Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Vineet Kumar Dubey on 21 February, 2013
W.A. No.936/2009
21.2.2013
Parties present.
Heard on I A No.1793/2013 an application for early
hearing of the appeal.
Considering the controversy involved in the case, the
prayer of urgent hearing is allowed.
Be listed for hearing on 16th April 2013.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
Cont.Petition No.1462/2011
11.2.2013
Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for respondents
no.1 and 2, prays two weeks' time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
Conc. No.1903/2012
11.2.2013
Parties present.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that he has received instructions on 18.1.2013 that the consequential action in compliance of the order dated 2.7.2012 has been initiated. However, it will take further two weeks' time to comply the same.
In view of the aforesaid prayer, hearing of this petition is adjourned to 11th March 2013.
On the next date of hearing, the respondent shall file compliance report.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
Cont.Cr. No.8/2012
11.2.2013
Petitioner present in person.
Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents No. 1 and 3.
None for the respondent no.2 .
None for respondent no.4, though served and represented.
Issue notice to respondent no.2 to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted.
P.F. be paid within two working days by RAD. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 8th February 2013 a reply on behalf of respondent no.1 and 3 has been filed. The aforesaid reply is not available in the file. Office is directed to trace the same and tagged with the file on the next date of hearing.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks by petitioner.
List for hearing in third week of March 2013.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
Cr.A.606/2000
11.2.2013
None for the appellants.
Shri Vivek Agarwal, Govt. Advocate, for the State. By order dated 26.11.2012, this Court directed Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad to submit a report before this Court " as to when and under what circumstances appellant Kamlesh absconded and why the non-bailable warrants issued against him could not be executed."
But instead of report of Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad, a report of T.I. Hoshangabad has been filed. When we asked report of Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad, it means the report of Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad should be submitted before this Court not report of T. I. Hoshangabad.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow one more opportunity to the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad to submit compliance report vide order dated 26.11.2012 of this Court.
Be listed on 4th March 2013.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
Cr.A.1683/2002
11.2.2013
Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Vivek Agarwal, Govt. Advocate, for the State. In compliance of order dated 16.01.2013, a report of T.I. has been filed but it appears that appellant no.2 Jhalla @ Ganesh was found absconding.
From the perusal of the report, we are not satisfied that rigorous efforts were made to trace out appellant no.2 Jhalla @ Ganesh.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow one more opportunity to respondent to file a detailed compliance report in respect of appellant no.2 Jhalla @ Ganesh after rigorous efforts are being made to trace out and produce appellant no.2 Jhalla @ Ganesh by the concerned police before this Court.
Again nonbailable warrant be issued for personal presence of appellant no.2 Jhalla @ Ganesh before this court.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1416/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Rajesh Dubey, Advocate, for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks' time to make the default good.
Prayer allowed.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1417/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the
appellants/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for two weeks' time to make the default good.
Prayer allowed.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1413/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Ashok Choudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks' time to make the default good.
Prayer allowed.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1327/2012
21.12.2012
Shri P.C. Chandak Advocate, for the appellants. Heard.
Issue notice to respondent No.1 why this appeal be not admitted on payment of Process Fee within one week by Registered Acknowledgment Due (RAD).
Prayer for interim relief will be considered after service on respondent no.1.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1440/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Rajesh Pancholi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for respondents/State.
Heard.
I.A.No.16057/12 seeking condonation of delay. Notice of this application has been accepted by Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
He prays for two weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is allowed.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1437/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the
appellants/State.
Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent. Heard.
Considering the controversy involved in this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file copy of order dated 12.3.2012 in Writ Appeal No.36/12 against which SLP has been filed before Apex Court and has been entertained as per Annexure A/2.
Be listed after filing of the aforesaid.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1419/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the
appellants/State.
Heard.
Be listed for hearing alongwith other identical matter in the month of January 2013.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.856/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the
appellants/State.
Heard.
Issue notice to respondent why this review be not admitted/finally disposed, of on payment of Process Fee within one week by Registered Acknowledgment Due (RAD).
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1464/2012
21.12.2012
Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for respondents/State.
Heard.
It is submitted by Shri Jaiswal that in identical appeal (Writ Appeal No.1281/2012), ad interim writ has been granted by this Court. Considering the controversy involved this appeal is also admitted.
Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Jaideep Singh,Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Ad interim relief Till next date of hearing it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken for recovery of the penalty imposed in the matter vide order dated 6.9.2012 by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in Revenue Case No.10/A-67/2011-12.
Appellant is directed to supply complete set of writ appeal to Shri Jaideep Singh,Dy. Govt. Advocate within a period of one week from today against an acknowledgment.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag
W.A.1463/2012
21.12.2012
Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.C. Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate, for respondent. Heard.
Considering the controversy involved in this case, we admit this appeal and direct that this appeal be listed for hearing in Second week of January 2013.
As we have fixed this appeal for hearing, at present we are not inclined to grant interim relief as it would decide the appeal finally at motion stage and in particular when this appeal has been filed against interlocutory order passed by Writ Court .
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag