# T.T. Ltd. & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1115
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1253 of 2020
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/t-t-ltd-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53913
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1 All. T.T. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1115

50. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the
necessity of proper pleadings and proof are concerned, this Court finds that the said authorities
relate to civil and election disputes governed by strict rules of pleadings. The present proceedings
being statutory and quasi-judicial in nature, cast an affirmative duty upon the authorities to conduct
a fair, objective, and comprehensive enquiry. In the present case, there is no deficiency in the
pleadings of the petitioner; rather, there is a manifest failure on the part of the authorities to
adjudicate the objections in accordance with law.

The impugned orders also suffer from internal inconsistencies and mutually destructive
findings. While certain infirmities in the order of the Prescribed Authority were acknowledged by
the Appellate Authority, effective and complete relief was not granted, resulting in a limited and
self-contradictory remand. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of appellate scrutiny and
undermines the principles of fair adjudication.

51. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders dated 29.05.1997 passed by
the Prescribed Authority and the appellate order dated 18.07.1998 are vitiated by errors apparent on
the face of record, non-consideration of relevant material, misapplication of law, and procedural
irregularities. The said orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

52. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated
29.05.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate order dated 18.07.1998 are hereby
quashed.

53. The declaration of surplus land against the deceased petitioner stands set aside. The
respondents are directed to treat the petitioner"s holding in accordance with law and in consonance
with the findings recorded herein.

54. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1115
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1253 of 2020

T.T. Ltd. & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Whether prima facie offence is made out?
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 -Mandatory requirement of collecting the
sample as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act, 1974 -can be looked into by the trial court-this Court lacks
that jurisdiction to do trial-in discharge proceedings- the Court has to see whether the material collected on
record do constitute the offence or not-it cannot be said that the offence is not made out. Application
rejected. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 282;
2. Kewal Krishna S/o Lachman Das Vs. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 SC 1780: 1980 Supp(1) SCC 499.

List of Acts
1. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Trial; jurisdiction; constitute the offence

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aarohi Bhalla, Saima Khan, Shilpi Jain Sharma, Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for
Opposite Party(s) : G.A., A.K.Verma

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.368 of 2011, U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s T.T. Limited and others,
under Section 43/44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short ?the
Act, 1974?) as well as the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.303 of 2015 and the orders dated
08.07.2015 and 19.02.2020 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/C.B.I., Lucknow.

2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that applicant no.1, T.T. Limited, is a
company having its registered office at 879, Master Prithvi Nath Marg, Opp. Azmal Khan Park,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi engaged in the business of Cotton Yarn and Knitted Fabric. It carries out
the non-polluting process of manufacturing yarn through its mill, namely, Gajroula Spinning Mill
at Gajroula, which is 100% eco friendly and there is no use of water in the factory and as such no
trade effluent is discharged from the factory. Applicant no.2 was the Chairman and Managing
Director of the company at that time and he has engaged Sri. B.C. Jain, applicant no.5, as Factory
Manager (Occupier) and Vice President (Technical), who was responsible for the day-to-day affairs
of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.3 was the Director of the company at the relevant time and was
not looking after the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.4 was the Secretary of
the company at that time and he was also not looking after the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula
Unit. Applicant no.5 was the Factory Manager (Occupier) and Vice President (Technical) of the
company and was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.6 was
the Director of the company at that time and he was not looking after the day-to-day activity of the
Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.7 was the Vice President (Sales and Marketing) of the company at that
time. Moreover, he is sitting and working at the Corporate Office, New Delhi only and has nothing
to do with the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.8 was the Administrative
1 All. T.T. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
Officer of the company at that time and he was also sitting and working at the Corporate Office,
New Delhi and had nothing to do with the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit and presently he
is retired. Applicant nos.9, 10 and 11 were independent non-executive Directors of the company at
that time and were not involved in day-to-day affairs of the company.

3. It is stated that the Companies Act, 1956 does not provide the specific definition of an
independent Director, but independent Directors are non-executive Director of a company, who
helps the company in improving corporate credibility and governance standards. It is pertinent to
mention here that all the Directors of applicant no.1 are respectable personalities having good
reputation in the society and applicant no.9 is the recipient of the Padam Shree Award.

4. It is further stated that applicant no.1 had established a residential colony 500 meters away
from the factory for the residential purpose of the employees working in its factory at Gajroula.
Further, establishment of applicant no.1 is engaged in the manufacturing of yarn from cotton, in
which there is no scope of any kind of water pollution as there is no industrial use of water at all
and there is no effluent generated, hence no trade effluent is being discharged. It is alleged that
while establishing its unit in the name and style of ?M/s Gajroula Spinning Mills?, applicant no.1
applied vide its application dated 25.04.1989 for No Objection Certificate under Section 25(2) of
the Act, 1974 and the same was obtained from the U.P. Pollution Control Board in 1992 vide letter
dated 17.12.1992. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the said No Objection Certificate,
applicant no.1 was permitted to discharge 2500 Litres water for the purpose of domestic use via
Soak Pit and Septic Tank. It is stated that since 1992, applicant no.1 bona fidely and continuously
has been moving an application for consent from opposite party no.2 and deem acceptance was
always granted under Section 25(7) of the Act, 1974. It is worthwhile to mention here that opposite
party no.2 sometime also granted specific consent.

5. It is stated that on 05.05.2011, officials of opposite party no.2 visited the Gajroula Unit for
the purpose of enquiry under Section 25/26 of the Act, 1974 without any notice to the Occupier or
any other authorized Person. It is worthwhile to mention here that they took sample from the input
of soak pit meant for domestic discharge of the residential premises without compliance of the
provisions of Section 21 of the Act, 1974. It is also to be mentioned that upon enquiry under
Section 25(3) of the Act, 1974, the Pollution Control Board may refuse to grant the consent under
Section 25(4) of the Act, 1974. However, in the present case, application filed by applicant no.1 on
25.03.2011 was neither refused nor returned; thus, it deemed as granted under the purview of
Section 25(7) of the Act, 1974. Moreover, Section 27 of the Act, 1974 provides that Board may
refuse or withdraw its consent, which is appealable under Section 28 of the Act, 1974. Further,
Section 21 of the Act, 1974 provides power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be
followed in connection therewith, which provides the mandatory requirement of service of notice
on person in-charge of or having control over i.e. Occupier, but the same was never complied with
by opposite party no.2.

6. It is further stated that on 23.12.2011, opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case No.368 of
2011 with the allegation that the industry is discharging 'Trade Effluent" without having any
consent and made Directors, employees and independent Directors as party to the complaint
without any averments against them under Section 47 of the Act, 1974. It was also alleged in the
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint that site of the industry was inspected on 05.05.2011 in presence of Sri. P.L. Lohia, who
is neither Occupier nor his agent nor authorized person, and it was found that the industry was
functional despite the fact that it had no consent under the provisions of the Act, 1974 and the same
time sample was collected from its premises. The sample was sent to the Laboratory and according
to the analysis report dated 11.05.2011, it was not found to be within the standards laid down by the
Board. It is said that the complaint was itself contradictory to the inspection report annexed to it,
which only points out mere suspicion of pollution by domestic discharge. The inspection report is
also defective as admitted sample from domestic discharge was compared with the standard laid
down for Trade Effluent. However, the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/C.B.I Lucknow
without applying its judicial mind, took cognizance vide order dated 28.02.2012.

7. Being aggrieved, applicants approached this Court by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No.5183 of 2012 challenging the complaint as well as the summoning order and had raised various
legal procedures/provisions of the Act, 1974, which were not followed, violated by the opposite
parties while conducting the alleged inspection on 05.05.2011. It is also prayed by the applicants
that provisions of Section 43/44 of the Act, 1974 are not attracted in the present case. A coordinate
Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, passed an order on 09.07.2013 with the observation
that all the factual and legal aspects advanced by the applicants cannot be looked into by this Court
and it is the trial court which can appreciate the entire facts.

8. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, applicants furnished personal bond of
each applicant and filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. before the trial court. However,
the trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 08.07.2015. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the applicants approached this Court again by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No.3959 of 2015, but the said application was rejected as withdrawn on 19.08.2015 with liberty to
the applicants to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, applicants filed Criminal Revision
No.303 of 2015 before the revisional court, which too was dismissed by the revisional court vide
order dated 23.01.2020.

9. It is stated that while rejecting the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C moved by the
applicants, the Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that applicants have also voluntarily got
installed a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to discharge the residential colonies toilet water. The
residential colonies have been constructed exclusively for the employees and their families in a
separate compound. The sample collected from these residential colony Pit is not an "Industrial
Effluent" or "Trade Effluent" as defined in the Act, 1974. A bare perusal of the complaint itself
indicates the aforesaid fact. The trial court also failed to appreciate the fact that applicants no.9 to
11 were the independent Directors of the company and hence they were not responsible for the dayto-day activity as well as running the business of the Industry. Moreover, in the complaint itself
nothing has been pleaded nor any role has been alleged or assigned to these applicants. It is stated
that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that only B.C. Jain is handling the day-to-day affairs
of the company in the capacity of 'Occupier' while rest of the applicants were not personally
responsible.

10. It is further stated that residential colony of the employees of the company is more than
500 meters away from the factory premises and the sample, as per the complaint itself, has been
1 All. T.T. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1119
alleged to have been collected from the pit of the residential colony. Thus, it is clear that the factory
is situated at different premises and the residential colony is situated at different premises. A bare
perusal of the definition makes it clear that domestic sewage does not fall within the ambit of ?trade
effluent?, hence the instant complaint prima facie is not maintainable under Section 43/44 of the
Act, 1974 as there is no violation of the provisions of Section 24, 25 and 26 of the Act, 1974. It is
also relevant to mention here that for invocation of Section 21 of the Act, 1974 for collection of
sample, the pre-requisite has been elaborated under sub-section (3), (4) and (5) of Section 21 of the
Act, 1974. However, in the instant case, the pre-requisite has been completely done away with by
the authority concerned, who allegedly took the sample from the septic tank installed in the
residential colony of the employees. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any notice to
have been served on the person elucidated under sub-section (3) (a) of Section 21 of the Act. Nonobservance of the mandatory requirement as defined under the provisions of the Act, 1974 vitiates
the entire proceedings.

11. Sri Murtaza Ali, learned Senior Advocate, for the applicants has submitted that as per
Section 25(7) of the Act, 1974, it is clear that application given by the applicants for the consent
shall, unless given or refused earlier, be deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry
of a period of four months of the making of an application in this behalf complete all in all respects
to the State Board. The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that applicants have also voluntarily
got installed a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to discharge the residential colonies toilets water.
The sample collected from the residential colony is not an ?industrial effluent? or ?trade effluent?
as defined in the Act, 1974. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the
attention of the Court towards Section 2(k) of the Act, 1974, which postulates that ?trade effluent?
includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any premises used for
carrying on any industry, operation or process, or treatment and disposal system other than
domestic sewage. It has been submitted that the sample was collected from the Sewage Treatment
Plant installed for the residential purposes, but the same was tested treating it to be ?trade effluent?,
but this material fact has been ignored by the trial court while issuing summons against the
applicants.

12. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has further submitted that while collecting the
sample, the statutory requirement as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act, 1974 has been done
away by the authority concerned. The sampling of the sewage is pertaining to the residential colony
and the same is not pertaining to trade affluent, therefore, the proceedings instituted by opposite
party no.2 is vitiated in fact and law both. In support of his contention, learned Senior Advocate for
the applicants has placed reliance upon the following decisions:-

1. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1972) 3 SCC 282;

2. Kewal Krishna S/o Lachman Das Vs. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 SC 1780:
1980 Supp(1) SCC 499.

13. On the other hand, Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board
has taken serious objection against the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicants and has submitted that applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing Application
U/s 482 No.5183 of 2012 challenging the summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings.
The said application was disposed of by a coordinate Bench this Court vide order dated 09.07.2013
with the observation that all the factual and legal aspects advanced by the applicants cannot be
looked into by this Court and it is the trial court, which can appreciate the entire facts. This Court
has further observed that whether the sample has been properly collected after observing the
statutory formalities, is also a question of fact which can be scanned by the trial court. Similarly,
this Court has further observed that whether the consent was refused or not, is also a question of
fact, for which evidence is required. The question of facts are to be seen on the basis of material
available on record by the trial court and this Court cannot go into the factual matrix of the case
like the trial court.

14. Learned counsel for the Pollution Board has invited the attention of the Court towards the
provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 1974, according to which the consent shall be given after
completing all the formalities in all respects to the State Board. In the present case, all the
formalities were not completed and the application filed by the applicants was returned by the
Board to complete the necessary formalities. He has also invited the attention of the Court towards
Section 2(d), which says that ?occupier? means in relation to any factory or premises means the
person who has control over the affairs of the factory or the premises, and includes in relation to
any substance, the person in possession of the substance and the ?sewage effluent? means effluent
from any sewerage system or sewage disposal works and includes sullage from open drains.

15. Learned counsel for the Pollution Board has further submitted that the inspection report
dated 05.05.2011 itself shows that the factory is using cotton as a material and there is production
of cotton yarn and fabrics. The only outlet being the safety tank, from there the sample was
collected and it was found that the discharge was obnoxious and not even conforming to the norms
prescribed for sewage. Therefore, the complaint has been filed and it is a mater of evidence to be
proved during the trial that whether there was any trade effluent in the sample or not, and for that
purpose consent was necessarily to be obtained.

16. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that while exercising its
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and hearing the discharge application, this Court has got very
limited jurisdiction. After bare perusal of the complaint, the charges are made and this Court cannot
weigh the evidence. It has been submitted that applicants have already challenged the summoning
order as well as the entire proceedings by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5183 of 2012,
which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2013 with the observation that all the
issues raised by the applicants have to be decided by the trial court; thus, this Court cannot be
review the finding recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

18. The arguments advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants regarding
Section 25(7) of the Act, 1974 as well as the mandatory requirement of collecting the sample as
envisaged under Section 21 of the Act, 1974 can be looked into by the trial court. This Court while
exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot weigh the evidences for a definite finding,
1 All. T.T. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1121
for which the evidences are to be adduced and this Court lacks that jurisdiction to do trial. The
evidences also required on the point whether the effluent was pertaining to trade effluent or
pertaining to a Sewage Treatment Plant installed by the company for the residences of the
employees. The applicants have already challenged the summoning order as well as the entire
criminal proceedings by way of filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5183 of 2012 and the said
application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2013 with the observation that for
all the factual and legal aspects advanced by the applicants? counsel, the only remedy is trial. For
the sake of convenience, the order dated 09.07.2013 is quoted below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
pollution board and learned AGA.

A criminal complaint having No. 368 of 2011 (U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s T.T.
Limited & 11 others) has been filed for prosecution of the accused persons under Section 43/44 of
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The allegations in short made in the complaint are that there is contravention of Section
25 of the Act regarding discharge of sewage. It was also contended that on 5th May, 2011 the
industry was inspected by the officer authorised by the Board in presence of opposite party No.2,
Sr. P.L. Lohia. It was found that industry was functional the industry was being run without
consent under the Act. During inspection, it was further found that effluent treatment plant was not
installed by the industry and untreated effluent was being discharged. The notice in this regard was
given on the same day. The sample was also taken of the trade effluent discharged from the sewage
collection pit of the industry and the sample was analyzed in laboratory authorised by the Board
and found substandard. The report was communicated by letter dated 04.10.2011 to the company.
The aforesaid act of company was said to be in breach of Section 24 of the Act and as the
punishable under Section 43 of the Act. Para 10 of the complaint relates to status of the opposite
parties (petitioner in this petition) in the company. They have been shown that they being incharge
of day to day business of the company and as such liable to be proceeded against them under the
Act. The court took cognizance to issue process based on such allegation against the petitioners
and opposite party No.3.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the company has already
nominated the person responsible for running the business and dealing with the issue by specific
resolution which has also been communicated under the provision of factories Act to authorities
under the Factories Act. It was further submitted that the sample collected in this case is not in
conformity with the statutory provision contained in the Act and in view of Section 21 (3) of the Act,
the report not is at all admissible. It was further submitted that no notice has been issued before
inspection or taking sample. Mr. P.L. Lohia has no concerned with the factory.

It was further submitted that no effluent is being discharged from the manufacturer unit
the inspection was made of residential premises of the factory and not of the manufacturing unit.

So far as the liability of the Directors are concerned para 10 of the complaint have
averment in this regarding. However, it is a question of fact which has to be decided by the trial
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court whether person responsible has been arrayed in complaint or the complaint to proceed
against whom ?.

Similarly, the question whether sample has been properly collected after observing the
statutory formalities is also a question of fact which has been scanned by the trial court.

Whether the consent was refused or not is also a question of fact because it is not in
dispute that later seeking consent has been returned to the petitioners company. According to the
counsel for the petitioner mere return of application will not amount to refusal. Hence no offence
under Section 44 of the Act is made out.

The evidence is required on the point as to whether the treatment plant has been installed
in pursuance of the direction issued by the Board after returning of the application or not. As the
question of fact are to be scanned on the basis of material available on record by the trial court
and it is not expected from this Court to go into factual matrix of the case like a trial court.

Hence petition is finally disposed of with the following directions that in case the
petitioners appear before the court below and moved any application raising all these points before
trial court, the court shall decide the question on the basis of material available on record.

It is directed that in case the petitioners' presence is not required for the disposal of the
proceedings they should not compel to appear each and every date. Necessary order of exemption
may be passed in case any application is moved for that purpose. If the objection, if any, are raised
before the trial court, the trial court shall dispose of the same within a reasonable time and
preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.

In case the petitioner Nos.1 to 11 appear before the trial court, they may be released on
personal bond till the disposal of their objections. After disposal of the objection if presence of the
petitioners are still required during the trial the court may consider to continue the petitioners
either on the personal bond or pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.

With this observation, the petition is finally disposed of."

19. The aforesaid finding recorded by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of
litigation cannot be reversed while hearing the discharge application. It is settled law that in
discharge proceedings, the Court has to see whether the material collected on record do constitute
the offence or not. After bare perusal of the complaint and other material on record, it cannot be
said that the offence is not made out. This Court while hearing the discharge application cannot do
mini trial or weigh the evidences. The grounds raised by the applicants can only be looked into by
the trial court after adducing the evidence on record.

20. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
1 All. Vishal Kumar Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1123

21. However, the trial court is directed to release the applicants on the personal bonds already
furnished by them as they are very old and infirm. In case appearance of the applicants is required
for framing of charges and other proceedings, the trial court is directed to take the assistance of
video conferencing. The trial will be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law without
giving any unnecessary adjournments.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1123
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3721 of 2021

Vishal Kumar Saroj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to maintainability of second complaint after rejection of protest petition in first FIR.

Headnotes
Maintainability of second complaint-Brothers and father of the applicant were brutally murdered by the
brother and nephew of opposite party no.2- FIR was lodged- out of retaliation-opposite party no.2 filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.- FIR- final report was filed- protest- rejected- Criminal Revision -
dismissed -opposite party no.2 also moved an application for further investigation before the Chief Minister of
U.P.- the matter was inquired -report submitted that final report was filed after fair investigation-the opposite
party no.2 filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate on the same very incident which was mentioned in
the FIR lodged by opposite party no.2- summon issued-under challenge- once the negative report/final report
on the original complaint was accepted after rejecting the written objection/protest petition-on the same set
of facts, complaint under Section 2(D) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as second complaint. Application allowed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary & others Versus The State of Assam & another, 2024 INSC 834
2. Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha, 2024 INSC 46
3. Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 INSC 399
4. Amar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 7 SCC 69
5. Ramjas Foundation and another vs. Union of India and others (2010) 14 SCC 38
6. Smt. Ramendri vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/s 482 No.5094 of 2021), decided on 24.2.2022
7. Yogeshwar Raj Nagar and another vs. State of U.P. and another -Matters Under Article 224 No.4173 of
2018-Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:31994.
8. Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Another, (2003) 1 SCC 734
9. Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1015 of 2019 SLP (Crl.) No.9654 of 2017- decided
on 09.07.2018
10. Samta Naidu v. State of M.P., 2020 (1) ACC 660 (SC)

List of Acts