolution professional’s conduct in the insolvency resolution process – Petitioner’s claims of hurried proceedings and erroneous information memorandum – Court reserving the petitioner’s liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI under Section 196 of the Code. [Paras 15-16]

Reconsideration of Restructuring Proposal – Directive for the Committee of Creditors to reconsider the petitioner’s restructuring proposal under Section 12A of the Code in light of the quashed resolutions. [Para 17]

Decision – Writ petition allowed in part – Resolutions of the 19^th Committee of Creditors meeting dated 11-02-2020 and the minutes of the 22^nd meeting dated 21-12-2022 quashed – Petitioner granted liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI – Committee of Creditors directed to reconsider the restructuring proposal. [Paras 18(i)-(vi)]

Input Tax Credit & Special Rebate under KVAT Act – Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 – Petitioners, rubber dealers, entitled to input tax credit and special rebate under Sections 11 and 12 of KVAT Act for tax paid on local rubber purchases. [Para 2]

Exemption Notifications and Inter-State Sales – Notification under Section 8(5) of CST Act exempting natural rubber from CST – Impact on input tax credit for inter-state sales exempted from tax under 3^rd proviso to Section 11(3) and Section 12(1) of KVAT Act. [Paras 3, 7]

Assessment Authority’s View – Disallowance of input tax credit and special rebate for inter-state sales of exempted goods under Annexures-I and II notifications, despite actual payment of CST under Section 8(1) of CST Act. [Para 3]

Appellate Tribunal Decision – Adjustment of CST paid on inter-state sales against demands raised due to disallowance of input tax credit, based on Annexure-VII notification clarifying the optionality of Annexures-I and II notifications. [Para 4]

High Court Judgment – Disposal of revisions without modification, affirming Tribunal’s limited relief. Exemption notifications not optional in statutory context, affecting input tax credit entitlement. Questions of law answered against assesses and in favor of Revenue. [Para 7]

Setting aside ex parte composite award – Appellant filed appeals against the order dismissing applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte award – Appellant claimed summons were never served and proper address not given – Appellant learned of ex parte award later and filed applications – Court considers the sufficiency of cause to set aside the ex parte award. [Para 1-5]

Service of summons – Summons were sent to the appellant’s given address, and lastly, to appear on 26.5.2008 – Summons received by appellant’s father, but no representation on behalf of the appellant on the fixed date – Appellant proceeded against ex parte – Appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for non-appearance. [Para 11-13]

Dismissal of appeals – Court finds no reason to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings – Appeals dismissed as devoid of merits. [Para 14]

Bail Application – Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.PC – Petitioner charged under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Recovery of contraband – Allegation of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner's claim of false implication – First-time offender – Lengthy custody period – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on bail in similar cases [Para 1-9]

Bail – Consideration of bail in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Recovery of commercial quantity of contraband – Substantial compliance with Section 37 – Importance of Article 21 (right to a speedy trial) – Grant of bail without expressing views on merits of the case – Conditions imposed on petitioner's release [Para 8-12]

Registration of Rice Mill - Petitioner seeks setting aside of order rejecting its application for final registration of rice mill - Petitioner purchased mill in auction and applied for allotment of paddy - Respondent rejected registration on the ground of inadequate land size - Petitioner claims to have obtained additional land on lease - Court examines relevant policy and instructions. [Para 1-3]

Ownership of Land - Instructions state that a new mill should be established on own land and cannot be on leased land - Petitioner purchased mill along with land in public auction - Court finds no dispute regarding ownership of the land - Petitioner is having sufficient plant and machinery - Policy allows rice millers to obtain land on lease within 4 kilometers. [Para 7-8]

Allocation of Paddy - Respondent had previously allotted paddy to the petitioner from 2017 to 2022 - Claim rejected based on instructions dated 13.08.2013 - Court considers the time-sensitive nature of the paddy allocation - Directs the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim for paddy allotment within two weeks. [Para 9-10]

Decision - Court orders the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim for paddy allotment based on the petitioner's ownership of land and compliance with policy provisions regarding additional leased land - Needful to be done within two weeks. [Para 11]

Administrative Law – Allotment of Petrol Pump – Petitioner's candidature for the allotment of petrol station canceled due to non-disclosure of 1 marla land abutting the road – Violation of terms and conditions of the brochure – Petitioner's contention that the land could be ignored for allotment – Respondent's insistence on compliance with brochure's conditions. [Para 1-8]

Decision – Petitioner's petition seeking to set aside the cancellation of candidature dismissed – Respondent's rejection of candidature upheld due to non-disclosure of the 1 marla land – No manifest arbitrariness or mala fide intention found on the part of the respondent – Dismissal of the petition does not preclude the petitioner from applying for future allotments. [Para 9-10]

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other sections – Petitioner claims false implication and absence from the incident scene – State opposes bail citing gravity of allegations and common intention of an unlawful assembly – Court examines evidence, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and rejects bail application. [Para 1-11]

Legal Precedent – Reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and another' – Emphasis on the non-consideration of individual roles when accused are part of an unlawful assembly and charged with serious offenses – Application of this principle to the present case. [Para 10]

Decision – Bail application dismissed considering the gravity of allegations and the common intention of an unlawful assembly – Petitioner's claim of false implication not accepted based on evidence, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. [Para 11]