Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manohar vs Nitin on 11 August, 2015
1
M.Cr.C. No.5891/2015
12.08.2015
Shri Yogesh Chandra Markan, learned
Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the
respondent/State.
After arguing the matter for some time,
Counsel for the applicant submits that he does
not wish to press the application provided a
liberty is granted to file fresh application after
some material witness has been examined.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by
the Counsel for the State.
The application is, therefore, dismissed as
not pressed. However liberty as prayed for is
granted to the applicant.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
Jyoti
2
M.Cr.C. No.6176/2015
12.08.2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for
the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the
respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Ramsingh s/o
Prahladsingh has moved the application for grant
of bail being implicated in Crime No.111/2015
registered by Police Station Hatod, District-
Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467,
468471, 406 & 34 of IPC.
Counsel for the applicant has
vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false
implication. Even if the prosecution allegations
are considered, Counsel submitted that co-
accused Sandeep has been granted bail by this
Court in M.Cr.C. No.5453/2015 on 06.07.2015.
Besides the cheque has not been misused by the
applicant as is being alleged, it was presented in
his name, therefore, he has full chance of success
in the trial since co-accused Sandeep has
3
deposited the amount of Rs.95,000/- in the trial
Court. Hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail
since the applicant has been arrested on
05.06.2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the
other hand, has opposed the submissions of the
Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that
the cheque was in the name of the applicant and
the allegation of defaulted amount of Rs.95,000/-
against the applicant. Counsel prayed for
dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions,
the impugned order and material available in the
case diary and looking to the nature of
allegations, I find that the application needs to
be allowed, subject to verification of Rs.95,000/-
have been deposited by the co-accused in the trial
Court. However, stringent measures need to be
imposed.
Subject to compliance, it is directed that
the applicant be released on bail on his
furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
4
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two local
sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court for his appearance before the
concerned Trial Court on all dates of hearing as
may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf
during the pendency of trial.
By way of abundant caution, it is further
directed that he shall also mark his presence in
the concerned Police Station on the first Sunday
of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon
during pendency of the trial. Any default in
attendance in Court and marking presence in the
concerned Police Station, would result in
cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby
entitling the police to take the applicant in
custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant
shall abide by all the conditions enumerated
under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
5
Jyoti
M.Cr.C. No.6222/2015
12.08.2015
Shri Sachin Kumar Tanguriya, learned
Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the
respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Shakir Shah has
moved the application for grant of bail being
implicated in Crime No.73/2015 registered by
Police Station Tarana, District-Ujjain for offence
under Section 294, 429 of IPC & 4, 6, 9 of Madhya
Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently
urged the fact that it is a case of false implication.
Even if the prosecution allegations are considered,
Counsel submitted that the applicant was only the
owner of the vehicle, which was used for
transportation of meat and cattle have taken for
illegal slaughter. Counsel submitted that out of
eight accused persons six accused have been
granted bail by this Court. It is observations that
meat and animals have been recovered from the
6
open place culvert (nalla) and the applicant has
nothing to do with the same. Moreover he
submitted that there is no incriminating evidence
available against the applicant except memo u/S.27
of Evidence Act. Hence Counsel prayed for grant
of bail on ground of parity alone since the applicant
has been arrested on 31.03.2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the
other hand, has opposed the submissions of the
Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that
besides being a registered owner of vehicle a single
case registered under the Arms Act against the
applicant. He prayed for dismissal of the
application.
On considering the above submissions,
the impugned order and material available in the
case diary and looking to the nature of allegations,
I find that the application needs to be allowed on
ground of parity alone. It is hereby allowed.
However, stringent measures need to be
imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant
be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
7
Thousand only) with two local sureties of like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before the concerned Trial Court on all
dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court
in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
By way of abundant caution, it is further
directed that he shall also mark his presence in the
concerned Police Station on the first Sunday of
every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon
during pendency of the trial. Any default in
attendance in Court and marking presence in the
concerned Police Station, would result in
cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby
entitling the police to take the applicant in custody
immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall
abide by all the conditions enumerated under
Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
Jyoti
8
M.Cr.C. No.6282/2015
12.08.2015
Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for
withdrawal of the application.
The M.Cr.C. No.6282/2015 is, therefore,
dismissed as withdrawn.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
Jyoti
M.Cr.C. No.6364/2015
12.08.2015
Shri LS Chandiramani, learned Counsel
for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the
9
respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Madhav s/o Laxman
has moved the application for grant of bail being
implicated in Crime No.180/2015 registered by
Police Station Gogava, District-Khargone for
offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.
Counsel for the applicant has
vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false
implication. Even if the prosecution allegations
are considered, Counsel submitted that small
quantity of 4.750 kg. ganga (cannabis) has been
recovered from the conscious possession of co-
accused Kalu and who has been granted bail by
this Court in M.Cr.C. No.6112/2015. Counsel
submitted that the present applicant was the
driver of the said motorcycle and Counsel prayed
that on ground of parity alone the applicant was
also entitled for grant of bail and he prayed for
the same since he has been arrested on
27.05.2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the
10
other hand, has opposed the submissions of the
Counsel for the applicant. He, however, candidly
admitted that the applicant has no other criminal
record and that small quantity of contraband has
been recovered from co-accused Kalu. Counsel
prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions,
the impugned order and material available in the
case diary and looking to the nature of
allegations, I find that the application needs to
be allowed on ground of parity alone. It is hereby
allowed.
However, stringent measures need to be
imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the
applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a
bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only) with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before the concerned Trial Court on
all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial
Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
By way of abundant caution, it is further
11
directed that he shall also mark his presence in
the concerned Police Station on the first Sunday
of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon
during pendency of the trial. Any default in
attendance in Court and marking presence in the
concerned Police Station, would result in
cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby
entitling the police to take the applicant in
custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant
shall abide by all the conditions enumerated
under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
Jyoti
M.Cr.C. No.6433/2015
12.08.2015
Shri RK Trivedi, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
12
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the
respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he has
filed the challan papers.
Counsel for the respondent is again praying
for time to produce the case diary.
Last opportunity is granted to the State.
List on Friday i.e.14th of August, 2015.
Otherwise application shall be considered on the
basis of challan papers.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
Jyoti
W.P. No.5384/2015*
11/08/2015
Shri K.K. Kaushal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the
respondent/State.
The petitioner before this Court, who is
13
working on the post of Hand Pump Mechanic has
filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the matter is entirely covered by the order
passed in Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
Reported in ILR [2009] MP 1326. Counsel
further submitted that several identical petitions
have been decided by this Court and only relief
he seeks is that the representation filed by the
petitioner be decided within a limited time
period.
Counsel for the respondents/State has
submitted that the controversy involved in the
present case is covered by the order delivered in
the case of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) and he has
not objected to the reasonable prayer made by
the Counsel for the petitioner. Counsel submitted
that the benefit of Kramonnati has been extended
only to drivers and it cannot be extended to
persons who are serving on the post of Time
Keeper, Peon, Hand Pump Mechanic, Choukidar,
Bill Clerk and Helpers. He prayed for dismissal
14
of the writ petition.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the
parties at length and after perusing the record,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the
issue before this Court has already been
concluded in the case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs.
State of M.P. Reported in ILR [2009] MP
1326. The judgment delivered in the case of
Tejulal Yadav has also been affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in
WA No.966/2009 has held as under:-
"6. Apart from the above, it is
seen that the petitioner is working in the
Polytechnic College and is said to be a
contingency paid employee. Under the
M.P. Education Department (Technical
Branch) Contingency Paid Employees
Recruitment and Conditions of Service
Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee
is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a
person employed for full time in an offie
or establishment and who is paid on
monthly basis and whose pay is charged
to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes
such of the employees who are employed
for certain periods only in the year. In the
aforesaid Rules of 1978, the
categorization of employees in done
under Rule-6 and the employees are
classified into two categories i.e.
15
permanent and temporary. Under Sub-
rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on
completion of 15 years of continuous
service the contingency paid employees
shall be eligible for attaining the status of
permanent work charged or contingency
paid employees. The similar provisions
are made in the M.P. (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension
Rules, 1979 wherein the permanent
employee is defined under Rule 2(c) to
mean a contingency paid employee or a
work charged employee who has
completed 15 years of service or more on
or after 1st January, 1974.
7. The complete reading of these Rules
indicates that a contingency paid
employee attaining the permanent status
and a work charged employee attaining
the permanent status are treated to be
similar in all respects for the purpose of
granting them pension and revision of
pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees
Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under
the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency
Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."
We find the order passed by learned
Single Bench to be based on due
consideration of Rules. Counsel for State
was unable to point out any illegality in
the order. We do not find any ground so
as to make interference in writ appeal in
view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
The writ appeal is dismissed."
In view of the above, without commenting on
16
the merits of the case, the present petition stands
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
consider the petitioner's claim, subject to
verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by
passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light
of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended
to the petitioner as has been extended in other
identical matters. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands
disposed off.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge
Jyoti/S.
Writ petition No.5399/2015*
11.08.2015
Shri KL Purohit, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for
17
respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of advance increments by virtue of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Saxena in Writ Petition No.3408/2008 decided on 07.05.2008 Counsel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that petitioner has passed B.T.I. Examination in the year 1962 and joining the services of the State Government on the post of Assistant Teacher on 23.07.1962. His contention is that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Asha Saxena ( supra).
Counsel for the petitioner has prayed before this Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's case and to decide his representation in the light of judgment delivered in Asha Saxena (supra) and also in the light of 18 order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Archna Vyas v. State of MP & ors (W.P. No.3635 of 08 (s) decided on 17.10.2008).
Learned G.A. appearing for respondents on advance notice has not objected to the reasonable prayer of the petitioner.
Resultantly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Asha Saxena and Archna Vyas (supra).
It is made clear that in case petitioner is found entitled for grant of advance increments, the respondents shall also extend all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of with no orders as to cost.
Cc. as per rules.
19(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.5388/2015* 11.08.2015 Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notice on the respondent preferably in the week commencing 01st September, 2015.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI W.P. No.5464/2015* 20 11.08.2015 Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent No.1/State on advance copy. Heard on admission.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 [Indore Municipal Corporation] on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.
At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioners is willing to serve the notices Humdust to the respondent No.2 [Indore Municipal Corporation]. Registry is directed to prepare the notices Humdust on payment of proper charges within a period of three days from today and hand over the same to Counsel for the petitioners. Counsel prays for grant of stay over the impugned demolition.
Needless to say that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing.
21Failure to make the service in the office of respondent No.2 [Indore Municipal Corporation] the relief granted today shall be vacated without reference to this Court.
List on Friday i.e.14th of August, 2015 for confirmation of interim relief.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti CR. No.154/14 & CR. No.155/14pdf 11.08.2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioners along with petitioner Fozia Bee and her son Irshad Ahmed are present in person.
Shri K.C. Kaushal, learned Counsel for the 22 respondents along with respondent Zafar Ahmed are present in person.
Both the parties have been questioned regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties. Although both the parties agreed that they had entered into the compromise before the Lok Adalat and Counsel for the respondent also submitted that it was wilful consent by both the parties. He further submitted that as per order of Lok Adalat, the respondent has not received a single paise whereas petitioner Fozia Bee submitted that she has paid Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh) to respondent Zafar Ahmed and he has signed a receipt.
I find that the settlement cannot be arrived at between the parties. However, one of the party is lying before this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to take appropriate step in the matter.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
23Interim relief granted earlier of continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.1788/2015* 11.08.2015 Shri Atul Chachondiya, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2./State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply to the petition.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
24(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2316/2015* 11.08.2015 Shri Prasanna J. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply to the petition.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1244/2013* 11.08.2015 Shri JB Dave, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was delay of 02 25 days in filing the process and hence notices have not been issued.
Counsel is directed to deposit Rs.200/- in the High Court Bar.
Registry is directed to issue show cause notices immediately, the same may be returnable within two weeks.
List after service of notice on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos.14102/2013 & 14201/2013* 11.08.2015 Shri Himanshu Dad on behalf of Shri R.T. Thanevala, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.
List in the next week, as prayed.
26(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.725/2014* 11.08.2015 Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mehul Negi, learned Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Counsel for the appellant prays for analogous hearing with M.A. Nos.721/14 & 1006/14.
List accordingly after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 27 W.P. No.739/2014* 11.08.2015 Shri Anwar Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aviral Vikas, learned Counsel for the respondent.
This is a short matter, which can be disposed of.
Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter. List on 18th of August, 2015, as prayed. No further time shall be granted.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.7660/2014* 11.08.2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the 28 respondents No.1 to 4.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5. He prays for short time to file reply to the petition.
Last opportunity is granted to respondent No.5.
Pleadings are almost completed. Subject to compliance, list for final disposal, after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.200/2015* 11.08.2015 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.3797/2015. The appeal is barred by time.
Issue notice on admission and I.A. No.3797/2015 to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within 29 a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
In the meanwhile, call for record and list thereafter.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.A. No.727/2015* 11.08.2015 None for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 30 Judge Jyoti M.A. No.876/2015* 11.08.2015 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.3882/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
Issue notice on admission and I.A. No.3882/2015 to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
In the meanwhile, call for record.
31(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.A. No.1180/2015 11.08.2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to pay the Court fees.
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1344/2015 11.08.2015 Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has handed over the copy of the appeal memo to Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Shri Pankaj Jain on behalf of Shri Jitendra Jhala, learned Counsel for the 32 respondent/insurance company prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1394/2015 11.08.2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the appellant/State.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.5611/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
Counsel submits that statutory amount of compensation has been deposited before the trial Court.
In view of the above, issue notice on admission and I.A. No.5611/2015 to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do 33 so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI W.P. No.1712/2015 11.08.2015 Shri Rahul Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Shri Nitin Bhati, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6.
None for the respondent No.5. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay fresh PF regarding respondent No.5 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
34In the meanwhile, respondents may file reply. Counsel for the respondent No.5 prays for analogous hearing with W.P.Nos.5584/14 & 5622/14.
List accordingly, after service of notice on the respondent No.5.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.154/2015 11.08.2015 Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time, the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
35(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.10/2015 10.08.2015 Shri Pranay Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner is not being paid his salary and other emoluments. He however submitted that petitioner is allowed to work in the premises.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time. Last opportunity is granted to the respondent.
List for the confirmation of I.A. on 19.08.2015 along with W.P. Nos.1069/2013, 1663/2013, 2141/2013, 5192/2013 & Conc. No.36/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 36 W.P. No.3170/2015 10.08.2015 Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner Sundarbai w/o Nathulal Daroga is aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the I Civil Judge, Class-II, Neemuch in COS. 26-A/2015. The only point raised before me is that by the impugned order application of the petitioner for appointment of the Commissioner was rejected by the trial Court.
Counsel submitted that it was utmost important to have the Commissioner appointed since it was essential to decide the question regarding land demarcation by the trial Court. To bolster his submissions, Counsel has placed reliance on Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and Others (2008) 8 SCC pg.671 to state that the controversy between the parties was regarding 37 demarcation of land because the parties had adjacent lands- Held, second appeal should not have been dismissed summarily and Local Commissioner ought to have been appointed for demarcation of land. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court of a judgment passed in the year 2011 in the matter of Jaswant s/o Kashiram Yadav vs. Deen Dayal 576 [2011(2) MPLJ] Counsel stated that the Court had considered the fact that no application from any party is required for that purpose and First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit of plaintiff without issuing commission to get the property demarcated.
However during the submissions, Counsel candidly admitted that matter was listed for argument before the trial Court today.
In view of the above, I find that without going into the merits of the case the petition can be disposed of with a simple direction and liberty to the petitioner; to raise the point in the appeal, this point before this appeal in case need arises.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition is disposed of.
Cc. as per rules.
38(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.369/1999* 10.08.2015 Shri SN Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Vyas, learned Counsel for the legal representative of respondent No.1.
None for the others.
Service report is awaited. List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos.4338/2015 &4349/2015 10.08.2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Order passed in separate sheet.
39Point: petition is without merit. However costs imposed are set aside.
Jyoti W.P. No.4636/2015 10.08.2015 Shri Rahul Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Order passed in separate sheet.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.4701/2015* 10.08.2015 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anmol Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
40Issue notice to the respondent No.4 on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notice be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notice on the respondent No.4.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.4738/2015* 10.08.2015 Shri Sanjay Zamidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the interim relief.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 41 Jyoti W.P. No.4879/2015* 10.08.2015 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri VP Khare, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that relief has been granted to the petitioner and the petition is rendered infructuous.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.4981/2015pdf 42 10.08.2015 Shri Satish Tomar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent No.1 to 3/State. Shri Balmiki Sakargayn, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4.
Counsel agree that petition can be disposed of on a singular direction to the respondent No.3 Assistant Registrar to decide the complaint of the petitioner MP Amateur Volleyball Association. He submitted that before the SIT one complaint against the respondent No.4 Secretary for the Financial irregularity is still pending consideration and respondents are also creating impediment in the way of respondent to conduct the enquiry. Both the Counsel agree that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 Assistant Registrar that he shall consider the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law within four months' from today. Similarly SIT shall also 43 present report and co-operate with the investigation, produce report and other documents that are required by Assistant Registrar to decide the complaint.
Needless to say this Court is not making any observations on the merit of the case. The respondents Authority is free to arrive with his own decision.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
Cc as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 44 W.P. Nos.4871/2015 & 5141/2015* 10.08.2015 Ms. Harshita Soni. learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri CR Karnik, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for analogous hearing with W.P. No.5360/2015, which is listed tomorrow.
List on 11.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 45 W.P. No.5239/2015 Pdf 10.08.2015 Shri LC Patne, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State.
By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner MK Choudhary is aggrieved by order dated 29.07.2015 passed by Under Secy. to Govt. of M.P. Department of Commerce, Industry & Employment, Bhopal transferring the services of the petitioner on administrative ground from Ujjain to Shyopur. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that petitioner is working on the post of Manager, Jilla Vyapr & Udyog Kendra with the respondent's Commissioner of Industries and he is a heart patient and similarly his wife is also suffering from Thyroid. Counsel submitted that on his own representation his services were transfered to Ujjain to Ratlam and again he has been transferred from Ujjain to Shyopur. Counsel urged that the respondent is aware 46 about medical treatment despite which the order has been passed. Counsel submitted that it is very difficult to the petitioner to take treatment at Gujarat whereas he can take treatment from Ratlam and the transfer was sought by him on ground of convenience and his own request and costs. Counsel submitted that without notice now he has been transfered to Shyopur. Counsel submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned order of transfer be set aside. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions as prayed for dismissal of the petition stating that transfer was granted to him on request and the petitioner failed to join the place to transfer and there is nothing mala fide in action of transfer it is made purely on admission ground and demand of the petitioner cannot be acceded. Counsel prayed that the petition be dismissed.
On considering the above, I find that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to decide the representation 47 of the petitioner, which is pending consideration, to be filed within 15 days from today if not already filed and within two months therefrom, the representation shall be considered by the respondent authority in accordance with the provisions of law.
Let the entire excise be completed within two months from today under intimation in writing to the petitioner. Till then petitioner shall not be relieved from his present post, if not already relieved.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is allowed to the extent herein-above indicated.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 48 M.Cr.C. No. 6037/2015* 10.08.2015 Shri R.K. Soni, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Mohd. Asif s/o Abdul Ajeet has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.120/15 registered by Police Station Juni, Indore for offence under Sections 307, 34, 109, 120-B 147, 148, 149, 75 of IPC & S.25/27 of Arms Act.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicant is 35 years old person and a labourer and has been falsely implicated in the matter. He submitted that there was no incriminating evidence available against the 49 applicant except memo u/S.27 of Evidence Act by co-accused Idrish to indicate that it was this present applicant, who had introduced to Idrish to the main accused Adnaan. Counsel prayed for grant of bail since under identical circumstances co-accused Suresh has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5137/2015. Moreover Counsel submitted that applicant has full chance of success in the trial, which is likely to take long time and he has been arrested on 23.03.2015.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and he however unable to dispel the fact that there is no categoric evidence that the accused was introduced to Idrish by present applicant. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and the fact that the applicant is a young person and he is in jail since 23.03.2015, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of 50 justice. It is hereby allowed.
However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.
By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned Police Station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking presence in the concerned Police Station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
51Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.6914/2015* 10.08.2015 Shri Arpit Oswal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State prays for time to produce the case diary.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.558/2005* 10.08.2015 List along with S.A. No.559/2005.
52(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.559/2005* 10.08.2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Counsel submitted that appeal of the other tenant has been admitted in the same question of law arising in the present appeal. He referred to S.A. No.558/2005 Alok Kumar Vs. Ramnarayan and prayed that present appeal be also admitted.
Shri V.K. Vyas, appearing on behalf of Shri Katkani, learned Counsel prays for time on behalf of respondent.
However, I find that appeal can be admitted for final hearing on the same question in law.
The appeal is, therefore, admitted on the following substantial question of law:
1. Whether the lower appellate Court was 53 right in holding that the appellants before it, had a right to institute and continue with the eviction suit?
2. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that in absence of all trustees, the suit as instituted was maintainable?
Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process on admission regarding respondent/s by registered as as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the same within the time stipulated above and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notice on the respondent/s along with S.A. No.558/2005.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. Nos.127/2008 & 128/2008* 10.08.2015 Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajeet Chabara, learned Counsel for the 54 respondent No.1.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he has just handed over the copy of the I.A. to Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Counsel for the respondents No.1 prays for time.
In the interest of justice, it is directed that let status quo be maintained on the property as it obtains today till the next date of hearing.
Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter. Prayer is accepted.
List on 18.08.2015, as prayed. CC. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1024/2010* 10.08.2015 Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri SV Dandwate, learned Counsel for the 55 respondent/insurance company.
Heard on I.A. No.3942/2015, which is an application for reduction in the valuation of the appeal.
Counsel submitted that the appellant would like to reduce the valuation and then appropriate Court fees has been paid.
In view of the above, the application is allowed.
Counsel is directed to amend the cause title. Registry is directed to verify whether appropriate Court fee has been paid.
List in the next week for admission.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.10023/2011* 10.08.2015 56 Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
List after two weeks for reply to the I.A. (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.8979/2011* 10.08.2015 List along with W.P. No.10023/2011 after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.5192/2013* 10.08.2015 List along with W.P. No.10/2015 on 57 19.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2141/2013* 10.08.2015 List along with W.P. No.10/2015 on 19.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.1663/2013* 10.08.2015 List along with W.P. No.10/2015 on 19.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.1069/2013* 58 10.08.2015 Shri PBS Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Counsel for the respondents prays for time on behalf of Shri Sudarshan Joshi.
List on 19.08.2015 along with Conc No.36/2015, 1663/13, 2141/113, 5192/13 & 10/2015.
I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
CC. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Conc. No.36/2015* 10.08.2015 Shri Pranay Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Counsel for the respondents undertakes to keep the proposed contemnor present before this Court on 59 19.08.2015.
List on 19.08.2015 along with W.P. Nos.1069/2013, 1663/13, 2141/113, 5192/13 & 10/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti F.A. No.967/2014* 10.08.2015 Shri Palash Choudhay, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding respondent No.1 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notice be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
60List after service of notice on the respondent No.1.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti F.A. No.1087/2014* 10.08.2015 Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Palash Choudhay, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding respondent No.1 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notice be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notice on the respondent No.1.
61(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.4103/2015 * 07.08.2015 Shri SK Meena, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Preetha Moitra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the mediation proceedings have been unsuccessful and the respondent No.2 Kiran w/o petitioner Hemant Jain has become major only yesterday. Besides she is in advanced stage of pregnancy and she fears for her life. She was produced before this Court in the custody of respondent No.1 her father on 06.07.2015. Counsel prayed that the respondent No.2 Kiran be produced in the proper custody of respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Indore since she fears for her life.
In this view of the matter, it is directed that respondent No.2 Smt. Kiran shall be produced before this 62 Court in proper custody by respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police.
Ms. Moitra is directed to inform the respondent No.3 Superintendent of Police, Indore.
List on 11.07.2015 for the presence of respondent No.2 and for disposal of matter.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2351/2015* 07.08.2015 Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has moved an application for amending the cause title and that is defect to be cured.
In view of the above, list both the applications in the week commencing from 17.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 63 W.P. No.5247/2015* 07.08.2015 Shri Sadanand Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned PL for the respondent/State.
With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ petition is heard finally.
ORDER By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner Ramprasad Badwar is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary denial of benefit of second kramonnati after completion of 24 years of service.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is entirely covered by the order 64 passed in W.P. No.6773/06(S) in the case of Smt. Prerna Koranne Vs. State of M.P. and others. Counsel further submitted that several identical petitions have been decided by this Court and only relief he seeks is that the representation filed by the petitioner be decided within a limited time period.
Counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the order delivered in the case of Smt. Prerna Koranne (supra) and he has not objected to the reasonable prayer made by the Counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Smt. Prerna Koranne (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 65 three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge J/BDJ Cr.A. No.56/2013* 07.08.2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for time.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State. He is directed to verify the criminal antecedents of the appellant.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Cr.A. No.1020/2013* 66 07.08.2015 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State prays for time.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1022/2010* 07.08.2015 Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
List along with M.A. No.967/2010.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.967/2010* 67 07.08.2015 Shri Mayank Upadhya, learned Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding respondent No.2 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.A. No.524/2014* 07.08.2015 Shri JM Poonegar, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has moved an application bearing No.8552/2014, for withdrawal of deposit amount.
He submits that he is not pressing the said application.
In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed.
68Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.523/2014* 07.08.2015 Service report is awaited. List after two weeks along with M.A. No.524/2014.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.182/2015* 07.08.2015 None for the appellant.
Shri Anil Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for analogous hearing with 69 M.A. No.181/2015.
List analogously in the next weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.902/2015* 07.08.2015 Shri SH Moyal, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent though served. Heard on I.A. No.3840/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay. 32 days delay has occasioned in filing the appeal.
For the reason stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
List in the next week for admission.
70(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.5008/2015* 07.08.2015 None for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Shri Balendu Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the objector.
This is fourth application moved on behalf of applicant.
Counsel for the objector has submitted that only two more witnesses remain to be examined in the trial Court, since none appears on behalf of the applicant to press the application, this M.Cr.C. No.5008/2015, is therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.
Cc. as per rules.
71(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.362/2014* 07.08.2015 Shri SK Pawnekar, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Heard on admission.
The second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. whether under the facts and circumstances both the Courts below had erred in relying the will on the basis of single attesting witness, which is not according to the provisions of law ?
2. Whether suspicious circumstances were not dispelled despite which, both the Court had relied on the will ?
List for final hearing in due course. No fresh notices are required.
72(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.8528/2014* 07.08.2015 Shri KK Chaware, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.941/2015* 07.08.2015 Shri M.S. Mandloi, learned Counsel for 73 the appellants submits that appropriate Court fee has been paid.
Registry to verify.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
In the meanwhile, call for record.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI W.P. No.2365/2015* 07.08.2015 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner 74 to argue on admission.
List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2846/2015pdf 07.08.2015 Shri KL Hardia, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
By this writ petition, Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mhow in Execution Case No.5/2000/10.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court has imposed conditions for releasing of the amount, which is not provided for under the Land Acquisition Act and hence order is contrary to the provisions of law. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the Executing Court be directed to make payment award as 75 directed by the First Appeal No.75/2002 filed before this Court earlier, whereby this Court had held thus:
"However, we wish to make it clear that notwithstanding the dismissal of these two first appeals, the appellants (land owners) would still be at liberty to file an application under Section 28.A of the Act, before the collector for redetermination of compensation in respect of their land, on the strength of judgment delivered by us in F.A. No.125 of 2002 and other connected appeals where, we have enhanced the rate. The questions as to whether such application can be filed and if filed whether it is maintainable for deciding the issue on its merit as provided by Section 28.A ibid would be decided by the Collector in the first instance and later by the Court if raised by respondent in reply to such application and then appropriate orders on merits be passed in accordance with law in such proceedings.
In this view of the matter and subject to aforesaid observations, we find no merit in these two appeals. They are accordingly dismissed."
Counsel submitted that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to impose such condition and he prayed that the appropriate direction be issued to the Executing Court to release the amount.
Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of Counsel for the 76 petitioner. She candidly admitted that there was no such provisions in the Land Acquisition Act be imposed ----------------------
In view of the above, I find that petition needs to be allowed. It is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is set aside. It is directed that the amount is awarded by the Trial Court and upholding by the Appellate Court be released to the petitioner in accordance with the decision in First Appeal No.75/2002. Trial Court is also directed to positively release the amount within 15 days from the receipt of certified copy of this Court.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 77 W.P. No.4708/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/ State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the identical petition by Smt. Krishna passed in W.P. No.4838/2015, this Court was pleased to stay the impugned termination and notices were issued to the respondent. He has placed the Division Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Meera Koli vs. State of M.P. & others, 2008 (2) MPLJ 76 and prayed that the same benefit be granted to the present petitioner also.
The prayer is not opposed by the respondent/State.
Notices have already been served. However it is directed that till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned termination order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P/5) shall remain stayed.
List after service is effected on the respondent. Cc. as per rules.
78(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1920/2011* 06.08.2015 Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A. No.7141/2014, which is an application for reduction in the valuation of the appeal.
Counsel submitted that due to non-decision of this application, appeal is being listed for deficient Court fee.
In view of the above, the application is allowed.
Counsel is directed to amend the cause title. Registry is directed to verify, if appropriate Court fee has been paid.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 79 Jyoti W.P. No.5312/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondents No.11 & 12.
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Balkishan is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.12 Collector District Rajgar, Biaora in not deciding the appeal of the petitioner filed along with the stay application.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner resideds at District Rajgarh and had participated in election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchyat No.85 Dariyapur, Tehsil- Khilchipur District- Rajgarh, Biaora. On 05.02.2015 the petitioner was declared successful and the respondent No.1 Abhaysingh was a defeated candidate, who lost the election 80 by single vote having secured only 186 votes. Respondent No.1 Abhaysingh has moved an application for recounting and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, recounting was order by the impugned order Annexure P/7 by respondent No.11 Sub Divisional Officer and the results are to be declared tomorrow i.e.07.08.2015. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such an order was contrary to the provisions of law and without noticing the petitioner such an order should not have been passed; since, it is contrary of Rule 80 of the MP Panchyat Nirvachan Niyam 1995. Counsel prayed that the impugned order (Annexure P/7) be set aside. In the alternative, Counsel submitted that the appeal against the impugned order is also pending consideration before the respondent No.12 Collector District Rajgar, Biaora be decided along with stay application, first before declaration of the results of recounting. Counsel for the respondent/State on the 81 other hand has opposed the prayer and submitted that date for recounting has been fixed i.e. tomorrow 07.08.2015 and appeal could not be decided in such a short time.
In view of the above, petition is partly allowed and the Collector respondent No.12 is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal and stay application pending before him first; before declaring the results of recounting.
Needless to say this Court is not making any observations on the merit of the case. The Competent Authority is free to arrive at its own decision regarding the appeal and the stay application.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
Cc. today.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 82 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6766/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State.
By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. the applicants Omprakash & Manoj Chodhari have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.336/15 registered by Police Station Heera Nagar, Indore for offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 294, 506 of IPC & 324, 326 of IPC.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel submitted that the entire dispute arose over a petty matter like shifting of the vehicle, which was getting in the way of the complainant. Counsel submitted that there was no intention to cause any injury to the complainant, however a fracas developed and cross-case have been registered and the accused persons have also received injuries on the skull. However, in the present case the allegations of causing injury to 83 Akash is against Sunil Choudhary and the present applicants Om Prakash and Manoj have not caused any injury on any vital part of the complainant party and on the ground of parity also the applicants are entitled to the bail since co-accused Krishna Choudhary and Satyanarayan have been granted bail anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.4615/15. He however, submitted that even the complainant did not receive any bony injury according to the sonography report. Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicants are likely to face social embarrassment and ostracisation, if arrested.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and has fully supported the impugned order, submitting that the lower Court has obseraved that shovel and lethal weapons were used in the fracas and the dispute pertains to shifting of loading vehicle parked on the way. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of the allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
84However, in the interest of justice, the applicants are better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicants have expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of 2 weeks i.e. on or before 20th of August, 2015 before the Competent Court and they shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within said period, the application shall be considered on the same date on its presentation, in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit by the Trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 85 Judge JYOTI W.P. No.2926/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Service report is awaited. List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2260/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri KK Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for respondent No.4/State.
Service report indicates that respondent No.3 is the main answering respondent and he is unserved.
86Counsel for the petitioner is directed to take appropriate step regarding the same within a period of two weeks' from today.
List after two weeks, subject to compliance.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2875/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri JP Kero, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
87(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2921/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has been served since none appeared today. He however has produced a copy of the order passed in W.P. No.2754/2015, whereby the operation of the impugned award as directed to be stayed and he prays for similar benefit.
Considering the fact that he has stated at the Bar that matter is similar.
Prayer being reasonable is accepted. It is directed that operation of the impugned award shall remain stayed, subject to compliance of Section 17-B of ID Act.
List after three weeks.
Cc. as per rules.
88(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.4995/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri Ajay Bagadia and Shri Abhishek Tugnawate, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Shri Mahesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the objector.
Heard.
Reserved.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 89 S.A. No.313/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri Krishna Puntambekar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Taurn Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.5746/2015, which is an application for amendment in the cause title.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the memo of cost in the first appeal itself Rs.265/- as stamp fees has been paid and hence he would like to amend the cause title whereby wrongly Rs.2,000/- has been mentioned. Counsel submitted that after amendment appropriate Court fee has been paid.
On perusal of the application and cost paid in the First Appellate Court, I find that application needs to be allowed. It is hereby allowed.
Counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the cause title.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.5261/2015, an application for stay.
Issue notice on both to the respondents on 90 payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks.
At this juncture, Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of stay over the judgment and decree of the lower Court.
Needless to say that appellant shall not be dispossessed till the next date of hearing.
Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and avoiding the condition imposed above, then, the relief granted today shall be vacated without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
Cc. as per rules.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI 91 MCC. No.605/2015* 06.08.2015 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.5935/2015. Issue notice on both to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI Cr.A. No.1325/2012 06.08.2015 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant.
92Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent/Department.
Heard.
Reserved on the I.A.5229/2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2673/2014* 06.08.2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioner along with petitioner Smt. Ranjana Patidar present in person..
Shri Ashoutosh Nimgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner Smt. Ranjana submits that she has not been served with any appointment letter for regular appointment.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply on affidavit and with the accompanying 93 documents, if any.
He prays for time to do so. Copy of the reply shall be given to Counsel for the petitioner in advance.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.979/2015* 05.08.2015 Smt. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishwas Daima, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
Reserved.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 94 Judge Jyoti W.P. No.1440/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Service report as directed by this Court has not been put up.
Registry is directed to put up the service report and list in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos. 1609/15, 1621/15, 1622/15 & 1612/15* 05.08.2015 Shri AK Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner/s.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the 95 respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ashok Airen, learned Counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5.
Counsel for the petitioner/s prays for time to file rejoinder to the reply.
List on 15.09.2015 as directed by this Court earlier.
I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.1715/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.
Shri D.S. Kale, learned Counsel for the respondent.
96Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
List for disposal in the next week. I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2181/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri PR Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned P.L. for the respondent/State. He submits that reply is ready 97 and may be granted permission to file the same during course of the day.
He is granted permission to hand over the copy of the reply to Counsel for the petitioner during course of the day.
List for admission in the week commencing from 24.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2287/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Jitendra Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned P.L. for the respondent/State. He seeks time to seek 98 instruction.
List in the week commencing from 17.08.2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2503/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri VK Ojha, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. She submits that reply is ready and may be filed during course of the day.
Shri Ojha prays for time and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
List after three weeks' for reply.
99(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.2874/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Siddarth Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. He prays for time to address this Court.
All the other respondents have also been served since none had appeared today.
List after two weeks, as prayed. I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 100 F.A. No.1145/2013* 05.08.2015 Shri MK Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding legal representatives of deceased by registered as well as ordinary mode within two weeks. Notices be made returnable thereafter. Failure to pay the process within the time stipulated above and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notice on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.2611/2013* 101 05.08.2015 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A. No.664/2015, which is an application for service of notice to respondents No.5 & 6 by publication.
For reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of one month from today.
The compliance report be filed thereafter. List after a month.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.2552/2013* 05.08.2015 List along with M.A. No.2611/2013.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 102 Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.3168/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Gourav Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State. He is still praying for time to produce the case diary.
List opportunity is granted to the State otherwise he is directed to keep the Investigating Officer present on 11.08.2015.
List on 11.08.2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 103 M.Cr.C. No.6744/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State. He prays for time to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.133/2011* 05.08.2015 Shri JB Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.
List for admission and I.A. after two weeks, as prayed by Counsel for the appellant.
104(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti C.R. 15/2013* 05.08.2015 Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of stay vide I.A. No.196/2013. However despite issuing notice none had appeared on behalf of the respondent today.
In view of the above, list after two weeks on the I.A. (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.2327/2014* 105 05.08.2015 Shri PV Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for record.
This is a claimant appeal. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 106 W.P. No.8182/2014* 05.08.2015 Shri KC Raikwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. Nos.66/2015 & 67/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the compromise is likely to arrived at between the parties and prays for a fixed date in the matter.
107List on 25th of August, 2015. On that day parties shall remain present.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.3466/2014* 05.08.2015 None for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay fresh PF regarding unserved respondent/s by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notice be made returnable within two weeks.
List after service of notice on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 108 S.A. No.157/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri RR Chandrawade, learned Counsel for the LRs. of respondent No.1. Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding unserved respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court. List after service of notice on the respondents.
I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 109 Judge Jyoti S.A. No.183/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Ajay Assudani, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
List in the next week on the I.A. (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.901/2010 * 05.08.2015 Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri PV. Namjoshi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard on I.A. No.3973/2015, which is an 110 application for substituting the service regarding legal representatives of respondent No.2.
Counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection.
In view of the above, the application is allowed. Counsel for the appellant is directed to amend the cause title regrading newly added respondents and pay PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a period of two weeks. Make the notices returnable thereafter. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of newly added respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.2672/2010* 05.08.2015 List along with M.A. No.901/2010.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 111 CR. No.154/2014 & 155/2014* 04.08.2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri KC. Kaushal, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the respondent seeks instruction whether the revision could be disposed of since the petitioner is willing to pay remaining amount to the respondent as per compromise recorded in the Lok Adalat.
Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter. List on 11.08.2015. On that day parties shall remain present.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1360/2014* 04.08.2015 None for the appellant.
List after four weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 112 Judge Jyoti M.A. No.980/2014* 04.08.2015 None for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.439/2013* 04.08.2015 Shri JB Dave, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri B.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the appellants after arguing the matter for some time submits that he wants time to proposed the additional question of law.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the appellants.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
113(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.4045/2013* 04.08.2015 Shri R.K. Pandagre, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/ State prays for time to file reply. He is granted four weeks' time to do so.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Conc. No.909/2014* 04.08.2015 Shri Vaibhav Asawa, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the respondent. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to verify the stage of the payment.
List in the week commencing 17.08.2015, as prayed.
114(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti F.A. No.1142/2014* 04.08.2015 Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits the compliance report of publication has filed along with, the same is taken on record.
List for admission on 18.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.3094/2014* 04.08.2015 Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/ State. He prays for time to file reply of the I.A. By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the State.
List after two week on the I.A. 115 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 116 W.P. Nos.3876/14, 3883/14, 3889/14 & 3893/14* 04.08.2015 Shri S.H. Moyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the respondent.
By the compliance report, it is reported by the petitioner Factory Manager that the cheques were presented in compliance of u/S.17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, but their local labour leader did not permit them to accept the same urging they were demanding full payment of back wages.
At this juncture, Counsel submitted that they have never refused acceptance of the aforesaid cheques for compliance of S.17-B of the said Act. However the entire amount has not been paid as is being submitted by Counsel for the petitioner.
I find that application can be disposed of by upholding that respondent shall accept the cheques offered by petitioner for compliance of S.17-B of the Act under protest. Thereafter, the respondent shall free to file appropriate objection, which shall be considered at the time of final hearing.
117Needles to say that petitioner shall continue to comply with the order of S.17-B of the said Act during the pendency of this petition.
Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three weeks' from today.
Let the petition be admitted for final hearing. List for confirmation on 25.08.2015. By then respondent shall file reply. Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. No.3880/2014* 04.08.2015 This case be delinked from the W.P. Nos.3876/2014, 3883/2014, 3889/2014 & 3893/2014.
List on 25.08.2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 118 W.P. No.8712/2014* 04.08.2015 Shri Akash Vijayvirgiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gourav Paliwal, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Sadhna Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder to the reply.
List after two week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.456/2015* 04.08.2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A. No.5638/2015, which is an application for reduction in valuation.
Counsel prays that the application be allowed. For reason stated in the application, the application is allowed.
119Counsel is directed to amend the cause title within a period of one week from today.
He submits that Court fees has correctly been paid.
Registry to verify and list for admission thereafter.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti MCC. No.536/2015* 04.08.2015 Shri Lucky Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission and I.A. Issue notice on both to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the petition shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
120(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.A. Nos.778/2015 & 779/2015* 04.08.2015 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the appellants.
None appears on behalf of the respondent to press the applications.
Last opportunity is granted to the respondent. List in the next week for disposal of the I.As. I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. Nos.808/2015 & 809/2015* 04.08.2015 Shri Rahim Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant undertakes to take appropriate step regarding the unserved respondent/s. He is granted two weeks' time to do so.
121List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.945/2015* 04.08.2015 Shri Rahim Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sameer Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant.
Counsel for the respondent has drawn objection despite order passed by this Court on 16.06.2015, 50% of compensation awarded amount has not been deposited by the appellant/insurance company. He also prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the awarded amount on its deposition.
Prayer being reasonable is accepted. Counsel for the appellant is directed to deposit the awarded amount and interest as directed by this Court on 16.06.2015 within a period of two weeks from today.
Subject to which, trial Court shall permit the respondent to withdraw the amount.
List after three weeks.
122I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos.2647/2015, 3438/2015 & 3389/2015* 04.08.2015 Shri Harish Tripathi and Ms. Hemlata Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/ State. He prays for and is granted four week's time to file reply.
List after four weeks, as prayed. I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P.Nos.5313, 5314, 5315, 5398, 5400, 5401 & 5402 of 2014* 03.08.2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. G.A. for the 123 petitioner.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time on behalf of his senior to argue the matter.
Last opportunity is granted to the respondent. List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos.5463, 5464, 5465, 5571, 5573 of 2014* 03.08.2015 Shri Ramesh Sonvane, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Mini Ravindra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioners prays for analogous hearing with W.P. No.5584/2014.
Registry to verify and list accordingly.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti 124 CR. No.127/2015* 03.08.2015 Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the respondent. He submits that he has filed power only today and would like to some time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.275/2015* 03.08.2015 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Bhatti, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Goutam Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company.
Counsel for the appellant prays for analogous hearing with M.A. No.1996/2014.
List accordingly.
125(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos.836/2015 & 837/2015* 03.08.2015 Shri Ravindra Pal Singh Nayyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.
Shri Dheraj Singh Panwar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
List in the week commencing from 17.08.2015, as prayed.
I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. Nos.120/2014 & 121/2014* 03.08.2015 Shri Sidharth Naneria, learned Counsel for the 126 appellants submits that the compromise is likely to arrived at between the parties and prays for matter be listed in the Lok Adalat.
In view of the above, list the matter in the ensuing Lok Adalat.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. Nos.174/2014 & 176/2014* 03.08.2015 Shri CL. Yadav, learned senior Counsel with Shri Neeraj Gour, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abid Hussain Ansari, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh PF regarding respondent No.2 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
127Counsel for the respondent No.1 is also prays for time.
List immediately after service of notice on respondent No.2.
I.R. granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Cc. as per rules.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI Conc. No.536/2014* 03.08.2015 Shri Rahul Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Hardia, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that proposal of the petitioner is under active consideration and order is likely to pass soon.
In view of the above, list after two weeks, subject to compliance.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 128 Jyoti M.A. No.1433/2015* 03.08.2015 Shri Himanshu Paliwal, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for record.
This is a claimant appeal. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.A. No.1459/2015* 129 03.08.2015 Shri Hemant Vaishav, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Call for record.
This is claimant appeal. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to do so within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI W.P. Nos.3658/15, 3678/15 & 3697/15* 03.08.2015 130 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindram, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Reply has been filed by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.
List in the week commencing from 24.08.2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.Cr.C. No.6312/2015* 03.08.2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
131Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent/State.
By this application u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. Counsel for the applicant submits that crime number was wrongly typed on the cause title of the application M.Cr.C. No.5579/15 the crime number has been typed 335/15 whereas it should have been Crime No.355/14, the mistake has occurred in the trial Court also and hence the mistake has been repeated.
Counsel submitted that due to inadvertent the mistake has occurred and the same is allowed for amendment.
Prayer being reasonable is bona fide and has not been objected by the State since error apparent on the face of the record.
In view of the above, the application is allowed. And in the cause title and the impugned order the Crime Number be read as 335/14.
A copy of this order be maintained in M.Cr.C. No.5579/15 for convenience.
Cc. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti M.A. No.1040/2013* 132 03.08.2015 Shri Kailash Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Respondent No.3 is unserved. Counsel for the appellants undertakes to pay fresh PF regarding respondent No.3 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notice on respondent No.3.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti W.P. Nos.6151/2013 & 6152/2013* 03.08.2015 None for the petitioner. Shri Peyush Jain, learned PL for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Counsel for the 133 respondent No.3.
None for the others.
Although reply has been filed by the respondent No.3 on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 also. He submitted that he would like to amend the cause title.
He is directed to move appropriate application in this regard. By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to respondent No.3.
List after two weeks along with W.P. No.6153/2013.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti C.R. No.203/2014* 03.08.2015 Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. She submits that respondent No.1 has been served and the succession certificate should be granted to her. However from perusal on record, one last opportunity is granted to respondent No.1. It 134 would be more appropriate that secure the presence of respondent No.1 by SPC.
In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue SPC for the presence of respondent No.1 on the next date of hearing.
List on 19.08.2015 (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti Contempt Petition No.669/2014* 03.08.2015 Shri Arvind Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aviral Vikas, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the respondent is praying for time. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this matter has fully covered with the decision passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.70/2014, Bhagwan Jat vs. PC Meena & others.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to verify the same.
135Last opportunity is granted to the respondent. List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti No. 12.08.2015 Shri ........., learned Counsel for the . Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned PL for the respondent/State.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti