Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishnapal Singh Tomar And 3 Ors. vs Lakhan Singh And 5 Ors. on 22 April, 2016
F.A.No.621/2008 and F.A.No.82/2009
01.04.2016
Shri A.Garg, learned counsel for the appellants.
As prayed, list alongwith F.A.no.614/2008 on
25.04.2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
C.E.A.No.15,16,17,18,19,20 and 21 of 2015
01.04.2016
Shri P.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for further
ten days time to argue on admission.
Prayer allowed.
List after ten days.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1201/2014
01.04.2016
Shri A.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
deficit Court fee amounting to Rs.78,209/- in compliance
to the report of the Taxing Officer dated 14.10.2014 has
been paid on 15.06.2015.
Office to verify and if it is found that deficit Court
fee has been paid, matter be listed for admission after
two weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1074/2014
01.04.2016
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri A.Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to file additional affidavit to counter the allegations in the counter affidavit.
List after two weeks for order on I.A.No.7094/2014.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1091/2014
01.04.2016
None for the appellant.
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
An application for bringing the legal heirs of sole appellant Rajabai is barred by one day.
Let SPC be issued to the appellant for a date to be fixed by the office so that needful be done in the matter.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1216/2014
01.04.2016
List alongwith F.A.no.1097/2014.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1265/2014
01.04.2016
Shri P.Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that permanent alimony amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-and dowry as per terms of settlement has been received by the respondent on 12.12.2015 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garot.
No one is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Both the parties are directed to remain present on the next date of hearing.
List on 11.04.2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.C.C.No.172/2015
01.04.2016
Shri N.K.Dave, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned
Dy.Advocate General for respondent no.1-State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to order dated 17.03.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.2745-2753 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C)No.139-147of 2009) in the case of Laxminarayan (dead) through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Indore Development Authority and anr. wherein the Apex Court allowed these appeals and judgment passed in First Appeal was set aside. The appeals were remanded for reconsideration of the market value after consideration of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and if found relevant, the decision in Yogini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (F.A.Nos.42 and 43 of 1993) decided on 21.03.2006.
The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicants is that all other connected appeals which were remanded by the Apex Court have been listed for final hearing, but the First Appeal filed by the present applicants being F.A.No.401/2001 which was disposed of on 16.06.2008 has not been listed alongwith the connected appeals.
Considering the aforesaid, we allow the prayer of the applicants and direct the office to list F.A.no.401/2001, if the same has not been disposed of, after passing of the order of the Supreme Court, alongwith the connected F.A.Nos.372, 373, 374, 377, 378, 379, 384, 385, 399, 400, 402 and 403 of 2001 for analogous hearing.
With the aforesaid, M.C.C.No.172/2015 stands allowed and disposed of.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1097/2014
01.04.2016
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.4953/2015 an application for adjustment of Rs.6,000/- granted under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by the trial Court on 25.07.2014.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband that sum of Rs.20,000/- as interim maintenance awarded to the appellant includes the amount of Rs.6000/- which was awarded to her daughter on 25.07.2014 and therefore the same may be adjusted.
In reply Shri Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prior to the order dated 30.03.2015 respondent/husband had to deposit Rs.8,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively awarded to the wife and daughter by the learned trial Court. Thereafter an application for maintenance pendente-lite was filed by the wife for enhancement of the amount and this Court vide order dated 30.03.2015 after hearing both the parties and considering the fact that the respondent was paying Rs.6,000/- to his daughter, awarded Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/wife from the date of application i.e. 06.01.2015 and prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the aforesaid so also the order dated 30.03.2015, we are of the view that no adjustment/modification of the aforesaid order as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, I.A.no.4953/2015 is dismissed. C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.Cr.C.No.1824/2016
01.04.2016
Shri Ikram Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy.Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is fourth bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail on medical grounds.
The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station Pithampur, District Dhar in Crime No.640/2014 under sections 304-B,498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per the medical report, the present applicant is suffering from dis-function of left Kidney. However, the right kidney is normal but at present, he is suffering from some infection in right kidney.
Report was called from the learned Sessions Judge, Dhar. According to the report, Naib Tehsildar Marisha Shinde, Naib Tehsildar Preetipalsingh Bedi and Head Constable Ramswaroop are not appearing before the Court to record their evidence and therefore there is a delay in the trial.
In this view of the matter, as requested by the learned counsel for the applicant, this application for grant of temporary bail is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for a period of 30 days from the date of his release. After completion of 30 days, he shall surrender before the concerning Court.
It is also further directed that copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Dhar and Superintendent of Police, Dhar. They are directed to issue necessary instructions to the concerning police station to produce the prosecution witnesses positively on the next date of hearing, failing which this application for bail shall be considered at their risk.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1506/2016 01.04.2016 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy.Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
Report has been received from District Jail, Ratlam according to which the child of the present applicant was taken to children ward of district hospital on various dates. It was advised by the concerning doctor to perform blood test of the child which was refused by the present applicant.
Looking to the report no case is made out for grant of temporary bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1699/2016 01.04.2016 Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy.Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has submitted medical papers of his father and requested that the medical papers may be verified.
Counsel for the State is directed to verify the medical papers through the concerning police station.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2974/2016 01.04.2016 Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy.Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for extension of time of temporary bail granted to the present applicant in M.Cr.C.1054/2016 by order dated 02.02.2016.
The present applicant after he was examined by the private doctors Dr. Regi and Dr. Subhash Jain, under the order of this Court, was granted temporary bail for 60 days to undergo surgery/treatment of Microlumber L4-5/L5-S1 Discectomy with B/L Foraminotomy.
Now this application is filed on the ground that after the treatment he was advised physiotherapy by the doctor, being a very sensitive operation of his vertebra column and he has to undergo physiotherapy meticulously, otherwise, there is likelihood of paralysis of his lower body. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted the medical papers to support his contentions.
Looking to the medical papers and also the kind of operation he has undergone, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The period of bail granted by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.1054/2016 vide order dated 02.02.2016 for 60 days is further extended by 45 days.
With the aforesaid M.Cr.C.stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2032/2016 01.04.2016 Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is third bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn and second bail application was allowed by this Court on 13.01.2015 in M.Cr.C.No.51/2015.
By order dated 13.01.2015 he was directed to mark his presence in the concerning Police Station first Sunday of every month between 10 am to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. A report was submitted by the concerning police station before the trial Court that on 01.11.2015, 01.12.2015 and 01.01.2016 he could not mark his presence before the concerning police station as his grand mother Ranibai died and he himself was suffering from high fever, vomiting and loose motion. He informed his Advocate Gaurav Ratnawat, however, his Advocate did not inform the concerning police station. On the basis of this report learned trial Court cancelled his bail in accordance with the order passed by this Court.
Now this application is filed stating therein that he made default in appearance before the concerning police station on three occasions due to reasons as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in future he will be more cautious and will never disobey the order passed by this Court.
Taking into consideration the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicant, this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
It is however made clear that further conditions imposed vide order dated 13.01.2015 in M.Cr.C.No.51/2015 shall remain in operation till conclusion of the trial before the trial Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1937/2016 01.04.2016 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station Bherugarh District Ujjain in Crime No.299/2014 under sections 332/149,307/149,427/149 of IPC.
On 17.08.2015 the present applicant failed to mark his presence before the trial Court. Non bailable warrant was issued against him. He remained absent on 03.09.2015, 18.09.2015, 15.10.2015 and 26.11.2015, when the dates were fixed by the trial Court. Subsequently, on 23.01.2016 he was arrested in execution of non bailable warrant issued against him and thereafter he is under custody.
This application is filed on the ground that the present applicant went to Gujarat to earn his livelihood working as labourer. There was no intention to disobey the order passed by this Court and therefore it is prayed that he may be granted another opportunity and he be released on bail.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. The trial Court is at liberty to recover suitable amount from bail and bond submitted by the present applicant-Salman.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.360/2015 02.04.2016 Ms. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents no.2,3,5 and 6, though served. I.A.no.5092/2015 is an application for deleting the name of respondent no.1-Smt. Sobhagyavati Wd/o Venisingh @ Vijaysingh on the ground that her legal heirs are already on record.
Considering the aforesaid, at the risk and cost of the appellants, we allow I.A.no.5092/2015 and permit the appellants to delete the name of respondent no.1.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.358/2015
02.04.2016
None for the appellant.
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply of I.A.No.2982/205 and I.A.No.2983/2015.
List thereafter.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.333/2015
02.04.2016
Shri B.Parida, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent by registered A/d mode on payment of process fee within a week returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
R.P.No.422/2014
02.04.2016
None for the applicants.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate
General for non-applicants no.1 and 2.
Earlier when this matter was listed on 07.04.2015, 15.04.2015, no one gave appearance on behalf of the applicants.
Today also no one is appearing on behalf of the applicants to press this review petition.
In the absence of the applicants and their counsel, review petition is dismissed in default.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
R.P.No.192/2014
02.04.2016
As prayed by Shri V.Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
R.P.No.12/2014
02.04.2016
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
List alongwith the record of M.A.No.1512/2013 decided on 30.11.2013.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.329/2015
02.04.2016
Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.no.2625/2015 an application for condonation of delay. First appeal is barred by 47 days.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, I.A.no.2625/2015 is allowed. The delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Respondents are represented therefore no further notice is required.
Record of the reference Court be called for and thereafter list for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.328/2015
02.04.2016
Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.no.2622/2015 an application for condonation of delay. First appeal is barred by 86 days.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, I.A.no.2622/2015 is allowed. The delay of 86 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Respondents are represented therefore no further notice is required.
Record of the reference Court be called for and thereafter list for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.325/2015
02.04.2016
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General for respondent no.2/State.
Respondents are represented therefore no further notice is required.
Appeal is already admitted for hearing. Record of the trial Court be called for and thereafter list for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.320/2015
02.04.2016
Parties through their counsel. Appeal is already admitted for hearing. Office to list the appeal for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.314/2015
02.04.2016
Shri R.C.Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General for respondent no.2/State.
Heard on I.A.no.2553/2015 for stay. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that by granting decree for specific performance of contract, the learned trial Court directed the respondent no.1 to pay interest @ 12% on the amount of consideration and due to stay, he has to pay the interest and therefore prays to impose some condition. He further submits that this question can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
Considering the fact that price of the property is appreciating every day and therefore no such condition as prayed can be imposed or considered at this stage while confirming the stay granted to the appellant.
The order dated 26.06.2015 shall continue during the pendency of the appeal.
I.A.No.2553/2015 is disposed of. C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.275/2010
04.04.2016
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri A.Polekar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2.
Shri S.R.Saraf, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
I.A.no.6109/2014 has been filed on the death of then President Suresh Chandra Jain.
Let notice of I.A.no.6109/2014 be issued to the proposed respondent no.3- Anil Jain on payment of process fee within one week returnable within six weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.276/2010
04.04.2016
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri A.Polekar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.R.Saraf, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents no.3.
I.A.no.6158/2014 has been filed on the death of then President Suresh Chandra Jain.
Let notice of I.A.no.6158/2014 be issued to the proposed respondent no.1-Anil Jain on payment of process fee within one week returnable within six weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.8122/2009
04.04.2016
Parties through their counsel. As prayed list in the first week of July, 2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1161/2009
04.04.2016
Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
As per report notice has not been served on respondents no.8,9 and 10.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two weeks time to take effective steps for service of notice to them.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.203/2012
04.04.2016
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks time to pay fresh process fee with correct and present address of respondents no.1 and 3 for issuance of notice by ordinary as well as registered A/d mode returnable within six weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.A.No.2204/2011
04.04.2016
Shri H.S.Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Heard on I.A.no.1737/2015 an application for urgent hearing.
No case for out of turn hearing is made out. Accordingly, I.A.no.1737/2015 is dismissed.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.954/2011
04.04.2016
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri Rishab Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for respondent nos.1.to 5 and 7 to 12.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Respondents are represented through their counsel therefore, no further notice is required.
It is submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1951 and there is a connected First Appeal no.278/2002.
Office is directed to list this appeal alongiwth the F.A.No.278/2002 for analogous hearing.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.859/2011
04.04.2016
Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent nos.1,2 and 3. Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L. for respondent no.5.
Notice has been duly served on respondent no.4 therefore no further notice is required.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.845/2011
04.04.2016
Shri A.Polekar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Swati Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.1(Official liquidator).
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents no.3.
Notice on respondent no.2 is awaited. Office to submit service report of respondent no.2.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.341/2012
04.04.2016
Shri S.R.Kochhata, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L. for respondent no.1 and 2.
Mrs. Anita Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
I.A.No.2705/2016 has been filed by the appellant under Section 151 of CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the issue involved in this bunch of first appeals has already been decided by the First Appellate Court on 24.07.2009 and thereafter the appeal filed by the State has been dismissed by the Apex Court on 20.02.2014 and therefore this application be allowed and bunch of appeals be disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.07.2009.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 prays for and is granted time to go through the I.A.and ague on it.
List in the next week alongwith F.A.No.849/2012.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.07/2010
04.04.2016
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L. for the appellants/State.
Heard on the question of admission. It is not in dispute that the contractor having committed default in execution of the work had been duly proceeded and order of penalty has been passed against him on 31.10.1987. The final amount has been determined. While finalizing the final bill of the contractor, the penalty amount had been deducted from the final payment made to the contractor and thereafter after a period of more than 15 years, proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the amount on the basis of some audit objection.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ Court has rightly held that a time barred recovery cannot be made. For these reasons no case to interfere in the impugned order as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, W.A.No.07/2010 has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.1408/2016
04.04.2016
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
As prayed, list on 07.04.2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.125/2016
04.04.2016
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the learned writ Court wrongly directed the State Government to decide the appeal of the appellant which was filed before the Controller afresh in accordance with law.
Issue notice to respondent no.1. Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and prays for and is granted three days time to seek instructions in the matter.
List on 12.04.2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
R.P.No.122/2016
04.04.2016
Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
List alongwith the record of W.P.No.491/2016 decided on 26.02.2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
I.T.A.No.04 and 05 of 2016
04.04.2016
As prayed by Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General on behalf of Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant, list after a week.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
A.A.No.01/2016
04.04.2016
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant is granted last opportunity of two weeks time to argue on the question of admission.
List in the week commencing 25.04.2016 ( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA) JUDGE JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.342,343,344,345,347,348,349,351,352,353 ,354,355,356,357 and 359/2012 04.04.2016 List in the next week alongwith F.A.No.341/2012 and F.A.No.849/2012.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.712/2014
05.04.2016
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted one week time to file copy of the order passed in W.P.No.168/2005 (Premier Vegetable Products Limited Vs. Smt.Sushiladevi Wd/o Sunderlal Singhi and others).
List thereafter.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.704/2014
05.04.2016
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/State.
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted last opportunity of one week time to file reply.
List thereafter.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.602/2014
05.04.2016
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/State.
Learned Dy. Advocate General prays for withdrawal of writ appeal with liberty to file an application for review against the order passed by the learned writ Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
With the aforesaid liberty, writ appeal no.602/2014 is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.425/2014
05.04.2016
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned senior counsel with Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
Let notice of I.A.no.6656/2014 be issued to respondent no.1 on payment of process fee within a week returnable within four weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.120/2014
05.04.2016
Shri Sanjay Zamindar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted one week time to pay fresh process fee for issuance of notice to respondent no.1 returnable within four weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.1332/2013
02.04.2016
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K.Gondle, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.no.6569/2015 which is an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking pendente-lite interim maintenance claiming Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
The appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent that took place on 13.05.1994. After their marriage, three children were born namely Ronak 19 years, Ayushi 16 years and Anushka 13 years. It is also stated Ayushi is a mental retarded child. According to the appellant, she has no source of independent income, however, when she was thrown out by the respondent from the respondent's house, made certain arrangements for earning, but this income discontinued due to inference of the respondent. The respondent is a degree holder in Civil Engineer and working as Colonizer, building contractor and property investor. His monthly income is Rs. 2 lacs per month. This apart the respondent is also having Fixed Deposits in the Banks and on which he is earning interest from the Bank. He maintains luxury cars and own several land property at Hoshangabad and Indore. Some of the residential properties had been let out and he is getting rent from it. He is income tax payee having permanent account etc. To support her contentions she filed income tax return verification form pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, copies of account statement, copies of fixed deposits and also sale deeds in favour the respondent.
In reply, respondent denied all the allegations. According to him, the appellant and the three children are living in the house of the respondent and respondent is taking care of the three children of the appellant. The appellant is running beauty parlour in the name and style of Herbal Life and two boutiques named Swamini and Mona boutique and by these establishment she is having income of Rs.1 lac each. She is also getting Rs.5000/- per month as ordered by this Court in Cr.R.No.1216/2014 vide order dated 14.05.2015. According to the respondent, the appellant is claiming Rs.30,000/- per month by way of maintenance and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses which are too high.
We have gone through the papers in respect of income of the respondent. According to the income tax return verification form which relates to assessment year 2013-14, his gross income is shown as Rs.5,16,027 and his net income is shown as Rs.3,06,000/-.
As per computation of total income, his income is from business and properties and also bank interest and other interest. This apart the sale deed submitted by the appellant shows that he purchased some properties in the years 2003 and 2010. It is admitted that the appellant and the three children are living in the residential accommodation provided by the respondent due to the order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and it is not that he voluntarily allowed them to stay in the house.
Taking all these factors into consideration, we direct that the respondent shall pay to the appellant Rs.12,500/- per month by way of interim maintenance pendente-lite from the date of application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also Rs.7,500/- as litigation expenses. The amount of maintenance that she is receiving in compliance of order passed in Cr.R.No.1216/2014, if actually paid, shall be adjusted in the amount ordered here.
Accordingly, I.A.No.6569/2015 stands disposed of.
Appeal is already admitted. List for final hearing in due course. C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.520/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri S.Vyas, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
No further order is required. Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply a complete set including the application for temporary injunction to the learned counsel for the respondents within three days from today so that they may file reply and argue on I.A.no.4488/2015.
List after two weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.519/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
Appeal is already admitted. Respondent is represented therefore no further notice is required.
List for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.517/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent on his present and correct address by ordinary as well as registered A/D mode on payment of process fee within two weeks.
In addition appellant is also permitted to serve dasti notice on the respondent on payment of usual charges.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.515/2015
06.04.2016
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shakti Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply of I.A.no4434/2015.
List thereafter.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.513/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent though served. Heard on I.A.No.4419/2015 an application for condonation of delay. First appeal is barred by 41 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application we are of the view that the cause shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, I.A.no.4419/2015 is allowed. The delay of 41 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Shri J.B.Dave, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent therefore, no further notice is required.
Record of the trial Court be called for. List for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.505/2015
06.04.2016
Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
As per report, notice has been duly served on the respondent.
Appeal is already admitted. List for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.504/2015
06.04.2016
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the appellant.
As per report, notice has been duly served on the respondent.
Appeal is already admitted. Record of the trial Court be called for. List for final hearing in due course.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.491/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L.,for the appellant/State.
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.no.5476/2015 an application for condonation of delay.
Writ appeal is barred by 361 days. The impugned order was passed on 22.07.2014. Thereafter legal opinion was obtained on 02.03.2015. There is no explanation in para 2 of the application as to when the officer-in-charge came to know about the passing of the order dated 22.07.2014.
In the absence of any sufficient cause, no case for condonation of delay as prayed for is made out. I.A.No.5476/2015 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, W.A.No.491/2015 is dismissed as barred by time.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.489/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Kudeep Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A.no.4306/2015 an application for condonation of delay.
The first appeal is barred by 89 days. Issue notice of I.A.no.4306/2015 to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.481/2015
06.04.2016
None for the appellant.
Perused I.A.no.4762/2015. No case to dispense with service of notice on respondent as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, I.A.no.4762/2015 is dismissed.
Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week returnable within six weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.465/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., for the appellant/State.
As prayed, list in the next week.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.458/2015
06.04.2016
Office to peruse the order dated
11.01.2016 and proceed accordingly.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.450/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant.
Let fresh notice be issued to respondent on the correct and present address on payment of process fee within two weeks returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.449/2015
06.04.2016
Shri G.K.Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Let fresh notice be issued to respondent on the correct and present address on payment of process fee within two weeks returnable within six weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.446/2015
06.04.2016
Let fresh notice be issued to respondent on the correct and present address on payment of process fee within two weeks returnable within six weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.495/2015
06.04.2016
Shri A.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., for respondent no.1/State.
Shri M.D.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no3.
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Heard on I.A.no.5509/2015 an application for condonation of delay.
As per report writ appeal is in time. I.A.no.5509/2015 is permitted to be withdrawn.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 06.08.2014 passed in W.P.No.3616/2013, whereby the learned writ Court passed the following order:-
"This court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Additional Collector and the same does not reflects that the petitioner was not holding a valid certificate, on the contrary the order reflects that the name of the petitioner was not appearing in the list prepared by the Gram Panchayat and the Janpad Panchayat, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner submitted a particular valid certificate in respect of the MET qualification certificate, the Additional Collector should have got it verified from the Construction Industry Development Council. Merely, the petitioner's name was not appearing in the list maintained by the Janpad Panchayat/Gram Panchayat, it does not mean that he does not possess any valid certificate. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.1.2013 is accordingly set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Collector, District Rajgarh on 25.8.14 and the Additional Collector after verifying the certificate shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that in case certificate dated 30th March, 2011 is a valid certificate, he shall pass necessary order keeping in view the certificate which has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The exercise of passing final order be concluded within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."
Thereafter, the Additional Collector without waiting for the report from CIDC, New Delhi decided the matter by order dated 12.12.2014.
Considering the aforesaid, learned writ Court quashed the aforesaid order and directed the Collector to decide the appeal afresh by treating the certificate of the respondent no.4 as a valid certificate as certified by respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned writ Court directed the Collector to verify the certificate and thereafter pass necessary orders keeping in view that the certificate which has been issued in favour of respondent no.4 is a valid certificate, a formal order was required to be passed.
In the reply filed by CIDC, it has been stated by the said Authority that the certificate issued by it in favour of respondent no.4 is a valid certificate and therefore the aforesaid observation has been made by the learned writ Court.
Considering the aforesaid, we set aside the order and direct the respondent-Collector to decide the appeal afresh in terms of the observation made by writ Court vide order dated 06.08.2014 within the specified time as directed by the writ Court on 30.07.2015.
With the aforesaid, writ appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.448/2016
06.04.2016
Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.Pare, learned counsel for the respondent on caveat.
Heard on I.A.no.3077/2016 an application under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time to pay the deficit court fees of Rs.1,49,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that stamp vendors informed the appellant that due to non-availability of court fee stamps, they are unable to supply the Court fee stamps of Rs.1,49,000/- and therefore the same could not be paid.
Considering the aforesaid, we grant one month's time to the appellant to pay the deficit court fees.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3077/2016 is allowed and disposed of.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.7029/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Brian D' Silva, learned senior counsel with Shri S.K.Shrivastava and Shri Amit K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General for respondent no.1/State.
Shri S.C.Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri D.K.Chhabra, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
Reply of application for appropriate directions is awaited.
As prayed, list on 26.04.2016.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.C.C.No.768/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel for the applicant.
List alongwith the record of W.A.No.885/2008.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.C.C.No.48/2016
06.04.2016
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
This is an application for restoration of W.A.No.576/2015 which was dismissed in default of appearance of the applicant and her counsel on 17.12.2015.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to inadvertence, he could not mark his presence before the Court on 17.12.2015, when the matter was called for hearing. This fact is supported by affidavit of the learned counsel.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the cause shown by the applicant for his absence is sufficient to allow this application and restore the writ appeal to its original number.
Accordingly, MCC is allowed. W.A.No.576/2015 is restored to its original number.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.2526/2016
06.04.2016
Shri K.P.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. By this PIL, the petitioner is claiming Swatch Bharat Abhiyan. In the absence of any material, no relief in this PIL as prayed for can be granted.
Writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.2489/2016
06.04.2016
Shri Anil Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within three working days returnable within three weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.2443/2016
06.04.2016
None for the petitioners.
In the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.2320/2016
06.04.2016
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. It is submitted that the issue involved in this petition is fully covered by the Apex Court decision in the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs. C.C.E & C. Cochin (2011) 19STJ 201 (SC) wherein it has been held that the value of SIM Card will form part of taxable value for levy of service tax, as SIM Cards are never sold as goods, independent from services provided.
Issue notice.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1,2 and 3.
Let notice be issued to respondent nos.4 to 6 on payment of process fee within a week returnable within six weeks.
In the meanwhile, on deposition of 50% of the amount in question, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of remaining amount until further orders of this Court.
List alongwith W.P.No.3767/2015 for analogous hearing.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.A.No.129/2016
06.04.2016
As prayed by Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, list in the next week.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
F.A.No.688/2014
06.04.2016
Shri P.M.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
As prayed, list in the next week.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.C.C.No.150/2016
06.04.2016
As prayed by the applicant-Dr.Hemkant Shotriya who is present in person, list after two weeks.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
W.P.No.5340/2015
06.04.2016
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.Advocate General for respondent no.1.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
The issue involved in this petition is similar to the petition which has been dismissed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur vide order dated 15.10.2015 in W.P.No.17673/2015. The order dated 15.10.2015 reads as under:-
"Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Divya Kirti Bohre, learned Government Advocate for respondent State of M.P. on advance notice.
Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also on advance notice.
Heard on admission.
Having failed to obtain 276 marks, which is a cutoff mark to be obtained in State Services Preliminary Examination 2014, for a hall ticket for the Main Examination, petitioner (who obtained 272 marks) has approached this Court vide present writ petition with a contention that for question No. 30 and 51 of Question Paper No. 1 of General Studies the petitioner be given the additional marks.
Coming to the issue straight. Question No. 30 of Question Paper No. 1 at it appears in set (D) is "Kyoto Protocol" is related to; four options were given, viz., (A) Air Pollution (B) Green House Gases (C) Climate Change (D) Water Pollution.
As per petitioner he marked option (B); whereas as per Notification dated 12.6.2015 the correct answer is option (C).
Though it is contended that earlier as per the unamended answer key the answer to question No. 30 was marked as Option (B); however, the facts remain that the answer key being subsequently corrected and since petitioner's answer to the same being incorrect he was not given the marks in lieu thereof and rightly so.
Similarly as to answer to question 51 in question paper No. 1, the petitioner opted for answer (D) which being incorrect, as the right answer being option (A), the petitioner, rightly did not get any marks therefor.
The petitioner since could score 272 marks in the preliminary examination and as the cutoff marks was 276, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs."
In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
C.C.as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ/
M.Cr.C.No.1746/2016
07.04.2016
Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station Petlawad District Jhabua in Crime No.277/2015 under sections 365, 376, 34 of IPC.
According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was married to the present applicant. It is alleged that on 30.06.2015, she went to the Court for attending her case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. While she was coming back from the Court, the present applicant, her father-in-law and the co-accused Ramesh, who lives in the same village came in a van and took her forcibly with them.
Arguments heard case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix is wife of the present applicant. On 04.02.2016 she was recovered from the house of the present applicant and there she was living by consent as wife of the present applicant. He also submitted that in the month of September, 2015 an affidavit was given by the prosecutrix in which she stated that she had no dispute with the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant and the prosecutrix belonged to tribal community. They are not well educated and therefore some minor dispute arose between them and this incident is the result of that minor dispute.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that after her recovery from the possession of the present applicant, her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her statement she supported the prosecution case.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1740/2016 07.04.2016 Shri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the State is directed to call the case diary and make it available on the next date of hearing.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1734/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the charge sheet has been filed in the case in the month of September, 2015 and there is hardly any progress in the trial of the case.
Sessions Judge, Dhar may be requested to examine the record of the Sessions case arising out of crime no.53/15, police station Dahi, district Dhar under Sections 302,307,499,147,148 and 149 of IPC and submit his report in respect of status of trial of the case and the reasons for delay in conclusion of the trial.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1726/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State. This is second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant is facing trial in S.T.No.361/2015 pending before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, district Rajgarh under Sections 376,506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
He was arrested by Police Station Kurawar, district Rajgarh in crime no.345/2015 under the above mentioned provisions of law.
This second application is filed on the ground that the prosecutrix is not coming to the Court for recording her statement and the present applicant is languishing in jail.
A report from Sessions Judge, Rajgarh be called requesting him to examine the record himself and submit a report in respect of non-appearance of the prosecutrix before the Court, status of trial and also reasons for delay in conclusion of trial.
Counsel for the State is directed to call a report from the concerning police station as to why the prosecutrix who is reportedly living in the next house of the present applicant is not being produced before the Court.
Copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the State as per rules.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1703/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application and prays for direction to the trial Court for early conclusion of trial.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly this application is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1699/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Report sought from the concerning police station by order dated 01.04.2016 is not available on record today.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will file additional medical papers in respect of the disease his father is suffering.
He is directed to do so within three days and supply copy to the counsel for the State.
Counsel for the State is directed to call the verification report from the concerning police station.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2242/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Rohit Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2205/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the State is directed to call the case diary and make it available on the next date of hearing.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2168/2016 07.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2137/2016 07.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2129/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2123/2016 07.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2066/2016 07.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Let the default pointed out by the office be removed within three working days failing which the application shall stand dismissed without recourse to the Bench.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2054/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording of statement of material prosecution witnesses.
With liberty as aforesaid, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2041/2016 07.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2143/2016 07.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2028/2016 07.04.2016 Shri Govind Rai Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
This is fifth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
While disposing of the fourth application vide order dated 10.02.2016 in M.Cr.C.No.89/2016 liberty was granted to the present applicant to renew his prayer after recording of statement of witnesses Anil, Indra Prakash and Pradeep Rajoria. Out of these three witnesses, Anil and Indra Prakash had already been examined, however, Investigating Officer Pradeep Rajoria is reported to be absconding, after he was placed under suspension and therefore he is not traceable.
This application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the trial Court for closing the evidence of prosecution witness, as Investigating Officer is not traceable. Looking to the record of the case, if it is impossible to call the Investigating Officer, the trial Court may pass suitable orders in the matter.
With the aforesaid direction, this application stands disposed of.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1470/2016 07.04.2016 Shri S.C.Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for the respondent/State. This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant is arrested by the Police Station Sanyogitaganj District Indore in connection with Crime No.575/2011 for the offence punishable under sections 420,465,406,467,468,469,471 and 472 of IPC.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the co- accused Chandra Pandit alongwith her son, who is also co- accused in this case obtained loan from the complainant/Bank i.e.IDBI Bank, Indore on 29.11.2011 and also in December, 2001 for Rs.7,43,000/- and mortgaged their property House No.569-R, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Indore before the Bank. Subsequently, it was found that the co- accused Chandra Pandit and her son prepared four copies of the sale deed and mortgaged some property before four different Banks and further obtained a loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thereafter they stopped paying the installments of the loan in 2010. A private complaint was lodged by the Bank before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. The Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed the concerning police station to register a crime and investigate the matter. Accordingly, this crime was registered by police station Sanyogitaganj and it is under investigation.
So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he is practicing as a lawyer. The forged sale deed on the basis of which the loan was obtained were prepared in the office of the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only such documents are seized by the police from the office of the present applicant which provided admitted specimen signature of the present applicant and no other incriminating document is available. His defence is that one lady Advocate Shalini Pandit was working in his office who was closely associated with co-accused Chandra Pandit and Kunal Pandit. She was also looking after sanctioning of loan from various Banks. The said lady prepared all the documents and as she was working in his office, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that co-accused Chandra Pandit was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2016 in M.Cr.C.No.1052/2016.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that the co-accused was only granted bail, as she was a lady of 70 years and looking to her age, the Court considered her application.
I have gone through the case diary. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the documents seized from his office mainly appears to be for using as admitted specimen signature of the present applicant. No other incriminating evidence is available against him. In my opinion, it is a fit case for grant of bail to the present applicant. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and two local solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate/trial Court for his appearance before the Magistrate/trial Court on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial unless and until his personal appearance is exempted from the concerning Court on showing satisfactory reason therefor.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)Cr.P.C. meticulously. In case of violation of any condition, this bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1833/2016 11.04.2016 Shri A.S.Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. As directed by Court order dated 07.04.2016, report be called from the concerning Sessions Judge and Police Station positively on the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1740/2016 11.04.2016 Shri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the State is directed to call the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1734/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
As directed by Court order dated 07.04.2016, report be called from the Sessions Judge, Dhar positively on the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1726/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
In compliance to Court order dated 07.04.2016, report from the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh as well as the concerning Police Station is not available on record. The same be called positively on the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1699/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional medical papers in respect of illness of the father of the present applicant.
List in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1673/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
As directed by Court order dated 07.04.2016, report be called from the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh positively on the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1468/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the Objector. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional documents in the matter.
List after a week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.985/2016 11.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, Advocate has already given NOC to the applicant.
Issue SPC to the applicant for appearance before the Court on 26.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1802/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after a week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.11696/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after a week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.11070/2015 11.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.10448/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is CBN, Neemuch and State is wrongly mentioned in the cause list. He prays that suitable correction be made in the cause list.
Office is directed to make suitable changes in the cause list.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time as he wants to file additional documents.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.9894/2015 11.04.2016 Parties through their counsel Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.5875/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.748/2016 11.04.2016 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
After arguing the case for some time learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application with liberty to surrender before the lower Court and also seeks direction to the lower Court that if an application for regular bail is filed, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
Prayer allowed.
With liberty and direction as aforesaid, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Cr.A.No.1737/2015 11.04.2016 None for the appellant.
List alongwith Cr.A.No.1547/2015.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Cr.A.No.1547/2015 11.04.2016 None for the appellant.
Appellant-Mayabai is absent today. None appears on her behalf.
Issue bailable warrant of Rs.20,000/- against the appellant returnable on 14.06.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1263/2015 11.04.2016 Shri H.S.Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Heard on I.A.No.651/2016 an application for amending ground no.2 in the memo of appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application.
After due consideration, the application is allowed. Necessary amendment be incorporated within three working days.
List for admission in the week commencing 25.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1105/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.6172/2015 an application for grant of time under Section 149 of CPC for depositing deficit Court fees of Rs.30,000/-.
On due consideration, the application is allowed. Appellant is granted two months time to deposit the requisite Court fees.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.687/2015 11.04.2016 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Notice of I.A.no.6772/2015 to respondents no.1 to 4 are duly served. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
Accordingly, I.A.No.6772/2015 is disposed of with direction to deposit 30% of the enhanced amount within 30 days. On depositing of the amount within the specified time, the execution of the remaining part of the award shall remain stayed.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ C.R.No.317/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant. I.A.Nos. 9363/2015 and 9442/2015 are not available on record.
List on 20.04.2016 alongwith the aforementioned I.As.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ S.A.No.156/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on I.A.no.2482/2015.
List after one week.
Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing. C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.150/2015 11.04.2016 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report is awaited.
List after two weeks alongwith the service report.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.17/2015 11.04.2016 Service report on respondents no.1 to 3 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents no. 1 to 3.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2023/2014 11.04.2016 Shri A.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Respondent no.3 is served. Power has been filed. As prayed by both the counsel, list in the forthcoming Lok Adalat on 23.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1901/2014 11.04.2016 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
According to the office report, this Miscellaneous Appeal is filed within time.
Accordingly, I.A.no.8949/2014 is disposed of as being rendered infructuous.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1637/2014 11.04.2016 Service report on respondents no.2, 3 and 5 is awaited.
List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents no. 2, 3 and 5.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1432/2014 11.04.2016 Learned counsel for the appellant seeks more time for filing correct address and fresh process fee.
He is directed to do so within three weeks. On filing of fresh process fee and correct address, issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable within four weeks.
List after service of notice.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1178/2014 11.04.2016 Service report is awaited.
List after two weeks alongwith the service report.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.1105/2014 11.04.2016 Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
According to the service report of respondents no.1(a),(c) and (d) refuse to accept notice. As such, they may be deemed to have been served. Respondent no.1(b) was found not present in the house at the time of service of notice.
Accordingly on payment of fresh process fee within one week issue notice to respondent no.1(b) by both modes regular as well as registered A/d mode returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.841/2014 11.04.2016 Shri S.K.Pawnekar, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue fresh notice to respondents no.1,2,3,4,9,10 and 11 on supply of correct details and payment of process fee within a week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.647/2014 11.04.2016 Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks one week time to incorporate necessary amendment in the memo of appeal.
He is directed to do so within one week. List after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.261/2014 11.04.2016 Respondent no.5 is not served, as he was found not present in the village.
Issue fresh notice to respondent no.5 on payment of process fee within one week returnable in four weeks.
All other respondents are served.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2448/2016 11.04.2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is second bail application filed by the applicants under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. Their first application was dismissed as withdrawn without arguing on merit at the very outset in M.Cr.C.No.4401/2015 vide order dated 23.06.2015.
The accused/applicants are arrested by the Police Station Rajpur District Badwani in Crime No.105/2015 under sections 302, 201/149 of IPC.
This second application was filed on the ground that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution for proving that the deceased was last seen alive with the present applicants had turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution case that the deceased was last seen alive with the present applicants. Apart from this evidence, only evidence against the present applicants are the clothes that there seized from the present applicants which were allegedly blood stained. However learned counsel for the applicant submits that no FSL report has been filed by the prosecution so far. He also submits that co-accused Thakur Singh and Anil were granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.4401/2015, from whom blood stained clothes were seized and therefore only on the ground that blood stained clothes were seized from the present applicants also they have parity with the co-accused, who were granted bail.
According to the prosecution story, on 01.03.2015 informant Manohar saw body of unknown person in his field. Subsequently, he was identified as deceased Sakharam. During investigation it was found that the deceased came to Bhagsur and stayed in the house of his father-in-law. Subsequently, it was found that the deceased was last seen together with Anar Singh, Ramlal, Nilesh and Mahesh. So far as the present applicants are concerned, it is alleged by the prosecution that blood stained clothes were recovered from them on the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Nainsingh PW-2 who was father-in-law of the deceased turned hostile. Tejubai, wife of the deceased Sakharam also turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution story that the deceased was last seen alive with the present applicants. Dungta another prosecution witness also turned hostile. Another eye witness Parmanand was given up by the prosecution on 03.11.2015. After these witnesses no other witness is available to prove that the deceased was last seen alive with the present applicants.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that blood stained clothes were recovered from the present applicants and they had to explain how blood came on the clothes.
I have gone through the statements and the case diary.
Taking the fact into consideration that there is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased was last seen alive with the present applicants, the case of the present applicants is similar to that of co-accused, who were granted bail and also the fact that even if when trial is in its advance stage, FSL report has not been submitted by the prosecution, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
They are further directed that on being so released on bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ S.A.No.659/2007 11.04.2016 Shri D.S.Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.no.4453/2014, I.A.No.1653/2016 and I.A.no.1654/2016.
I.A.no.4453/2014 is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for bringing legal representatives of respondent no.8-Gafur Khan on record. By this application five legal representatives Fatmabee, Salim Khan Sajju Khan, Sharif Khan and Iqbal Khan are proposed to be brought on record.
I.A.no.1653/2016 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and I.A.no.1654/2016 is an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement.
According to the counsel for the appellant, this appeal was filed on 27.07.2007. It was admitted on 07.08.2009 and notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. However, record show that notices were issued by the office only in the year 2011 in compliance of common order. When service report was received, it was reported that respondent no.8-Gafur Khan died on 22.03.2008. This fact was reported in the service report dated 22.07.2011 and immediately after service report, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC I.A.No.4453/2014 was filed by the appellant. Subsequently two other applications for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement were also filed as stated above.
In reply of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, counsel representing the proposed L.Rs of respondent no.8-Gafur Khan submitted that apart from proposed legal representatives, Jairabee and Ruksanabee, both married daughters are also legal representatives, of deceased respondent no.8-Gafur Khan. He also submitted that appellant and respondents are closely related and they live next to each other and it was not possible that the appellant did not know the factum of death of respondent no.8-Gafur Khan and on the basis of this he submits that delay in this case is not bonafide and therefore prays that appeal so far as it relates to respondent no.8 be treated as abated. He also prays that condonation of delay in setting aside the abatement should not be allowed.
I have gone through the record of the case. It is true that notices were served only in the year 2011 in compliance of common order and before that no notices were issued to the respondents and factum of death of respondent no.8-Gafur Khan was first mentioned only in the service report received in the year 2011.
At this stage, it cannot be presumed that merely because parties are closely related to each other, the appellant had knowledge of death of respondent no.8.
Counsel for the appellant also submits that decree under challenge is of permanent injunction, which is not a decree of declaration of title, therefore, even if married daughters are not made party, there will not be any adverse effect on this appeal, as the deceased respondent would be represented by the persons who are in actual possession of the property.
I have gone through the record of the case. At this stage, the question as to what would be the effect of non- impleading of two married daughters of the deceased respondent, would be considered at the time of final disposal. As such, I find that this is a fit case where condonation of delay should be allowed and abatement should be set aside.
Accordingly, applications I.A.no.1653/2016 and 1654/2016 are allowed. The delay in bringing the legal representatives of respondent no.8 is condoned and consequential abatement is set aside. I.A.no.4453/2014 is allowed. The proposed legal representatives are brought on record as respondents in this appeal. Necessary corrections be incorporated within one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ 12.04.2016 None for the applicant/(s). Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case is adjourned.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE M.Cr.C.No.2779/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the State is directed to call the case diary and make it available on the next date of hearing.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2767/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application and prays for direction to the trial Court for expediting the trial of the case.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly this application is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months after receiving certified copy of this order.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2766/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Soumil Ekadi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional documents.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2750/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2715/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Harish Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. This is third application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier two applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.01.2015 and 24.09.2015.
This third application is filed on the ground that during the trial the prosecution witnesses failed to prove that any statement of the deceased was recorded by the concerning prosecution witness.
After going through the case diary and the documents filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, in my considered opinion, at this stage, no inference can be drawn. The incident took place within two years of marriage and therefore no case is made out for grant of bail.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2669/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional documents in the matter.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.583/2015 20.04.2016 Shri A.Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondents no.1 and 3.
None for respondent no.2, though served. List for admission after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.500/2015 20.04.2016 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A.No.5664/2015 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Issue notice to the respondent of I.A.No.5664/2015 as well as the application under Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC and also memo of appeal on payment of process fee within one week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ C.R.No.317/2015 20.04.2016 Shri S.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.no.9363/2015 and I.A.no.9442/2015 which are applications for removing the defect pointed out by the office that no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the applicant.
According to the applicant he was pursuing remedy before this Court and therefore there is a delay of 1358 days in filing this civil revision.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant is directed to file appropriate application for condonation of delay stating therein all the relevant facts and circumstances which caused delay in filing this civil revision which shall be considered at the time of considering this application.
With the aforesaid direction, I.A.No.9363/2015 and I.A.No.9442/2015 stands disposed of.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to file appropriate application for condonation of delay within two weeks.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.311/2015 20.04.2016 Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has paid process fee for issuance of notice to respondent no.2 on 02.03.2016.
Office is directed to list after one week alongwith the service report of respondent no.2.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.240/2015 20.04.2016 Shri S.Tuteja, learned counsel for the appellant. Service report of respondents no.1 and 2 is awaited. Learned counsel for the appellant however submits that in this case the liability of Insurance Company is not disputed. He prays for time to file appropriate application for dispensing with service of notice on respondents no.1 and 2.
Prayer allowed.
Counsel for the appellant is directed to file appropriate application within one week.
List after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ C.R.No.19/2015 20.04.2016 Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.6967/2015 which is an application under Section 151 of CPC for exempting from service of notice on respondent no.5 which is public at large.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is ready to publish notice at this stage to avoid further complications.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with direction to the learned counsel for the applicant to take necessary steps for publication of notice to respondent no.5 within two weeks.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.249/2016 20.04.2016 Shri M.R.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within one week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.146/2016 20.04.2016 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list on 27.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ C.R.No.285/2015 20.04.2016 Shri Mangesh Bhachawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
List on 27.04.2016 alongwith the service report of the respondent.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.465/2016 20.04.2016 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file a revision under Section 19 of the Family Court Act.
With liberty as aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.418/2016 20.04.2016 As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list on 27.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.143/2016 20.04.2016 Due to reference matter could not be taken up today.
List after one week.
In the meanwhile, interim relief to continue. C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.236/2016 20.04.2016 None for the applicant.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.233/2016 20.04.2016 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply of I.A.No.3321/2016.
He is directed to do the needful within one week. List after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Cr.A.No.1686/2015 20.04.2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.9162/2015 which is first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant- Balram S/o Ramadhar.
The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine deposited Imprisonm
details ent in lieu
of fine
306 IPC 7 Years R.I Rs.2000/- 2 months
(deposited R.I
Receipt No.49
dt. 23.11.2015)
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits during trial the appellant was on bail and he never misused the liberty granted to him. He further points out that no abatement to commit suicide was proved against the present appellant. He was admittedly husband of the deceased. The only allegation against him was that he conducted second marriage with the co-accused and she was living with them as second wife of the present appellant due to which the deceased felt mentally harassed and committed suicide.
According to the learned counsel for appellant this does not amount to abatement on the part of the present appellant.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and the record of the trial Court which is available today.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that if the present appellant furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16.06.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Cr.A.No.1618/2015 20.04.2016 Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.8753/2015 which is first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant- Bharat S/o Munsingh @ Mohan Mankar.
The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine deposited Imprisonm
details ent in lieu
of fine
3/4 POCSOA 7 Years, Not deposited 2 months
376(1), IPC 7 years, 3
366,376 years and 2
years
respectively
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that at the time of incident the age of the prosecutrix as assessed by the trial Court is 16 years and 7 months and therefore her consent was immaterial and bail should not be granted to the present appellant.
In response, learned counsel for the appellant submits that during trial the appellant was on bail and he never misused the liberty granted to him. He has already suffered jail sentence of 2 years and the hearing of the appeal shall take time.
After going through the impugned judgment and the record of the trial Court, I find that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that if the present appellant furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16.06.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2041/2016 21.04.2016 Shri M.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have already given NOC to the applicant.
No other counsel is appearing for the applicant. Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1997/2016 21.04.2016 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
As prayed list on 28.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1898/2016 and M.Cr.C.No.3589/2016 21.04.2016 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant list after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1740/2016 21.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1588/2016 21.04.2016 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant list after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1585/2016 21.04.2016 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to press this application.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as not pressed.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1055/2016 21.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Case diary is available.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.11070/2015 21.04.2016 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application and prays for direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly this application is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months after receiving certified copy of this order.
C.C.as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.10448/2015 21.04.2016 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.5875/2015 21.04.2016 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.3533/2016 21.04.2016 Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
This is fourth application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
This application is filed on the ground that so far as only 26 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court, while as per the list, as many as 80 witnesses are to be examined. While dismissing his third application on 01.12.2015, liberty was granted to the present applicant to renew his prayer after four weeks. However, there appears to be no progress in this case. Today when the case is taken up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the respondent.
A report be called from District Judge, Indore requesting him to inspect the record of criminal case no.01/2007 (Brijendra Singh Vs. State through CBI) pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Indore and submit his report in respect of the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial. He may also be requested to give his assessment as to the time that will be taken to conclude the trial.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.3276/2016 21.04.2016 Shri S.A.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional documents in this matter.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.3183/2016 21.04.2016 Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., for respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2184/2013 21.04.2016 None for the appellant.
As per office report, process fee has already been paid, but notice could not bee issued due to heavy rush.
Office is directed to issue notice on process fee already paid returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1967/2013 21.04.2016 Shri R.Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri M.Jindal, learned counsel for respondent no.3. On payment of fresh process fee and supply of correct details in respect of respondent no.1 within two weeks, issue notice to respondent no.1 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.938/2013 21.04.2016 Shri R.Malpani, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Chourasia, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Respondents no.1 and 3 are served. On payment of fresh process fee within one week, issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.746/2013 21.04.2016 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has already paid the required amount of court fee.
Issue notice of I.A.no.1738/2013 which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also on memo of appeal on payment of process fee within two weeks returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1641/2012 21.04.2016 Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents.
In the absence of the learned counsel for the respondents hearing on I.A.No.5481/2013 is not possible today.
List after one week for consideration of I.A.No.5481/2013.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.417/2012 21.04.2016 Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 6.
On payment of fresh process fee within one week, issue notice to respondent no.7 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.333/2012 21.04.2016 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this matter the counsel comes from outside and therefore the matter may be listed on any Wednesday.
List after one week on any Wednesday.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1331/2011 21.04.2016 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
In this matter service of notice on respondents no.1 and 2 are dispensed with. Respondent no.3 is represented by counsel.
Respondent no.5 who is a minor has been served through her mother, who is respondent no.4. However, as per the service report respondent no.4 is still un-served.
On payment of fresh process fee within one week, issue notice to respondent no.4 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.263/2011 21.04.2016 Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent no.1. None for respondents no.2,3 and 4. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to file reply of I.A.no.929/2016.
She is directed to do so within two weeks. List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ F.A.No.796/2010 21.04.2016 Parties through their counsel. I.A.No.2031/2011 has already been disposed of vide order dated 26.08.2011. Matter has been wrongly listed.
Office is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.3474/2009 21.04.2016 Shri H.S.Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks one week time to file appropriate application for service of notice on the respondents.
Prayer allowed.
List after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2123/2014 21.04.2016 Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent no.1 is served.
Report of service on respondent no.2 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondent no.2.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1441/2014 21.04.2016 Shri G.K.Neema, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.no.1373/2016 which is an application for dispensing with service of notice on respondent no.2.
After due consideration, the prayer is allowed. Service of notice on respondent no.2 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant.
All other respondents are served. Office is directed to list the matter in the forthcoming Lok Adalat on 23.04.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1405/2014 21.04.2016 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of respondent no.1 is awaited. All other respondents are served.
List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondent no.1.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1372/2014 21.04.2016 Service report of respondents no.1 and 2 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents no.1 and 2.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2573/2013 21.04.2016 Parties through their counsel. All the respondents are served and represented by their counsel. No further orders are required on the point of service report.
Record of the Tribunal is also available. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that he has not received copy of memo of appeal and other relevant documents.
Counsel for the appellants undertakes to supply the copies during the course of the day.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. List for final hearing in due course.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2278/2013 21.04.2016 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for respondents no.1,2,3 and 4.
Heard on I.A.No.3806/2015. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to withdraw this application in compliance of Court order dated 16.12.2015 with liberty to file fresh appropriate application for withdrawal of amount deposited by the appellant.
Prayer allowed.
I.A.no.3806/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1186/2012 21.04.2016 Shri M.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pourush Ranka, learned counsel for L.Rs. no.(i) and (ii) of respondent no.1.
None for respondents no.2 and 3. Service report of Legal representatives no. (iii) and
(iv) of respondent no.1 is awaited. Legal representative no.
(v) of respondent no.1 is unserved.
On payment of fresh process fee within a week, issue notice to legal representative no.(v) of respondent no.1 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.05/2016 21.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri V.K.Patwari, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks three weeks time to file reply.
List after summer vacation.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.897/2015 21.04.2016 Shri Rishab Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply to the rejoinder filed by the applicant.
She is directed to do so within three weeks. List alongwith identical matters on 14th June, 2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.891/2015 21.04.2016 None for the parties.
List after summer vacations.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.808/2015 21.04.2016 Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent, though served. List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.746/2015 21.04.2016 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that compliance of the Court order has been made. He seeks two weeks time to file reply.
List after summer vacations.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.718/2015 21.04.2016 Shri K.L.Hardia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent.
List after summer vacations alongwith connected matter Conc.No.719/2015.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.676/2015 21.04.2016 Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P ushyamitra Bhargava,learned counsel for respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that SLP filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court has been dismissed and now he seeks two weeks time to comply with the Court order.
Prayer allowed.
List in the week commencing 13th June, 2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.560/2015 21.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for respondents Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file reply.
Prayer allowed.
List after summer vacations.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.520/2015 21.04.2016 Shri S.M.Bapat, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent.
List after summer vacations.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.336/2015 21.04.2016 Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she has received copy of reply and documents filed by the respondent. She seeks time to argue the matter.
List after summer vacations.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.331/2015 21.04.2016 Applicant present in person. Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. She seeks two weeks time for compliance according to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
List on 12.05.2016.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ C.R.No.327/2015 21.04.2016 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has received copy of reply and seeks time to argue the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has not brought the legal representatives of respondent no.2 on record.
In response learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will verify and take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representatives of respondent no.2.
List after summer vacations.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.320/2015 21.04.2016 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
I.A.No.2113/2016 was disposed of by order dated 08.03.2016. Necessary amendment has been incorporated by the counsel.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within one week returnable within two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.3263/2016 21.04.2016 Shri S.K.Vyas, learned senior counsel with Shri L.S.Chandiramani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the Objector. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., before this Court for grant of bail.
Case diary is available.
The present applicant was arrested by the Police Station Mahidpur, District Ujjain in connection with Crime No.279/2015 for the offence punishable under sections 420,468,471/34 of IPC.
The present applicant-Ashutosh Chhajlani is a Director of MPS Academy, Ujjain. It is alleged that he gave admissions to 22 students in class IX and X, without having recognition from CBSE Board. This application is filed on the ground that process for obtaining necessary recognition from CBSE is under process and if he is arrested and taken into custody, the process of seeking recognition from CBSE will suffer. He also submitted that result was not declared by CBSE, as the school could not be inspected by the Inspection Team. Four times inspection team was formed however, due to some reasons, the school could not be inspected and for want of such inspection, result of the students could not be declared.
Arguments heard, perused the case diary. Learned counsel for the Objector opposes the bail application on the ground that from the very inception the applicant had intention to cheat. He knew that the school did not have a valid recognition from CBSE and still he gave admissions to various students. He filed a letter from District Education Officer dated 23.07.2015 in which also it was found that the present applicant was cheating the students. According to him, the syllabus was of CBSE, while he gave mark sheet from M.P. Board.
Learned counsel for the State further submits that the seals of CBSE was found from the premises of the School though he did not have the necessary recognition and therefore, using the seals of CBSE amounts to forgery.
In response learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested. Charge sheet has been filed in this case. Investigation is already over and his presence is not required. He further submits that the case is based on documentary evidence and no benefit would arise if the present applicant is kept in custody. He also submits that students had been studying in his school upto Class IX and to accommodate them he continued the classes. He has been continuously trying to obtain recognition from the Central Board of Secondary Education.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed on the condition that on being released on bail the present applicant shall co-operate in the trial of the case and will not admit more students in his school unless necessary recognition is obtained from the Central Board of Secondary Education.
It is directed that subject to the aforesaid condition the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2928/2016 21.04.2016 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L., for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station Jhabua, district Jhabua in Crime No.484/2015 under sections 147,148,294,323,506 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story on 15.07.2015, the present applicant alongwith other co-accused came to the shop of the complainant and there some dispute arose between them and it is alleged that co-accused Raju gave a blow of iron rod on the head of Thavaria and other co- accused also inflicted injuries by lathi and stone etc. So far as the injuries on Mansingh and Thavaria, they are simple in nature. However, there was corresponding fracture in the skull bone of injured Thavaria.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that the present applicant is liable for inflicting such injuries on Thavaria which are dangerous to life.
Arguments heard, case diary perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there was corresponding fracture in the skull bone of injured Thavaria, the injuries were not dangerous to live. He had recovered. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed and investigation is over. This apart, he further submits that co-accused Diwan, Babu, Kasna and Ramchandra have been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.7949/2015 vide order dated 09.09.2015 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of other co- accused who were granted bail by this Court.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.498/2014 22.04.2016 Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks time to remove the default pointed out by the office.
Prayer allowed.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.310/2014 22.04.2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
The default pointed out by the office be removed within one week failing which the matter may be dismissed without reference to the Court.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.234/2014 22.04.2016 Shri K.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L.,for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he would file reply of I.A.no.4173/2014 which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
He is directed to do so within two weeks. List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.218/2014 22.04.2016 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A.no.2660/2016 an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of time to deposit the deficit Court fees.
Prayer allowed.
He is directed to deposit the Court fees within two weeks.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.177/2014 22.04.2016 Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L. for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondents no.3,6,29 and 31 have died. He submits that he will file an application for substitution of L.Rs during the course of the day.
List after one week for consideration of the application.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2663/2013 22.04.2016 None for the parties.
Service report of respondent no.2 is awaited. Respondent no.3 is unserved.
On payment of fresh process fee within one week, issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2545/2013 22.04.2016 Service report of respondents no.1 and 2 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents no.1 and 2.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.2514/2013 22.04.2016 Service report of respondents no.1 and 2 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents no.1 and 2.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1910/2013 22.04.2016 Service report of respondent no.1 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondent no.1.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.1853/2013 22.04.2016 Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
Heard on I.A.no.2368/2016Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw this application with liberty to file fresh application for amending the relief clause of the memo of appeal.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly, I.A.no.2368/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama in connected matter M.A.No.1855/2013 and prays that this matter be listed alongwith the connected matter.
List alongwith the connected matters M.A.No.1855/2013 and M.A.No.1856/2013.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.908/2013 22.04.2016 Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant and seeks time to argue the matter.
List after one week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.877/2013 22.04.2016 Service report of respondents no.1 and 2 is awaited. List after two weeks alongwith the service report of respondents no.1 and 2.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.784/2013 22.04.2016 Shri S.Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri H.S.Rajpal, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to verify whether 50% of the amount as directed by Court order dated 23.08.2013 has been deposited within the specified time.
Prayer allowed.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Cr.A.No.441/2014 22.04.2016 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.Vyas, learned P.L. for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.3570/2016 22.04.2016 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.Vyas, learned P.L. for respondent/State. This is fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of temporary bail.
This application is filed on the ground that the applicant has been found to be HIV positive.
Call a report from the concerning jail Authorities in respect of his health status and whether his treatment is possible while he is in custody.
List in the next week.
A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the State.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.3498/2016 22.04.2016 Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.Vyas, learned P.L., for the respondent/State. Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station Meghnagar District Jhabua in Crime No.173/2015 under sections 363,366,376,323,506,368/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 and 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution case, on 11.08.2015, the prosecutrix was going to Meghnagar alongwith her sister Kali where it is alleged that the present applicant alongwith co-accused Guddu came on motorcycle and forcibly took the prosecutrix with them. After the incident, FIR was lodged by sister of the prosecutrix in which the incident was narrated.. So far as the present applicant is concerned it is alleged that near the factory of Meghnagar, he got down from the motorcycle and the main accused Suninder took the prosecutrix alongwith him. The allegation of rape is also against the main accused Suninder. In this case, the age of the prosecutrix was stated to be 17 years and 1 month. Main accused Suninder and other co-accused Vesu and Metabai have been granted bail by this Court.
Arguments heard case diary perused. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that at the time of incident the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.361/2015 22.04.2016 Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to comply the order.
She is granted last opportunity of four weeks to comply the order failing which further action would be taken for Contempt of Court.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.273/2015 22.04.2016 Shri Rishab Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on last two occasions respondent was granted time to file reply and after availing two opportunities reply has not been filed.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks two weeks time for compliance.
As a last opportunity, he is granted two weeks time to file reply.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.172/2015 22.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks time to comply the order.
Prayer allowed.
List after four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.1016/2014 22.04.2016 None for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks time to comply the order.
Prayer allowed.
List after four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.64/2015 22.04.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondents have already complied with the order of the Court in respect to applicants no.1,2 and 3 and compliance in respect of applicant no.4 is awaited.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the process of compliance is going on and it will take three weeks.
List after three weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.187/2012 22.04.2016 None for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks two weeks time to file reply of I.A.no.2338/2012 for grant of stay.
Prayer allowed.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2228/2016 22.04.2016 Shri Zishan Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondent no.1 on payment of process fee within three days returnable within two weeks.
Counsel for the State is directed to call a report from the concerning police station in respect of the allegations made in the application before the next date of hearing.
List immediately after service of notice on respondent no.1 and receipt of report.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2093/2016 22.04.2016 Shri R.S.Bais, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Shri Hemant Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
This is an application for compromise filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Parties are present.
It is directed that parties shall appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of their identity and factum of compromise and also whether such compromise has been entered into between the parties without any duress and coercion.
List in the next week before the appropriate Bench alongwith the report of the Principal Registrar.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2185/2016 22.04.2016 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. This is an application for compromise filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants are in jail.
Office is directed to issue production warrant of the applicants and also issue notice to the complainant and place the matter before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise and identity of the complainant and also whether such compromise has been entered into between the parties without any duress and coercion.
Particulars of the complainant may be supplied directly by the counsel for the applicants.
List before the appropriate Bench alongwith the report of the Principal Registrar.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1217/2016 22.04.2016 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent no.2/State.
Report from the concerning Police Station is awaited. Counsel for the State is directed to call the report positively before the next date of hearing.
On payment of fresh process fee and correct details within two weeks, issue notice to respondent no.1 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1211/2016 22.04.2016 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent no.2/State.
Report from the concerning Police Station is awaited. Counsel for the State is directed to call the report positively before the next date of hearing.
On payment of fresh process fee and correct details within two weeks, issue notice to respondent no.1 returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.1204/2016 22.04.2016 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed statement of the complainant recorded by the trial Court.
Copy of the statement is not on record. Office is directed to place the document on record. List in the next week.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.Cr.C.No.2478/2015 22.04.2016 Shri K.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned P.L., for respondent no.1/State.
Shri A.S.Thakur, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the State seeks further time to call the report from the concerning police station as directed by Court order dated 05.02.2016.
Last opportunity of two weeks is granted to the counsel for the State.
List after two weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.A.No.669/2016 22.04.2016 Shri R. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Requisition the record of the Claims Tribunal. Issue notice to respondents on payment of process fee within one week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.250/2016 22.04.2016 Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. Issue notice to respondents on payment of process fee within one week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.249/2016 22.04.2016 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents on payment of process fee within one week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ Conc.No.244/2016 22.04.2016 Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents on payment of process fee within one week returnable within four weeks.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.241/2016 22.04.2016 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for correction of name of father of the petitioner in W.P.No.1317/2016.
Office is directed to list before the appropriate Bench.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/