Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Preity Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2016
WA No.22/2016
25/01/2016
Smt. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Panel Lawyer
for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.374/2016, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice on IA No.374/2016 to the respondent
on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within
six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.49/2016
25/01/2016
Shri Aditya Diwan, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri V.K.Dubey, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/caveator.
Heard on IA No.681/2016, an application for
clarification of office objections.
For the explanation given in the application, we
are of the view that sufficient explanation has been given
regarding clarification of office objections, therefore, we
allow the application, consequently office objections are
hereby over ruled.
Office to list for admission as well IA
No.387/2016.
List on Monday i.e. 01.02.2016. In the
meanwhile, Shri V.K.Dubey, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2 may file reply to interim application.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
CEA No.14/2015
25/01/2016
Shri R.Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant
submits that today only he has received Vakalatnama and
prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer allowed.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
WA No.134/2015
25/01/2016
Shri G.K.Patidar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
Appellant Rajendra Kumar had filed a Writ
Petition No.7929/2014(S) under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and prayed for the following relief :-
(a) An appropriate writ order or
direction directing the respondents concern
to extend all the monitory benefits of the
post of Auditor with effect from 19.6.90.
(b) Any other relief which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly provide
to the petitioner, and to allow this petition.
Before filing this Writ Petition in 2014, in the
earlier round of litigation the learned Writ Court by order
dated 08.10.2013 dismissed the Writ Petition No.7685/2007
(S) on the ground of delay and latches and non-joinder of
parties.
The aforesaid order has been upheld by the
Division Bench on 22.01.2014 in Writ Appeal No.1162/2013,
which reads as under :-
"Heard.
By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant
has challenged the order dated 08.10.2013 passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ
Petition No.7685/2007 (s).
Learned Single Judge having considered the
fact that the petitioner had impugned the
promotion order dated 05.03.1997 for the first time
after ten years in the year 2007, without
impleading the persons, who were alleged to have
been promoted, though juniors, declined to
interfere in the matter by observing thus: -
"8. Keeping in view the aforesaid
judgment delivered by the Apex Court
and also keeping in view the fact that
no junior person to the petitioner has
been promoted to the next higher
post, the question of directing the
respondents to hold a Review DPC for
considering the claim of the petitioner
w.e.f. 1997 for promoting him to the
next higher post of Assistant
Superintendent / Auditor does not
arise."
We find no ground to interfere into the view
taken by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed."
After dismissal of Writ Appeal No.1162/2013,
appellant had filed Writ Petition No.7929/2014(S) which has
been dismissed relying on the judgment passed earlier. Now
the appellant is challenging the same order in this Writ
Appeal.
On due consideration of the arguments of learned
Counsel for the appellant and considering that reliefs have
already been considered in the first round of litigation and the
order of Writ Court which has been upheld by the Division
Bench on 22.01.2014, no case for interference with the
impugned order as prayed is made out, therefore, the Writ
Appeal No.134/2015 deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
W.A.No.286/2015
25/01/2016
Appellant - Shri N.S.Poonia is present in person.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.4/State.
Shri Prakash Verma, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5.
Office to list along with the records of WP
No.1550/08(S), which has been decided by order dated
07.10.2009 and Contempt Petition No.265/2010, which has
rd
been decided by order dated 24.01.2011 on 23 February,
2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6554/2015
22/01/2016
Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1/Union of India.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General along with Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondents No.2 to 5.
As prayed by Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondent No.1, further four weeks
time is granted to seek instructions in the matter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC.No.904/2015
22/01/2016
Smt. Shanno Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Heard.
Issue notice to the non-applicant on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Counsel for the applicant is also directed to supply
one copy to Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General so that he may take instructions in the matter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WP No.8887/2012
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
th
As prayed, list on 8 February, 2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC.No.173/2014
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned Counsel who is
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, prays for and is
granted further two weeks time to file reply.
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Counsel, who is
appearing on behalf of the respondents No.4 to 7, submits that
reply has already been filed.
Office to verify and place it on record.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4136/2014
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
Ms. Khushbu Ajmera, who is appearing on behalf of
Shri Brian D'silva, learned Senior Counsel submits that arguing
Counsel Shri Brian D'silva is not available today and prays for
adjournment.
Prayer allowed.
th
List on 9 February, 2015, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.394/2015
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, list after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC. No.451/2015
22/01/2016
None for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Ms. Mahimpriya Pandey, learned Counsel for
the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General prays for and is granted four weeks time to file
compliance report along with latest posting of the officer at
check post.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.553/2015
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with W.P.No.546/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.546/2015
22/01/2016
Shri Ambar Pare, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Order dated 20.11.2015 has not been complied with.
As prayed, further 10 days time is granted to comply with the
order, failing which respondent No.3 shall remain present along
with complete set of documents on the next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules to the parties.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6251/2015
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Yogesh Jaiswal, learned Counsel
for the petitioner, list after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6643/2015
22/01/2016
Smt. Archna Kher, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.
None for respondent No.3/Index Medical College and
Hospital & Research Centre, Indore.
Learned Dy. Advocate General has submitted that in
compliance of the order dated 06.01.2016 when the documents of
the Index Medical College, Indore/respondent No.3 were
inspected, thereafter on 21.01.2016 Dean, Index Medical College,
Indore issued Certificate admitting that the petitioner is admitted
through AIPMT in academic sessions 2015-16. It has also been
certified by the Dean, Index Medical College, Indore that she is
attending classes regularly but no date has been mentioned in the
Certificate and she has no dues balance for the session 2015-16.
In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains to be
decided in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, W.P. No.6643/2015 is
dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8853/2015
22/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with WP No.8838/2015 on 28.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8838/2015
22/01/2016
Shri Dinesh Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our
attention to the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Kerla and High Court of
Orisa and submitted that all the respective High Courts have
granted interim relief in favour of the respective Operators and
therefore, similar interim relief be granted to the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
prays for and is granted time to go through the interim order and
copy of the Writ Petition No.8853/2015 and argue on the question
of interim relief.
List on 28.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1007/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1006/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1005/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1004/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1003/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1002/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1001/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1000/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.999/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.998/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.997/2013
22/01/2016
List along with FA No.996/2013 on any
Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.996/2013
22/01/2016
None for the appellant.
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Amit Purohit and Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned
Counsels for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.6 and 7.
In absence of learned Counsel for the appellant
case is adjourned.
List on any Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.712/2008
22/01/2016
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Amit Purohit, learned Counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 7.
Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for and is
granted 10 days time to file an appropriate application for
bringing legal heirs of respondent No.5 on record.
List after 10 days.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.100/2015
21/01/2016
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Anand Singh Bahrawat, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard.
By impugned order dated 24.11.2014 passed in WP
No.7692/2012 the learned Writ Court set aside the order dated
29.12.2011 and 10.04.2012 on the ground that both the orders are
non-speaking orders.
Sole contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellants is that both orders were not considered on merit,
therefore, appellants be granted liberty to pass a detailed order
after granting opportunity to the respondent.
Considering the aforesaid, we allow the prayer and
direct the appellants to consider the matter and pass a detailed
order after granting opportunity to the respondent.
With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal is partly allowed to
the extent as indicated here-in-above.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.7/2010
21/01/2016
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
None for respondent.
Heard on IA No.37/2010, an application for
condonation of delay.
Writ Appeal is delayed by 277 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we are
of the view that the cause shown by the appellants is
sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.37/2010 is allowed. Delay of
277 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Issue show cause notice to the respondent on
payment of process fee by registered A.D. as well as ordinary
mode within a week, returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.1141/2013
21/01/2016
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
It appears that office has wrongly listed this case
for orders on IA No.3598/2015; whereas the appeal is to be
listed for final disposal.
Office to verify and list it for final disposal in the
nd
week commencing 22 February, 2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6564/2014
21/01/2016
None for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
On due consideration, IA No.4416/2015, an
application for adoption of the reply filed in
W.P.No.4893/2013 on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2/State
and IA No.6796/2014, an application for amendment are
allowed.
Necessary corrections be carried out within three
days.
List along with WP No.4893/2013 for analogous
th
hearing in the week commencing 15 February, 2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.6/2016
21/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned
Counsel for the appellant, list along with WA No.637/2015
for analogous hearing on 15.02.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P. No.232/2015
21/01/2016
Shri Lokesh Arya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.1/State on advance notice.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2 on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf
of the respondent No.2, therefore, no notice is required to be
issued to the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the respondents prays for and
is granted four weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter.
List after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.609/2015
21/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 15 February,
2016 along with W.A.No.606/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.606/2015
21/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant
prays for and is granted further two weeks time to argue on
the question of admission and for grant of ad interim relief.
th
List in the week commencing 15 February,
2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7257/2015
21/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Nilesh Manore, learned
Counsel, who appeared on behalf of Ms. Neetu Pokharana,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, list after a month.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.450/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Heard.
This intra court appeal has been filed against the order
passed by the Writ Court in WP No.211/2012 dated 23.06.2015
whereby learned Writ Court considering the fact that neither
complainant (lady passenger), who lodged the complaint that her
Gold Bracelet is missing and lateron the Bracelet was found in
the flush tank of ladies toilet, was examined nor Y. Dorji and
W.Dorji were examined during departmental enquiry. PW-1,
PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 in their statements have made allegations
against the respondent-Rita Tripathy that Y.Dorji and W.Dorji
have seen the respondent going towards the ladies toilet and
coming out from the ladies toilet but they have not been
examined.
Considering the aforesaid, learned Writ Court gave
finding in Para 17 to 23 of the impugned judgment which reads as
under :-
17- In the present case it has been
vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that findings arrived at by Enquiry Officer
are perverse findings.
18- This Court carefully gone through the
statement recorded during the Departmental
Enquiry. The statement of the complainant is not on
record nor she has participated in the enquiry
proceedings. In the return the respondents have
stated that the complainant has seen the petitioner
going towards the toilet. In those circumstances the
petitioner was held guilty in the alleged misconduct.
None of the witnesses have stated before the
Enquiry Officer that Bracelet was found in
possession of the petitioner nor it was proved that
who has taken out the Bracelet from the hand bag
of the complainant.
19- Not only this, there were some other
persons also posted for checking of the hand
bags/luggage. One of the witnesses Smt. Sunita
Sayabola (PW-3) who was posted at the relevant
time stated in her cross-examination that at the time
of checking there was no possibility of theft of any
thing from the hand bag and she has not seen the
petitioner going to the toilet. Another witness
Ravikant Shukla (PW-5) has again in cross-
examination has stated that it was not possible for
someone to take out anything from the hand bag
and he has also not seen the petitioner going to the
ladies toilet. Subir Bainerji (PW-7) and P. K. Suman
(PW-8) have also stated on similar lines. Pramod
Kumar (PW-1) has also stated that he has not seen
the petitioner going to the toilet nor it was possible
for someone to take out anything from the hand
bag. Meaning thereby, large number of witnesses
have stated before the Enquiry Officer about the
innocence of the petitioner. Conclusion part of the
enquiry report reads as under:-
**1- ;g lR; gS fd dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ,,lth
x;k dh drZO; ds Nk;k izfr la[;k 91 ds
vuqlkj cy la[;k 902290512 efgyk
vkj{kd@dk;Z jhrk f=ikBh dks cSxst psfdax gsrq
rSukr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj og vius drZO; ij
rSukr FkhA
2- cy dzekad 893191452 fufj@dk;Z ch-
,u- feJk ds fjiksZ fd izfr ds vuqlkj ;g Hkh
irk pyrk gS fd efgyk ;k=h MS
TSHOMO/UGYEN ¼HkwVku fuoklh½ us SHA esa
f'kdk;r dh lqj{kk ds nkSjku mlds cSx esa j[kk
czslysV xqe gks x;kA
3- lHkh xokgksa ds fu"d"kZ ls ;g lkfcr
gksrk gS fd fdlh Hkh cy lnL; us efgyk
vkj{kd jhrk f=ikVh dks ckFk:e ls vkrs o
tkrs ugh ns[kk A ijUrq ¼PW-1½ ¼PW-2½ ¼PW-3½
¼PW-4½ ds c;kuksa esa ;g Lohdkjk x;k gS gS fd
Y. Dorji & W. Dorji us efgyk vkj{kd jhrk
f=ikBh dks rsth ls ckFk:e esa tkrs gq, ckgj
vkrs gq, ns[kk Fkk A
4- Y. Dorji & W. Dorji tks mlh foeku esa
;k=k dj jgs Fks us mi;qDrZ voyksdu ds vk/kkj
ij tc efgyk 'kkSpky; dks pSd fd;k x;k rks
og czslysV 'kkSpky; ds QyS'k VsUd ds vanj
feyk A
vr% mijksDr vfHk;kstu i{k ds lHkh
xokgksa vkSj iznRr iznZ'kkas@lk{;ksa vkSj iz;ksDrk
vf/kdkjh ds czhQ uksV ,oa ekeys ds fookfnr
,oa vfookfnr rF;ksa dh foospuk dks en~nsutj
j[krs gq,] vkjksih cy lnL; cy la[;k
902290512 efgyk@vkj{kd jhrk f=ikBh
dsvkSlqc vkj0Vh0lh0 cM+okg ds fo:) dSvkSlqc
vf/kfu;e 2001 ds fu;e 36 ds rgr ofj"B
dek.MsUV dsvkSlqc vkj0Vh0lh0 cM+okg ds
i=kad ch&15014@dsvkSlqc@
vkjVhlh@vuq@estj@vkjVh@2010@3615
fnukad 20-09-2010 ds rgr yxk;s x;s vkjksi
ckcr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWapk gWwa fd cy la[;k
902290512 efgyk vkj{kd@dk;Z jhrk f=ikBh
ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi dzekad&1 iw.kZr% fl)
gksrk gS A**
20- The conclusion of the enquiry officer
also establish that no one has seen the petitioner
going to the toilet and keeping the Bracelet in the
flush tank.
21- This Court, in light of the findings
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, is of the
considered opinion that the conclusion of the
Enquiry Officer stands established as incorrect and
the final findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer
are certainly perverse finding.
22- Charge against the petitioner has
established only because PW-1, 3, 4 and 8 have
stated before the Enquiry Officer that the passenger
has informed them that the petitioner was coming
out of the ladies toilet and when they have checked
the toilet, Bracelet was found in the flush tank of
ladies toilet, meaning thereby, the statement made
by the passenger to the witnesses have been made
the basis of proving the charges by the enquiry
officer. This Court is of the considered opinion that
based upon the statement which were not made
before the enquiry officer, the petitioner cannot be
held guilty for the alleged misconduct in the manner
and method it has been done.
23- Resultantly, the impugned order dated
08/04/2009, 18/04/2011, order passed by the
appellate authority on 30/05/2011 and order passed
in revision dated 18/10/2011 are hereby set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated
before this Court that he is not claiming back wages
in the matter. The petition is disposed of with the
following directions:-
(a) The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service forthwith.
(b) The petitioner shall not be entitled for any
back wages, however, shall be entitled for notional
fixation of salary, grant of increments and all other
consequential benefits except back wages.
(c) The amount received by the petitioner on
account of compulsory retirement as pension will
not be recovered from her and the same will be
adjusted towards the back wages.
(d) The intervening period spent during
suspension shall be treated to be spent on duty.
No order as to costs. Certified copy as per
rules."
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the
view that learned Writ Court has rightly set aside the impugned
order and directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
During the course of argument learned Counsel for the appellant
very categorically admitted that complainant and Y.Dorji and
W.Dorji were not examined and PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4
made allegations against the respondent in their statement on the
basis of allegations made by Y.Dorji and W.Dorji and they never
found the respondent going towards the ladies toilet.
On due consideration, we are of the view that the Writ
Court was justified in passing the impugned order dated
23.06.2015. No case to interfere with the aforesaid order, as
prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant is made out and,
therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal on merit. Consequently all
IAs stands rejected.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.641/2015
20/01/2016
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
Shri Amit Raval, learned Counsel for the
respondent on advance notice.
Heard on IA No.6294/2015, an application for
condonation of delay.
In spite of time granted on 14.12.2015 and
13.01.2016 no reply to IA No.6294/2015, an application for
condonation of delay has been filed by the respondent.
On due consideration of the aforesaid,we are of
the view that the cause shown by the appellants is sufficient
to condone the delay of 175 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, IA No.6294/2015 is allowed. Delay
of 175 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as
Reference Court be called for.
Shri Amit Raval, learned Counsel accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent, therefore, no notice is required to
be issued to the respondent.
Learned Dy. Advocate General is directed to
supply the copy of the appeal to the respondent within a week
from today.
Also heard on IA No.6293/2015, an application
under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC.
On depositing 50% of amount enhanced by the
Reference Court along with cost within six weeks from today,
order passed by the Reference Court in case No.16/2006
dated 17.11.2014 shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.382/2015
20/01/2016
Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 to 5.
Heard on IA No.9117/2015, an application for
bringing legal heirs of appellant No.1 on record and IA
No.9118/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
As per Para-1, date of death of appellant No.1 is
19.08.2015; whereas the application has been filed on
09.12.2015, and thus, there is a delay of 22 days in filing the
application (IA No.9117/2015).
For the reasons assigned in the application, we are
of the view that the cause shown by the appellants is
sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.9118/2015 is allowed. Delay
of 22 days in filing the application for bringing legal heirs of
appellant No.1 on record is hereby condoned.
Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 raised an objection that appeal is abated and
there is no application for setting aside abatement, therefore
the appeal be dismissed.
Admittedly the application is filed within 150
days, therefore, the objection has no merit and therefore, we
rejected the prayer.
On due consideration, IA No.9117/2015 is
allowed. Legal heirs of appellant No.1 are taken on record.
Necessary corrections be carried out within a week from
today.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2333/2015
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6221/2014
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1275/2014
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.698/2014
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.13396/2013
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.13393/2013
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8619/2013
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1874/2013
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2690/2014
20/01/2016
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State
Reply is awaited.
As prayed, further two weeks time is granted to
the respondents to file reply.
List immediately thereafter.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.13392/2013
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.2690/2014 after
two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.736/2015
20/01/2016
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent on
payment of process fee within a week, returnable within six
weeks.
Record of the court below be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.797/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7964/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.796/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7963/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.795/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7962/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.793/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7953/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.792/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7950/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.791/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7945/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.789/2015
20/01/2016
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7933/2015, an application under
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for time to deposit
court fee.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to pay
deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.836/2015
20/01/2016
Shri Hemant Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel
for the appellant.
Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent by
registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.838/2015
20/01/2016
Shri Akhilesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for
and is granted two weeks' time to file reply of IA
No.8424/2015.
List after two weeks. In the meanwhile, record of
the court below be called for.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.895/2015
20/01/2016
None for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the appellant.
IA No.9058/2015, an application under Sections
148 and 149 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure
Code is perused.
For the reasons assigned in the application (IA
No.9058/2015), we allow the application and grant two
months time to pay Ad valorem court fee.
With the aforesaid, IA No.9058/2015 is allowed
and disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.227/2015
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned
Counsel for the appellant, list on any Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.407/2015
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the
appellants submitted that today he has received the copy of
reply filed by respondent No.3 and prays for and is granted
two weeks time to argue on the question of admission.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2117/2015
20/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned
Counsel for the respondents, further 7 days time is granted
to file counter reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4192/2015
20/01/2016
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
As prayed, further 10 days time is granted to file
reply.
th
List in the week commencing 8 February,
2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.5520/2015
20/01/2016
Shri Ritesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents No.1, 3 and 4/State.
Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that an
order (Annexure P/11) against the petitioner under Section
3(2) of National Securities Act was passed on 25.06.2015
for detention of petitioner for a period of three months. He
was detained since 19.05.2015 and thereafter on completion
of a period of three months he has been released on
18.08.2015.
In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition
No.5520/2015 has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly,
it is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WP No.262/2016
19/01/2016
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.1/State on advance notice.
The only question involved in this Writ Petition is
whether in respect of recovery of liquidated damages the Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable when petitioner has not raised a dispute before the
redressal forum as per Clause 24.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
WP No.4172/2011 has already been admitted and same question
has been involved in this petition, therefore, the petition be
admitted for final hearing.
Considering the aforesaid, we are issuing show cause
notice to the respondents No.2 to 4.
Let notice be issued to the respondents No.2 to 4 on
payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four
weeks'.
List on 22.02.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WP No.4172/2011
19/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.262/2016 on
22.02.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WA No.840/2014
19/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
Record of WP No.6926/2003 decided on
15.02.2006 is awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter along with the
record of WP No.6926/2003 as directed on 06.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
VATA No.2/2015
19/01/2016
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents,
therefore, no notice is required to be issued to them.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General prays for and is granted four weeks' time to seek
instructions in the matter.
List the matter along with VATA No.14/2014 for
analogous hearing after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
C.E.A.No.22/2015
19/01/2016
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.546/2016, an application for
withdrawal of Central Excise Appeal No.22/2015 with a liberty to
prefer a separate Writ Petition for the redressal of its
grievances/pursue the other remedy available to him under law.
For the reasons assigned in the application IA
No.546/2016, we allow the application with the aforesaid liberty.
Accordingly, C.E.A.No.22/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.389/2015
19/01/2016
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
They are heard.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that Writ Petition No.13588/2013(S) was admitted for
final hearing on 04.08.2014. On 01.07.2015, during pendency of
the Writ Petition an application for transfer of case to Division
Bench under Rule 41(7)a was filed with a prayer for transferring
the case before the Division Bench. Petitioner is seeking relief by
way of issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto.
Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that learned
Writ Court instead of deciding the application for transfer
dismissed the Writ Petition relying on the Division Bench order
passed in the case of Dr. Pawan Kumar V/s. Union of India
passed on 20.04.2015 in WP No.8442/2014. He further submitted
that law is well settled and once the petition is admitted for final
hearing then it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy.
In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
order and remit the matter to the learned Writ Court to decide the
petition in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, W.A.No.389/2015 is allowed and
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.342/2016
18/01/2016
Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Issue show cause notice to the respondents on
payment of process fee within a week, returnable within six
weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.194/2016
18/01/2016
As prayed by Shri Soni, learned Counsel appears
on behalf of Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, list after a week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.144/2016
18/01/2016
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned Counsel for
respondent No.1 on advance notice.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for
and is granted one week's time to seek instructions in the
matter.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.118/2016
18/01/2016
Shri Upendra Singh Chandrawat, learned Counsel
for the petitioners.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents No.1, 4 and 5.
Shri Anmol Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/Indore Municipal Corporation.
Learned Counsel for the respondents prays for
and is granted one week's time to file reply.
List on Monday i.e. 25.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.13/2016
18/01/2016
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Mukesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 4 on advance notice.
Shri Anil Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.5 on advance notice.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 and Shri Anil
Trivedi, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.5, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to them.
Learned Counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted one week's time to seek instructions and, if necessary,
may file reply to the interim application.
List in the next week along with WP No.6615/15.
Meanwhile, payment of cost amounting to Rs.25,000/- imposed
by the learned Writ Court shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.8574/2015
18/01/2016
Petitioner - Pandit Rambhuvan Tiwari is present in
person.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5 on advance notice.
Petitioner - Pandit Rambhuvan Tiwari submitted
that on 14.01.2016 he has filed an application before the
Hon'ble Chief Justice for transfer of the case.
List after disposal of the aforesaid application.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.8582/2015
18/01/2016
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Counsel for
the respondents No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.
They are heard.
This Writ Petition by way of Public Interest
Litigation the petitioners are challenging the arbitrary and
illegal action of the respondents by which they are reserving
the water of the Chamleshwar Dam for the purpose of
distribution of water to Village Padada (Ganga Bawadi
Scheme) for irrigation under the Gramin Samooh Jal Praday
Yojana of Sub Division Manasa and also reserving the
drinking water for distribution of it to Nagar Parishad,
Manasa and Nagar Parishad Deeken, District Neemuch.
On the last date of hearing learned Dy. Advocate
General has drawn our attention to the note-sheet dated
13.01.2016 in respect Chamleshwar Dam and submitted that
in the year 2015-16 more water will be reserved in the Dam
i.e. much more than 2 million cubic meter and therefore, no
direction of this Court is required.
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that no approval from the Forest
Department has been taken for passing of the pipeline from
the dense forest area and there is no plan/scheme for
distribution of drinking water to the villagers of the locality
where the Dam is situated.
On due consideration of the averments made in the
Writ Petition, petitioners are directed to file detailed
representation before the respondent No.2 Principal
Secretary, Water Resources Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal within a period of two weeks from today raising all
their grievances, which are made in this Writ Petition, so that
the learned Authority may consider the same by passing a
detailed order, after receipt of detailed representation within a
period of two months considering each and every objection
raised by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, WP
No.8582/2015 stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.346/2016
18/01/2016
Shri B.L.Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Raunak Chouksey, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General
along with Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.3 and 4/State on advance notice.
Heard on IA No.296/2016, an application for
amendment in the Writ Petition.
Shri B.L.Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel submits
that Annexure P/1, which is copy of the Drugs (Price Control)
Order, 1995 is superseded by Drugs (Price Control) Order,
2013 w.e.f. 15.05.2013, and therefore, he wants to amend the
Writ Petition.
On due consideration IA No.296/2016 is allowed.
Necessary corrections be carried out within three days.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to
Annexure P/2A, which is bill of whole-seller M/s. Dashmesh
Medical Agencies dated 30th June, 2015. He submits that as
per column of MRP and Rate the margin of profit is more
than 80 to 500%, which is contrary to Clause-7 of Drugs
(Price Control) Order, 2013. As per Clause-7 maximum
margin should be 16% of the price to retailer.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.3 & 4,
therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents
No.3 & 4.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted four weeks' time to file reply and also file an affidavit
of the responsible officer pointing therein regarding the
margin to the retailer.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of
process fee within three days', returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
Cr.A.No.632/2015
14.01.2016
Shri Ramesh Chandra Nihore, learned Counsel for
appellant No.5 Jitendra.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9522/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.5 Jitendra,
who has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and has
been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted
that main allegation for causing injury to the deceased is
against co-accused Shobharam; whereas allegation for
exhortation has been made against the present applicant and
on the basis of omnibus allegations made against the present
applicant he has been convicted by the learned Trial Court
and prays for grant of suspension of sentence.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent opposes
the prayer.
On due consideration of the aforesaid facts and the
material statement of prosecution witnesses, we are of the
view that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of jail
sentence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, IA No.9522/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant
Jitendra is allowed and it is directed that the execution of jail
sentence awarded to the appellant Jitendra shall remain
suspended, subject to his depositing the fine amount and
upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before this Court/Registry on 14.03.2016 and on
such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
regard.
List the matter for final hearing.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.5281/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Ms. Rukmini Dhangar, learned
Counsel appeared on behalf of Smt. Shanno Khan, list in the
second week of February, 2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
Cr.A.No.881/2011
14/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with Cr.A.No.833/2011.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.833/2011
14/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with Cr.A.No.879/2011.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.879/2011
14/01/2016
Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the
appellant Sandeep.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.16/2016, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of appellant Sandeep.
After arguing at length, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of IA No.16/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.16/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1713/2015
14.01.2016
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for appellant
Keshar Singh.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9271/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Keshar Singh,
who has been convicted under Sections 302 and 325 of the
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and has been sentenced to life imprisonment
along with minor conviction of 3 years under Section 325 of
the IPC with fine stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention towards the statement of Gulab (PW-1) and Para 1
and 23 of the impugned judgment and submitted that as per
prosecution story appellant and co-accused Balbir Singh,
Pappu and Madan Singh have inflicted injuries to the
deceased and the main allegation is against the co-accused
Balbir Singh that he was armed with sword and inflicted
injury to the deceased. Learned Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that as per statement of Gulab (PW-1) allegation
against the present applicant is that he caused injury to the
deceased by Brick; whereas Pappu caused injury by Tommy,
Balbir caused injury by Sword and Madan Singh caused
injury by Lathi to the deceased. Co-accused Madan Singh has
already been released by order dated 16.12.2015 passed in
Cr.A.No.1641/2015 and prays for grant of suspension of
sentence.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent opposes
the prayer and drawn our attention to the evidence recorded
by the Trial Court.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and the fact
that Dr. G.L.Langewar (PW-16) in his statement very
categorically stated that death was caused due to two injuries
by hard and sharp object, we are of the view that it is a fit
case for grant of suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA
No.9271/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to appellant Keshar Singh is allowed and it
is directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant Keshar Singh shall remain suspended, subject to his
depositing the fine amount and upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before this
Court/Registry on 24.02.2016 and on such other dates as may
be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
List the matter for final hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
VATA. No.3/2015
14/01/2016
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.3/State.
Heard on IA No.190/2016, an application for
condonation of delay. Appeal under Section 53 of M.P. Value
Added Tax Act, 2002 is barred by 19 days.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that
on account of the file pending for preparation at the counsel's
office appellant could not file the appeal in time. Application is
supported with an affidavit.
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, IA No.190/2016 is allowed. Delay of 19
days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
List for admission in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.137/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter on 27.01.2016
along with WA No.136/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.138/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter on 27.01.2016
along with WA No.136/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.139/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter on 27.01.2016
along with WA No.136/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.140/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter on 27.01.2016
along with WA No.136/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.141/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter on 27.01.2016
along with WA No.136/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.136/2015
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter on 27.01.2016
in compliance to order dated 11.01.2016 along with WA
No.137/15, WA No.138/15, WA No.139/15, WA No.140/15
and WA No.141/15.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.26/2016
14/01/2016
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.361/2016, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice on IA No.361/2016 to the respondents
on payment of process within a week, returnable within six
weeks.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
M.C.C. No.1/2016
14/01/2016
None for the applicant.
Perused the record.
IA No.204/2016, an application for condonation of
delay in filing the restoration application.
Due to non-compliance of peremptory order
passed on 06.10.2015 First Appeal No.389/2015 has been
dismissed in default. At that time, no notice was issued to the
non-applicant, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to
the non-applicant.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and for the
reasons assigned in the application, we condone the delay of
one day in filing the application for restoration and allow the
prayer for restoration and restore F.A.No.389/2015 to its
original number, subject to compliance of order dated
06.10.2015 within a period of six weeks from today.
Accordingly, M.C.C.No.1/2016 stands allowed and closed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.6/2016
14/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, list after a week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.768/2015
14/01/2016
Shri D.K.Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Heard on the question of admission as well as IA
No.7495/2015, an application for stay.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
Issue notice on merit as well as IA No.7495/15 to
the respondents on payment of process within a week,
returnable within six weeks. Meanwhile, on depositing cost
as awarded by the learned Trial Court execution of sale deed
in favour of respondents-plaintiffs shall remain stayed till the
next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.8757/2015
14/01/2016
Shri O.P.Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State on advance notice.
In absence of any material facts learned Counsel
for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition with
liberty to file afresh or move an application before the
National Green Tribunal.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition as well as IA
No.6525/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CEA No.1/2016
14/01/2016
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by Shri Prasanna Prasad, Counsel for
the appellant, list along with CEA No.2/2016 to CEA
No.6/2016 for analogous hearing in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
M.C.C. No.760/2015
13.01.2016
Shri V. A. Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned G. A. for the non-
applicants/State.
Heard on I.A. No.7179/2015, which is an application
for condonation of delay.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we are of
the considered view that the cause shown by the applicants is
sufficient to condone the delay of 222 days. Accordingly, I.A.
No.7179/2015 is allowed and stands closed. Delay in filing the
application is hereby condoned.
As per averments made in the application, the amount
of compensation has been paid but till today, no deficit court fee has
been deposited.
Considering the aforesaid and in the interest of justice,
we grant last opportunity of three months time for depositing the
deficit court fee, failing which appeal shall stand dismissed without
any further reference to the Court.
With the aforesaid, M,.C.C. No.760/2015 is allowed in
part and stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.609/2015
13/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, last opportunity is granted to the
appellant to argue on admission.
List in the next week along with WA
No.606/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.606/2015
13/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, last opportunity is granted to the
appellant to argue on admission.
List in the next week along with WA
No.609/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.641/2015
13/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Amit Raval, who is appearing
on behalf of the respondent, one week's time is granted to file
reply of IA No.6294/2015. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.683/2015
13/01/2016
Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned
Counsel for the appellant, 30 days further time is granted to
pay deficit court fee, failing which the appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to this Court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.787/2015
13/01/2016
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for and is granted 10 days time to pay fresh
process fee to issue notice to the respondent on IA
No.8063/15.
Let notice be issued on IA No.8063/2015 to the
respondent on payment of process fee within 10 days. Notice
be made returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WP No.7029/2015
13/01/2016
Shri Brian D'silva, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
S.K.Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.C.Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
D.S.Panwar, learned Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.
Shri Brian D'silva, learned Senior Counsel has drawn
our attention to the order dated 06.01.2016 and submitted that
application for amendment be allowed so that necessary
corrections be carried out in the Writ Petition and also reply be
called from the other side.
On due consideration prayer for amendment in IA
No.39/2006 is allowed. Necessary corrections be carried out
within three days from today.
As prayed by Shri S.C.Bagadiya, learned Senior
Counsel, one week's time is granted to take further instructions
and, if necessary, file additional reply.
List on 28.01.2016, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WA No.2/2016
13/01/2016
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate has
drawn our attention to the Full Bench decision of the main
Main Seat of this Court dated 23.11.2015 and submitted that
under the policy which was issued in the month of July,1985
passing of Hindi Typing test for appointment on the post of
A.G.-3 is must. He also pointed out the order dated
19.12.1985 and submitted that much prior to the date of
appointment policy was in existence.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are
inclined to issue notice to the other side.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process within a week, returnable within four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WA No.51/2014
13/01/2016
Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Mangesh Bhachawat, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
As prayed by the learned Counsel for the
appellant, two weeks time is granted.
List on 03.02.2016 along with other connected
matters as directed on 06.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
COMA No.11/2015
13/01/2016
Shri V.K.Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
As prayed by Shri V.K.Jain, Counsel for the
appellant, list after three weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.453/2015
12/01/2016
Shri G.S.Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
By the impugned order dated 29.09.2015 learned
Writ Court relying on the decision of the Gwalior Bench in
the case of Bal Ram Tailor V/s. State of M.P. and another
reported in 2011 (1) MPJR Serial No.5 allowed the Writ
Petition and directed that the respondent No.1 shall be
entitled for all the benefits flowing out of the order in the
case of Bal Ram Tailor (supra). It is also directed that the
appellants will not charge any penal rent from the respondent
No.1 and the respondent No.1 shall be entitled for 50% of
back wages also for the period he was out of service.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our
attention to minutes of the 19th Meeting of Board of
Management held on 27.12.2014 and submitted that they
have decided not to grant benefit regarding the age of
retirement and decided the issue. He submitted that though
the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh vide letter No.043/303/DHE/Section/7/97 dated
01.04.1997 has stated that the Lab Technicians may be
equated as teachers and their age of retirement to be increased
from 58 to 62 years of age yet the Nanaji Deshmukh
Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur is under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Animal Husbandry,
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and the Circular dated 01.04.1997
has neither been circulated by the Ministry of Animal
Husbandry and therefore, the University has decided not to
consider the Circular as binding on the University. He
submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order
be set aside and Writ Petition be decided.
In reply, Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, Advocate has
drawn our attention to order dated 18.03.2013 (WP
No.3477/2013) passed in the case of B.S.Rajpoot V/s. State
of M.P. and another by the Main Seat, Jabalpur and submitted
that the same benefit has been granted to Shri B.S.Rajpoot
and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the
law laid down by the Gwalior Bench in the case of Bal Ram
Tailor (supra), we are of the view that Writ Court has rightly
allowed the petition. No case to interfere with the aforesaid
order, as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants is
made out. Writ Appeal has no merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.945/2015
12/01/2016
Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.9496/2015, an application for
grant of temporary injunction.
Let notice be issued to the respondents No.1 to 7
on payment of process within three days, returnable within
three weeks.
IA No.9497/2015 will be considered at the time of
hearing of the First Appeal.
Let the matter be listed along with FA
No.943/2015 after three weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.9/2016
12/01/2016
Dr. Manohar Dalal, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.1.
Writ Petition No.8434/2015 filed by the appellant
for directing the competent authority to entertain his
application dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure P/3) has been
disposed off by observing that appellant was unable to show
that any such application on his behalf is
maintainable/entertainable in the teeth of Section 40 of the
M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam but at the same time learned
Writ Court also observed that it will open for the competent
authority to take action in accordance with law.
Sole contention of the appellant is that observation
made in the Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam
that his application is not maintainable would not come into
the way of the competent authority to take action in
accordance with law.
Considering the aforesaid, we direct the competent
authority to take action in accordance with law without being
influenced by the observation made by the Writ Court
regarding maintainability of the application.
With the aforesaid modification, Writ Appeal is
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.18/2016
12/01/2016
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary, learned Counsel for
the appellant.
Shri Lokesh Arya, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.4/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.4,
therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent
No.4
Also heard on IA No.192/2016, an application for
grant of stay.
Let notice be issued on merit as well as IA
No.192/2016 to the respondent No.5 on payment of process
within a week, returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.91/2016
12/01/2016
Ms. Swati Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
Learned Dy. Advocate General prays for and is
granted one week's time to take instructions in pursuance to
the letter dated 04.12.2015 issued by the C.E.O., Janpad
Panchayat Sardarpur.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
ITA.No.66/2003
11/01/2016
Shri R.L.Jain, learned Senior Counsel along with
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri D.S.Kale, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.6577/2015, which is an
application for dismissal of appeal.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted
that on 18.11.2014, this Court has admitted the appeal for
final hearing on the following substantial questions of law,
which are covered by the dictum of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Premier Industries
(India) Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 672 (MP).
Substantial questions No.1 and 2 are as under:-
1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of
the case the ITAT was justified in recalling its order
in ITA No.638/IND/95 and reversing the said order
in MA No.48/IND/02 after having discussed the
issue thoroughly in the body of order.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case the ITAT was justified in allowing depreciation
on vehicle which was not actually put to use in
accordance with the provisions of I.T. Act with
respect to the depreciation allowable."
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Premier Industries
(India) Ltd. Decided the following which reads as under :-
"Mr. G.M.Chaphekar, learned senior counsel
for the respondent, per contra, has submitted that
once machine has been brought for a particular
purpose connected with the activities of the assessee
and the same has not been discarded and is kept
ready for use, the assessee becomes entitled to
depreciation in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. In support of this submission, learned senior
counsel has brought to our notice a decision of the
Tribunal in Speed Automobiles P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
(2004) 32 ITC 531 as upheld by a Division Bench of
this court in CIT v. Speed Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
(2004) 32 ITC 537. Reference has also been made to
the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Geo
Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452
which also takes the view that when the machine is
kept ready for use, the assessee is entitled to
depreciation on the principle of passive user. Similar
view of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Refrigeration
and Allied Industries Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 has
been pressed into service.
The impugned order of the Tribunal has taken
the view that if the asset is not sold, discarded or
demolished or destroyed during the previous year,
the assessee becomes entitled to depreciation. In this
view of the matter, the Tribunal has allowed the
depreciation on the Tetrapack machine of the
assessee. Since keeping the machine in readiness is a
finding of fact, we have to proceed on the
assumption that the Tetrapack machine of the
assessee was kept in readiness for use. In these
circumstances, it would be deemed to have been
used within the meaning of expression contained in
section 32 ibid.
The questions of law hereinabove stated are
thus, answered against the revenue and in favour of
the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs of
this appeal. A signed copy of this order be retained
in each appeal."
Division Bench of this Court while answering the
questions against the revenue has held that the depreciation
on the Tetrapack machine, be allowed even if the same is kept
ready for use.
In view of the aforesaid, both substantial questions
of law are hereby decided against the revenue and in favour
of the assessess as the same is covered by the dictum of this
Court. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.143/2009
11/01/2016
Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
By this Writ Appeal the appellant is challenging the
impugned order (dated 15.05.2008 passed in WP
No.4528/2006(S)} passed by the Writ Court in the proceeding
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that
learned Writ Court committed an error in directing to pay lump-
sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as a compensation instead of granting
50% backwages. He submits that though the Writ Appeal filed
against the order passed by the Writ Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable but the learned Writ
Court has wrongly exercised discretion while passing the
impugned order, and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned
order be set aside.
3. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat
& Ors., [(2015) 9 SCC 1] and submitted that the writ petition
was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
admittedly relief was claimed in the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India and no relief as prayed claimed
under Article 226 was given in the writ petition.
4. To support the aforesaid, he placed reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Visan
Kumar Shivcharanlal [2009(III) MPJR (SC) 319]. Para 12
and 14 are relevant which reads as under:-
12. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.
[AIR 2003 SC 3044] after referring to decisions in
Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan
Saheb Abdul Shukoor, etc. [1961 (3) SCR 855] and
Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. v. Commissioner of Hills
Division [AIR 1958 SC 398], T.C. Basappa v. T.
Nagappa [AIR 1954 SC 440] and Rupa Ashok Hurra
v. Ashok Hurra [AIR 2002 SC 1771], this Court held
at paragraphs 17, 19 & 25 as follows:
"17. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite
vivid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ
petition, nature of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, character and the contour of the order,
directions issued, nomenclature given the
jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context
are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a
hypertechnical manner that an order passed in a writ
petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from
the inferior tribunal or subordinate Court has to be
treated all the time for all purposes to be under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Phraseology
used in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution in Section 2 of the Act cannot
be given a restricted and constricted meaning
because an order passed in a writ petition can
tantamount to an order under Article 226 or 227 of
the Constitution of India and it would depend upon
the real nature of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. To elaborate; whether the learned
Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under
Article 226 or under Article 227 or both would
depend upon various aspects and many a facet as has
been emphasized in the afore quoted decisions of the
apex Court. The pleadings, as has been indicated
hereinabove, also assume immense significance. As
has been held in the case of Surya Devi Rai (supra) a
writ of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of
the Constitution against an order of a Tribunal or an
order passed by the sub ordinate court. In
quintessentiality, it cannot be put in a state jacket
formula that any order of the learned judge that deals
with an order arising from an inferior tribunal or the
sub ordinate court is an order under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and not an order under
Article 226 of the Constitution. It would not be an
over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition
can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution in a composite manner and they
can coincide, co-exit, overlap imbricate. In this
context it is apt to note that there may be cases where
the learned single judge may feel disposed or inclined
to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because
it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the
Constitutions is fundamentally a repository and
reservoir of justice based on equity and good
conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of the
case.
19. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the orders
and proceedings of a judicial court subordinate to the
High Court are amenable to writ jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
25. Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of
the occasions, wherein the High Courts have
exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari
or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety
of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two
jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.
Probably, this is the reason why it has become
customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions
as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, though such practice has been
deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. Without
entering into niceties and technicality of the subject,
we venture to state the broad general difference
between the two jurisdictions. Firstly, the writ of
certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by
the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is
not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin
to appellate, revisional or corrective jurisdiction.
Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the
proceedings having been certified and sent up by the
inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High
Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may
simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do
no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the
High Court may not only quash or set aside the
impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may
also make such directions as the facts and
circumstances of the case may warrant, maybe, by
way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the
manner in which it would now proceed further or
afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court.
In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising
supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a
decision of its own in place of the impugned decision,
as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.
Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is capable of being exercised on a
prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved;
the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being
exercised suo motu as well."
14. In view of what has been stated above, the High
Court was not justified in holding that the Letters
Patent Appeal was not maintainable. In addition, a
bare reading of this Court's earlier order shows that
the impugned order is clearly erroneous. The
impugned order is set aside. The writ appeal shall be
heard by the Division Bench on merits.
5. In the case of Smt. Hansa Devi (supra), the question
regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India was considered and this Court after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length has dealt with
the issue of maintainability of writ appeal against an order passed
in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and dismissed the writ appeal.
6. On 27/10/2015 also this court in W.A. No.417/2015
considering the aforesaid arguments dismissed the writ appeal by
holding the following grounds :-
Keeping in view the judgments delivered
by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs.
Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007
(4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs.
Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ
595 and the decision of Apex Court in the case
of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram
Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge was exercising power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, remedy of
intra-court appeal is not available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was
purely a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the present writ appeal
filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all
maintainable.
7. This court however, finds that the writ appeal is not
maintainable although the writ petition was filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The case was covered under
head note III and head note VI of the case of Jogendrasinghji
Vijaysinghji (supra) whereby the Apex Court held that the High
Court was required to ascertain whether facts justify assertions
made in writ petition to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 or
Article 226 or under both/whether Single Judge exercised
jurisdiction under Article 227 or Article 226 or under both having
regard to nature, contour and character of his order. And
considering the above, we find that this Court was of the
considered view that the Writ Court as well as the Supervisory
Board have both exercised the powers under Article 227 in their
supervisory jurisdiction and a writ of certiorari cannot be issued.
8. In the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi
Nath and others [(2009) 5 SCC 616], the Apex Court held that
"judicial orders passed by Civil Court can be examined and then
corrected/reversed by a writ of certiorari and the Court had held
that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the high Court
does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution
vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is
to very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts within the
bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil
and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional
cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.
Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake
of fact and of law." Then in the instant case we find that such is
not the case and recently this Court under similar circumstances
in the matter of Smt. Hansa Devi and another Vs. Chandar
Singh and others in Writ Appeal No.691/2014 on 05.02.2015
held that when it is clear power of superintendence has been
exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ
appeal cannot be entertained. And in the present case also, we
find that the Writ Court has exercised his power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
when it has considered the findings of the facts arrived by the
Collector and the Board of Revenue.
9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we find that the
appeal is not maintainable and intra court appeal remedy is not
available to the petitioner. It is the liability of the appellant to pay
the amount and, thus, we are of the view that the Writ Court was
justified in passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2008. No
case to interfere with the aforesaid order, as prayed by the learned
counsel for the appellant is made out and, therefore, we dismiss
the writ appeal on merit as well as on the question of
maintainability.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.144/2009
11/01/2016
Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
By this Writ Appeal the appellant is challenging the
impugned order (dated 15.05.2008 passed in WP
No.4533/2006(S)} passed by the Writ Court in the proceeding
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that
learned Writ Court committed an error in directing to pay lump-
sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as a compensation instead of granting
50% backwages. He submits that though the Writ Appeal filed
against the order passed by the Writ Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable but the learned Writ
Court has wrongly exercised discretion while passing the
impugned order, and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned
order be set aside.
3. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat
& Ors., [(2015) 9 SCC 1] and submitted that the writ petition
was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
admittedly relief was claimed in the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India and no relief as prayed claimed
under Article 226 was given in the writ petition.
4. To support the aforesaid, he placed reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Visan
Kumar Shivcharanlal [2009(III) MPJR (SC) 319]. Para 12
and 14 are relevant which reads as under:-
12. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.
[AIR 2003 SC 3044] after referring to decisions in
Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan
Saheb Abdul Shukoor, etc. [1961 (3) SCR 855] and
Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. v. Commissioner of Hills
Division [AIR 1958 SC 398], T.C. Basappa v. T.
Nagappa [AIR 1954 SC 440] and Rupa Ashok Hurra
v. Ashok Hurra [AIR 2002 SC 1771], this Court held
at paragraphs 17, 19 & 25 as follows:
"17. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite
vivid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ
petition, nature of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, character and the contour of the order,
directions issued, nomenclature given the
jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context
are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a
hypertechnical manner that an order passed in a writ
petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from
the inferior tribunal or subordinate Court has to be
treated all the time for all purposes to be under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Phraseology
used in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution in Section 2 of the Act cannot
be given a restricted and constricted meaning
because an order passed in a writ petition can
tantamount to an order under Article 226 or 227 of
the Constitution of India and it would depend upon
the real nature of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. To elaborate; whether the learned
Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under
Article 226 or under Article 227 or both would
depend upon various aspects and many a facet as has
been emphasized in the afore quoted decisions of the
apex Court. The pleadings, as has been indicated
hereinabove, also assume immense significance. As
has been held in the case of Surya Devi Rai (supra) a
writ of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of
the Constitution against an order of a Tribunal or an
order passed by the sub ordinate court. In
quintessentiality, it cannot be put in a state jacket
formula that any order of the learned judge that deals
with an order arising from an inferior tribunal or the
sub ordinate court is an order under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and not an order under
Article 226 of the Constitution. It would not be an
over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition
can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution in a composite manner and they
can coincide, co-exit, overlap imbricate. In this
context it is apt to note that there may be cases where
the learned single judge may feel disposed or inclined
to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because
it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the
Constitutions is fundamentally a repository and
reservoir of justice based on equity and good
conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of the
case.
19. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the orders
and proceedings of a judicial court subordinate to the
High Court are amenable to writ jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
25. Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of
the occasions, wherein the High Courts have
exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari
or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety
of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two
jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.
Probably, this is the reason why it has become
customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions
as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, though such practice has been
deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. Without
entering into niceties and technicality of the subject,
we venture to state the broad general difference
between the two jurisdictions. Firstly, the writ of
certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by
the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is
not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin
to appellate, revisional or corrective jurisdiction.
Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the
proceedings having been certified and sent up by the
inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High
Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may
simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do
no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the
High Court may not only quash or set aside the
impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may
also make such directions as the facts and
circumstances of the case may warrant, maybe, by
way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the
manner in which it would now proceed further or
afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court.
In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising
supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a
decision of its own in place of the impugned decision,
as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.
Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is capable of being exercised on a
prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved;
the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being
exercised suo motu as well."
14. In view of what has been stated above, the High
Court was not justified in holding that the Letters
Patent Appeal was not maintainable. In addition, a
bare reading of this Court's earlier order shows that
the impugned order is clearly erroneous. The
impugned order is set aside. The writ appeal shall be
heard by the Division Bench on merits.
5. In the case of Smt. Hansa Devi (supra), the question
regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India was considered and this Court after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length has dealt with
the issue of maintainability of writ appeal against an order passed
in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and dismissed the writ appeal.
6. On 27/10/2015 also this court in W.A. No.417/2015
considering the aforesaid arguments dismissed the writ appeal by
holding the following grounds :-
Keeping in view the judgments delivered
by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs.
Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007
(4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs.
Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ
595 and the decision of Apex Court in the case
of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram
Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge was exercising power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, remedy of
intra-court appeal is not available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was
purely a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the present writ appeal
filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all
maintainable.
7. This court however, finds that the writ appeal is not
maintainable although the writ petition was filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The case was covered under
head note III and head note VI of the case of Jogendrasinghji
Vijaysinghji (supra) whereby the Apex Court held that the High
Court was required to ascertain whether facts justify assertions
made in writ petition to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 or
Article 226 or under both/whether Single Judge exercised
jurisdiction under Article 227 or Article 226 or under both having
regard to nature, contour and character of his order. And
considering the above, we find that this Court was of the
considered view that the Writ Court as well as the Supervisory
Board have both exercised the powers under Article 227 in their
supervisory jurisdiction and a writ of certiorari cannot be issued.
8. In the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi
Nath and others [(2009) 5 SCC 616], the Apex Court held that
"judicial orders passed by Civil Court can be examined and then
corrected/reversed by a writ of certiorari and the Court had held
that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the high Court
does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution
vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is
to very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts within the
bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil
and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional
cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.
Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake
of fact and of law." Then in the instant case we find that such is
not the case and recently this Court under similar circumstances
in the matter of Smt. Hansa Devi and another Vs. Chandar
Singh and others in Writ Appeal No.691/2014 on 05.02.2015
held that when it is clear power of superintendence has been
exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ
appeal cannot be entertained. And in the present case also, we
find that the Writ Court has exercised his power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
when it has considered the findings of the facts arrived by the
Collector and the Board of Revenue.
9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we find that the
appeal is not maintainable and intra court appeal remedy is not
available to the petitioner. It is the liability of the appellant to pay
the amount and, thus, we are of the view that the Writ Court was
justified in passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2008. No
case to interfere with the aforesaid order, as prayed by the learned
counsel for the appellant is made out and, therefore, we dismiss
the writ appeal on merit as well as on the question of
maintainability. Consequentially IA No.3635/2009, application
for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.145/2009
11/01/2016
Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
By this Writ Appeal the appellant is challenging the
impugned order (dated 26.06.2008 passed in WP
No.4532/2006(S)} passed by the Writ Court in the proceeding
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that
learned Writ Court committed an error in directing to pay lump-
sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as a compensation instead of granting
50% backwages. He submits that though the Writ Appeal filed
against the order passed by the Writ Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable but the learned Writ
Court has wrongly exercised discretion while passing the
impugned order, and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned
order be set aside.
3. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat
& Ors., [(2015) 9 SCC 1] and submitted that the writ petition
was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
admittedly relief was claimed in the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India and no relief as prayed claimed
under Article 226 was given in the writ petition.
4. To support the aforesaid, he placed reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Visan
Kumar Shivcharanlal [2009(III) MPJR (SC) 319]. Para 12
and 14 are relevant which reads as under:-
12. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.
[AIR 2003 SC 3044] after referring to decisions in
Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan
Saheb Abdul Shukoor, etc. [1961 (3) SCR 855] and
Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. v. Commissioner of Hills
Division [AIR 1958 SC 398], T.C. Basappa v. T.
Nagappa [AIR 1954 SC 440] and Rupa Ashok Hurra
v. Ashok Hurra [AIR 2002 SC 1771], this Court held
at paragraphs 17, 19 & 25 as follows:
"17. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite
vivid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ
petition, nature of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, character and the contour of the order,
directions issued, nomenclature given the
jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context
are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a
hypertechnical manner that an order passed in a writ
petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from
the inferior tribunal or subordinate Court has to be
treated all the time for all purposes to be under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Phraseology
used in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution in Section 2 of the Act cannot
be given a restricted and constricted meaning
because an order passed in a writ petition can
tantamount to an order under Article 226 or 227 of
the Constitution of India and it would depend upon
the real nature of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. To elaborate; whether the learned
Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under
Article 226 or under Article 227 or both would
depend upon various aspects and many a facet as has
been emphasized in the afore quoted decisions of the
apex Court. The pleadings, as has been indicated
hereinabove, also assume immense significance. As
has been held in the case of Surya Devi Rai (supra) a
writ of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of
the Constitution against an order of a Tribunal or an
order passed by the sub ordinate court. In
quintessentiality, it cannot be put in a state jacket
formula that any order of the learned judge that deals
with an order arising from an inferior tribunal or the
sub ordinate court is an order under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and not an order under
Article 226 of the Constitution. It would not be an
over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition
can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution in a composite manner and they
can coincide, co-exit, overlap imbricate. In this
context it is apt to note that there may be cases where
the learned single judge may feel disposed or inclined
to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because
it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the
Constitutions is fundamentally a repository and
reservoir of justice based on equity and good
conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of the
case.
19. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the orders
and proceedings of a judicial court subordinate to the
High Court are amenable to writ jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
25. Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of
the occasions, wherein the High Courts have
exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari
or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety
of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two
jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.
Probably, this is the reason why it has become
customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions
as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, though such practice has been
deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. Without
entering into niceties and technicality of the subject,
we venture to state the broad general difference
between the two jurisdictions. Firstly, the writ of
certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by
the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is
not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin
to appellate, revisional or corrective jurisdiction.
Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the
proceedings having been certified and sent up by the
inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High
Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may
simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do
no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the
High Court may not only quash or set aside the
impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may
also make such directions as the facts and
circumstances of the case may warrant, maybe, by
way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the
manner in which it would now proceed further or
afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court.
In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising
supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a
decision of its own in place of the impugned decision,
as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.
Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is capable of being exercised on a
prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved;
the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being
exercised suo motu as well."
14. In view of what has been stated above, the High
Court was not justified in holding that the Letters
Patent Appeal was not maintainable. In addition, a
bare reading of this Court's earlier order shows that
the impugned order is clearly erroneous. The
impugned order is set aside. The writ appeal shall be
heard by the Division Bench on merits.
5. In the case of Smt. Hansa Devi (supra), the question
regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India was considered and this Court after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length has dealt with
the issue of maintainability of writ appeal against an order passed
in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and dismissed the writ appeal.
6. On 27/10/2015 also this court in W.A. No.417/2015
considering the aforesaid arguments dismissed the writ appeal by
holding the following grounds :-
Keeping in view the judgments delivered
by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs.
Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007
(4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs.
Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ
595 and the decision of Apex Court in the case
of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram
Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge was exercising power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, remedy of
intra-court appeal is not available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was
purely a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the present writ appeal
filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all
maintainable.
7. This court however, finds that the writ appeal is not
maintainable although the writ petition was filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The case was covered under
head note III and head note VI of the case of Jogendrasinghji
Vijaysinghji (supra) whereby the Apex Court held that the High
Court was required to ascertain whether facts justify assertions
made in writ petition to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 or
Article 226 or under both/whether Single Judge exercised
jurisdiction under Article 227 or Article 226 or under both having
regard to nature, contour and character of his order. And
considering the above, we find that this Court was of the
considered view that the Writ Court as well as the Supervisory
Board have both exercised the powers under Article 227 in their
supervisory jurisdiction and a writ of certiorari cannot be issued.
8. In the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi
Nath and others [(2009) 5 SCC 616], the Apex Court held that
"judicial orders passed by Civil Court can be examined and then
corrected/reversed by a writ of certiorari and the Court had held
that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the high Court
does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution
vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is
to very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts within the
bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil
and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional
cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.
Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake
of fact and of law." Then in the instant case we find that such is
not the case and recently this Court under similar circumstances
in the matter of Smt. Hansa Devi and another Vs. Chandar
Singh and others in Writ Appeal No.691/2014 on 05.02.2015
held that when it is clear power of superintendence has been
exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ
appeal cannot be entertained. And in the present case also, we
find that the Writ Court has exercised his power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
when it has considered the findings of the facts arrived by the
Collector and the Board of Revenue.
9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we find that the
appeal is not maintainable and intra court appeal remedy is not
available to the petitioner. It is the liability of the appellant to pay
the amount and, thus, we are of the view that the Writ Court was
justified in passing the impugned order dated 26.06.2008. No
case to interfere with the aforesaid order, as prayed by the learned
counsel for the appellant is made out and, therefore, we dismiss
the writ appeal on merit as well as on the question of
maintainability. Consequentially IA No.3636/2009, application
for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
ITA.No.294/2007
11/01/2016
Shri R.L.Jain, learned Senior Counsel along with
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted
that during pendency of the appeal on 10.12.2015 Circular
No.21/2015 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Central
Board Direct Taxes has been issued, whereby if the value of
appeal/tax effect is less than Rs.20,00,000/- then the appeal
shall not be filed before the High Court.
Clause 3 and 10 of the Circular are relevant which
reads as under :-
"3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax
effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :-
S.No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit
(In Rs.)
1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/-
2. Before High Court 20,00,000/
3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-
It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the
tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing
of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and
appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals
below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not
pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the
instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was
filed."
In the present case value of appeal is Rs.7,00,000/-. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax V/s. Gautam Chand Jain by order dated
14.11.2014 passed in ITA No.368/2007 held as under :-
"In this appeal, learned counsel for the respondent has
raised an objection that as per CBDT Circular jurisdiction no.2 of
2005 dated 24.10.2005, the appeal will be filed by the Revenue
under Section 260A of Income - Tax Act, 1961, if the tax
liability/tax effect is more than Rs.4,00,000/-. He submits that in
view of the Circular and law laid down by the Principal Seat at
Jabalpur in the case of Commissioner of I.T. v/s. Ram
Kishore, reported as 2013 (II) MPJR SN 1 the appeal filed by
the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that these appeals are admitted
in pursuance to the remand passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and, therefore, the aforesaid objection be over
ruled and matter be heard finally.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and
considering the fact that in the case of Commissioner
of I.T. v/s. Ram Kishore (Supra), the matter was
admitted on 6.5.2005, thereafter, the aforesaid objection
was raised and the Division Bench while considering the
aforesaid objection found appeal incompetent and is
dismissed the same.
Order dated 12.2.2013 reads as under :-
"1. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Hon.ITAT was
justified in law in deleting the levy of penalty
u/s 27 (1) (a) on the grounds that returns filed
on these years were accepted even though it was
beyond the limit prescribed under Section 139
(1) ?
2.Whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal
without assigning any reason by mere
recording the submissions of the appellant and
respondent?
Stating aforesaid, it was submitted by
Shri Jain that in these appeals, tax affect is less
than Rs.2 lakh and may be dismissed only on
this ground. He has relied on the two Division
Bench judgments of this court in Commissioner
of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chand Goyal [(2008)
298 ITR 277 (MP)] and Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co.
[(2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP)] in support of his
contention.
Shri Lal learned counsel appearing for the
appellant though opposed the aforesaid prayer
but could not refute the contention of the
appellant that by the Board instructions
No.1979 dated 27.3.2000, the Board had
specifically directed that the Department shall
file appeal only in cases where tax effect exceeds
monetary limits of Rs.2 lakh in the matter of
High court.
The instructions issued by this Board
reads as thus :
Monetary limits for filling Departmental
appeals / references before Income - tax
appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme
Court - Measures for reducing litigation.
Reference is invited to the Board's
Instruction No.1903, daed 28th October, 1992,
(See Clarification Five) and Instruction No.1777,
dated 4th November 1987, (See Clarification
Five) wherein monetary limits of Rs.25,000 for
Departmental appeals (in income-tax matters)
before the Appellate Tribunal, Rs.50,000 for
filing reference to the High court and
Rs.1,50,000 for filing appeal to the Supreme
Court were laid down.
2. In suppression of the above instruction, it
has now been decided by the Board that appeals
will be filed only in cases where the tax effect
exceeds the revised monetary limits given
hereunder :
(Tax effect) Rs.
(i) Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
(in come-tax matters)
1,00,000
(ii) Appeal under Section 260A/reference under
Section 256 (2) before the High Court
2,00,000
(iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court
5,00,000
The new monetary limits would apply with
reference to each case taken singly. In other
words, in group cases, each case should
individually satisfy the new monetary limits.
The working out of monetary limits will
therefore, not take into consideration the
cumulative effect as envisaged in the Board's
earlier instruction referred to above.
3. Adverse judgments relating to the following
should be contested irrespective of revenue
effect :
(i) Where Revenue audit objection in the case
has been accepted by the Department.
(ii) Where the Board's order, notification,
instruction or circular is the subject matter of
an adverse order.
(iii) Where prosecution proceedings are
contemplated against the assessee.
(iv) Where the constitutional validity of the
provisions of the Act are under challenge.
4. Special leave petitions under Article 136 of
the Constitution are filed before the Supreme
Court only in consultation with the Ministry of
Law. Therefore, where the Chief Commissioner
decides to contest an adverse judgment by filing
special leave petition before the Supreme Court,
they should send the proposal to the Board for
further processing.
5. These instructions will apply to litigation
under other direct taxes also e.g., Wealth - tax,
Gift - tax, Estate duty, etc.
6. These monetary limits will not apply to writ
matters.
7. This instruction will come into effect from
April 1, 2000.
Instruction : No.1979 [F.No.279/126/98-IT],
dated 27.3.2000. [See Asst. CIT vs.
Nimeshchandra vs. Vashi (ITA
No.2794/Ahd./2003, dated 6.1.2005].
The aforesaid judgments specifically lays
down that any appeal, if tax effect less than Rs.2
lakhs could not have been filed by the
Department.
From the perusal of the instructions
issued by the Board, we find that the Board has
issued directions that the appeals will be filed
only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs.2
lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals U/s
260A or Reference U/s 256 (2). The aforesaid
circular is binding on all the authorities under
the Board including the appellant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The
Board had taken this decision in continuation to
earlier directions issued by the Board on
28.10.1992 where the monitory limit was
Rs.50,000/-. Now in view of the changed
circumstances, as directed by the Board by
instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that
the appeal or reference below Rs.2 lakhs, could
not have been filed. The instructions of the
Board are binding to all the authorities working
under the Board including the appellant. This
appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully
covered by the instructions issued by the Board
on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have
been filed. The aforesaid position has been
clarified by two Division Bench of this Court in
Suresh Chand and Ashok Manibhai
(Supra).
In the result, this appeal is found
incompetent and is dismissed with no order as
to costs."
In view of the aforesaid, as per the memo of appeal
and submissions made by the learned counsel for the
assessee the 40% tax which is payable to the assessee
comes to Rs.1,40,400/-. The total tax liability comes to
Rs.1,40,400/-.
For the reasons assigned in the memo of appeal as
the tax liability / tax effect is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, we
dismiss the appeal.
Accordingly, it is dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid and the law laid down by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner
of Income Tax V/s. Gautam Chand Jain (supra) as per memo
of appeal and submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, the value of appeal is Rs.7,00,000/-, which is less
than the amount prescribed in the Circular No.21/15, we
dismiss the appeal ITA No.294/2007.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WTA.No.2/2008
11/01/2016
Shri R.L.Jain, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms.
Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that
during pendency of the appeal on 10.12.2015 Circular
No.21/2015 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Central
Board Direct Taxes has been issued, whereby if the value of
appeal/tax effect is less than Rs.20,00,000/- then the appeal
shall not be filed before the High Court.
Clause 3 and 10 of the Circular are relevant which
reads as under :-
"3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax
effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :-
S.No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit
(In Rs.)
1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/-
2. Before High Court 20,00,000/
3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-
It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the
tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing
of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and
appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals
below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not
pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the
instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was
filed."
In the present case value of appeal is Rs.5,54,000/-. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax V/s. Gautam Chand Jain by order dated
14.11.2014 passed in ITA No.368/2007 held as under :-
"In this appeal, learned counsel for the respondent has
raised an objection that as per CBDT Circular jurisdiction no.2 of
2005 dated 24.10.2005, the appeal will be filed by the Revenue
under Section 260A of Income - Tax Act, 1961, if the tax
liability/tax effect is more than Rs.4,00,000/-. He submits that in
view of the Circular and law laid down by the Principal Seat at
Jabalpur in the case of Commissioner of I.T. v/s. Ram
Kishore, reported as 2013 (II) MPJR SN 1 the appeal filed by
the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that these appeals are admitted
in pursuance to the remand passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and, therefore, the aforesaid objection be over
ruled and matter be heard finally.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and
considering the fact that in the case of Commissioner
of I.T. v/s. Ram Kishore (Supra), the matter was
admitted on 6.5.2005, thereafter, the aforesaid objection
was raised and the Division Bench while considering the
aforesaid objection found appeal incompetent and is
dismissed the same.
Order dated 12.2.2013 reads as under :-
"1. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Hon.ITAT was
justified in law in deleting the levy of penalty
u/s 27 (1) (a) on the grounds that returns filed
on these years were accepted even though it was
beyond the limit prescribed under Section 139
(1) ?
3.Whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal
without assigning any reason by mere
recording the submissions of the appellant and
respondent?
Stating aforesaid, it was submitted by
Shri Jain that in these appeals, tax affect is less
than Rs.2 lakh and may be dismissed only on
this ground. He has relied on the two Division
Bench judgments of this court in Commissioner
of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chand Goyal [(2008)
298 ITR 277 (MP)] and Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co.
[(2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP)] in support of his
contention.
Shri Lal learned counsel appearing for the
appellant though opposed the aforesaid prayer
but could not refute the contention of the
appellant that by the Board instructions
No.1979 dated 27.3.2000, the Board had
specifically directed that the Department shall
file appeal only in cases where tax effect exceeds
monetary limits of Rs.2 lakh in the matter of
High court.
The instructions issued by this Board
reads as thus :
Monetary limits for filling Departmental
appeals / references before Income - tax
appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme
Court - Measures for reducing litigation.
Reference is invited to the Board's
Instruction No.1903, daed 28th October, 1992,
(See Clarification Five) and Instruction No.1777,
dated 4th November 1987, (See Clarification
Five) wherein monetary limits of Rs.25,000 for
Departmental appeals (in income-tax matters)
before the Appellate Tribunal, Rs.50,000 for
filing reference to the High court and
Rs.1,50,000 for filing appeal to the Supreme
Court were laid down.
2. In suppression of the above instruction, it
has now been decided by the Board that appeals
will be filed only in cases where the tax effect
exceeds the revised monetary limits given
hereunder :
(Tax effect) Rs.
(i) Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
(in come-tax matters)
1,00,000
(ii) Appeal under Section 260A/reference under
Section 256 (2) before the High Court
2,00,000
(iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court
5,00,000
The new monetary limits would apply with
reference to each case taken singly. In other
words, in group cases, each case should
individually satisfy the new monetary limits.
The working out of monetary limits will
therefore, not take into consideration the
cumulative effect as envisaged in the Board's
earlier instruction referred to above.
3. Adverse judgments relating to the following
should be contested irrespective of revenue
effect :
(i) Where Revenue audit objection in the case
has been accepted by the Department.
(ii) Where the Board's order, notification,
instruction or circular is the subject matter of
an adverse order.
(iii) Where prosecution proceedings are
contemplated against the assessee.
(iv) Where the constitutional validity of the
provisions of the Act are under challenge.
4. Special leave petitions under Article 136 of
the Constitution are filed before the Supreme
Court only in consultation with the Ministry of
Law. Therefore, where the Chief Commissioner
decides to contest an adverse judgment by filing
special leave petition before the Supreme Court,
they should send the proposal to the Board for
further processing.
5. These instructions will apply to litigation
under other direct taxes also e.g., Wealth - tax,
Gift - tax, Estate duty, etc.
6. These monetary limits will not apply to writ
matters.
7. This instruction will come into effect from
April 1, 2000.
Instruction : No.1979 [F.No.279/126/98-IT],
dated 27.3.2000. [See Asst. CIT vs.
Nimeshchandra vs. Vashi (ITA
No.2794/Ahd./2003, dated 6.1.2005].
The aforesaid judgments specifically lays
down that any appeal, if tax effect less than Rs.2
lakhs could not have been filed by the
Department.
From the perusal of the instructions
issued by the Board, we find that the Board has
issued directions that the appeals will be filed
only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs.2
lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals U/s
260A or Reference U/s 256 (2). The aforesaid
circular is binding on all the authorities under
the Board including the appellant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The
Board had taken this decision in continuation to
earlier directions issued by the Board on
28.10.1992 where the monitory limit was
Rs.50,000/-. Now in view of the changed
circumstances, as directed by the Board by
instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that
the appeal or reference below Rs.2 lakhs, could
not have been filed. The instructions of the
Board are binding to all the authorities working
under the Board including the appellant. This
appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully
covered by the instructions issued by the Board
on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have
been filed. The aforesaid position has been
clarified by two Division Bench of this Court in
Suresh Chand and Ashok Manibhai
(Supra).
In the result, this appeal is found
incompetent and is dismissed with no order as
to costs."
In view of the aforesaid, as per the memo of appeal
and submissions made by the learned counsel for the
assessee the 40% tax which is payable to the assessee
comes to Rs.1,40,400/-. The total tax liability comes to
Rs.1,40,400/-.
For the reasons assigned in the memo of appeal as
the tax liability / tax effect is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, we
dismiss the appeal.
Accordingly, it is dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid and the law laid down by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner
of Income Tax V/s. Gautam Chand Jain (supra) as per memo
of appeal and submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, the value of appeal is Rs.5,54,000/-, which is less
than the amount prescribed in the Circular No.21/15, we
dismiss the appeal WTA No.2/2008. Consequentially IA
No.7082/08, an application for condonation of delay is also
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WTA.No.1/2008
11/01/2016
Shri R.L.Jain, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms.
Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that
during pendency of the appeal on 10.12.2015 Circular
No.21/2015 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Central
Board Direct Taxes has been issued, whereby if the value of
appeal/tax effect is less than Rs.20,00,000/- then the appeal
shall not be filed before the High Court.
Clause 3 and 10 of the Circular are relevant which
reads as under :-
"3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax
effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :-
S.No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit
(In Rs.)
1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/-
2. Before High Court 20,00,000/
3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-
It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the
tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing
of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and
appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals
below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not
pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the
instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was
filed."
In the present case value of appeal is Rs.5,54,000/-. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax V/s. Gautam Chand Jain by order dated
14.11.2014 passed in ITA No.368/2007 held as under :-
"In this appeal, learned counsel for the respondent has
raised an objection that as per CBDT Circular jurisdiction no.2 of
2005 dated 24.10.2005, the appeal will be filed by the Revenue
under Section 260A of Income - Tax Act, 1961, if the tax
liability/tax effect is more than Rs.4,00,000/-. He submits that in
view of the Circular and law laid down by the Principal Seat at
Jabalpur in the case of Commissioner of I.T. v/s. Ram
Kishore, reported as 2013 (II) MPJR SN 1 the appeal filed by
the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that these appeals are admitted
in pursuance to the remand passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and, therefore, the aforesaid objection be over
ruled and matter be heard finally.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and
considering the fact that in the case of Commissioner
of I.T. v/s. Ram Kishore (Supra), the matter was
admitted on 6.5.2005, thereafter, the aforesaid objection
was raised and the Division Bench while considering the
aforesaid objection found appeal incompetent and is
dismissed the same.
Order dated 12.2.2013 reads as under :-
"1. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Hon.ITAT was
justified in law in deleting the levy of penalty
u/s 27 (1) (a) on the grounds that returns filed
on these years were accepted even though it was
beyond the limit prescribed under Section 139
(1) ?
4.Whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal
without assigning any reason by mere
recording the submissions of the appellant and
respondent?
Stating aforesaid, it was submitted by
Shri Jain that in these appeals, tax affect is less
than Rs.2 lakh and may be dismissed only on
this ground. He has relied on the two Division
Bench judgments of this court in Commissioner
of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chand Goyal [(2008)
298 ITR 277 (MP)] and Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co.
[(2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP)] in support of his
contention.
Shri Lal learned counsel appearing for the
appellant though opposed the aforesaid prayer
but could not refute the contention of the
appellant that by the Board instructions
No.1979 dated 27.3.2000, the Board had
specifically directed that the Department shall
file appeal only in cases where tax effect exceeds
monetary limits of Rs.2 lakh in the matter of
High court.
The instructions issued by this Board
reads as thus :
Monetary limits for filling Departmental
appeals / references before Income - tax
appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme
Court - Measures for reducing litigation.
Reference is invited to the Board's
Instruction No.1903, daed 28th October, 1992,
(See Clarification Five) and Instruction No.1777,
dated 4th November 1987, (See Clarification
Five) wherein monetary limits of Rs.25,000 for
Departmental appeals (in income-tax matters)
before the Appellate Tribunal, Rs.50,000 for
filing reference to the High court and
Rs.1,50,000 for filing appeal to the Supreme
Court were laid down.
2. In suppression of the above instruction, it
has now been decided by the Board that appeals
will be filed only in cases where the tax effect
exceeds the revised monetary limits given
hereunder :
(Tax effect) Rs.
(i) Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
(in come-tax matters)
1,00,000
(ii) Appeal under Section 260A/reference under
Section 256 (2) before the High Court
2,00,000
(iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court
5,00,000
The new monetary limits would apply with
reference to each case taken singly. In other
words, in group cases, each case should
individually satisfy the new monetary limits.
The working out of monetary limits will
therefore, not take into consideration the
cumulative effect as envisaged in the Board's
earlier instruction referred to above.
3. Adverse judgments relating to the following
should be contested irrespective of revenue
effect :
(i) Where Revenue audit objection in the case
has been accepted by the Department.
(ii) Where the Board's order, notification,
instruction or circular is the subject matter of
an adverse order.
(iii) Where prosecution proceedings are
contemplated against the assessee.
(iv) Where the constitutional validity of the
provisions of the Act are under challenge.
4. Special leave petitions under Article 136 of
the Constitution are filed before the Supreme
Court only in consultation with the Ministry of
Law. Therefore, where the Chief Commissioner
decides to contest an adverse judgment by filing
special leave petition before the Supreme Court,
they should send the proposal to the Board for
further processing.
5. These instructions will apply to litigation
under other direct taxes also e.g., Wealth - tax,
Gift - tax, Estate duty, etc.
6. These monetary limits will not apply to writ
matters.
7. This instruction will come into effect from
April 1, 2000.
Instruction : No.1979 [F.No.279/126/98-IT],
dated 27.3.2000. [See Asst. CIT vs.
Nimeshchandra vs. Vashi (ITA
No.2794/Ahd./2003, dated 6.1.2005].
The aforesaid judgments specifically lays
down that any appeal, if tax effect less than Rs.2
lakhs could not have been filed by the
Department.
From the perusal of the instructions
issued by the Board, we find that the Board has
issued directions that the appeals will be filed
only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs.2
lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals U/s
260A or Reference U/s 256 (2). The aforesaid
circular is binding on all the authorities under
the Board including the appellant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The
Board had taken this decision in continuation to
earlier directions issued by the Board on
28.10.1992 where the monitory limit was
Rs.50,000/-. Now in view of the changed
circumstances, as directed by the Board by
instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that
the appeal or reference below Rs.2 lakhs, could
not have been filed. The instructions of the
Board are binding to all the authorities working
under the Board including the appellant. This
appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully
covered by the instructions issued by the Board
on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have
been filed. The aforesaid position has been
clarified by two Division Bench of this Court in
Suresh Chand and Ashok Manibhai
(Supra).
In the result, this appeal is found
incompetent and is dismissed with no order as
to costs."
In view of the aforesaid, as per the memo of appeal
and submissions made by the learned counsel for the
assessee the 40% tax which is payable to the assessee
comes to Rs.1,40,400/-. The total tax liability comes to
Rs.1,40,400/-.
For the reasons assigned in the memo of appeal as
the tax liability / tax effect is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, we
dismiss the appeal.
Accordingly, it is dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid and the law laid down by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner
of Income Tax V/s. Gautam Chand Jain (supra) as per memo
of appeal and submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, the value of appeal is Rs.5,54,000/-, which is less
than the amount prescribed in the Circular No.21/15, we
dismiss the appeal WTA No.1/2008. Consequentially IA
No.6438/15, an application for condonation of delay is also
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
CONC.No.189/2011
11/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
List after four weeks along with W.P.No.2592/06,
as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.2592/2006
11/01/2016
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 3.
Smt. Preeti Waghmare, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.6.
Shri Atul Shridharan, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.9.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted
four weeks time to submit the report in compliance to order
dated 09.09.2015 duly supported with the affidavit of
Collector, Ujjain. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
FA No.208/2000
11/01/2016
Shri A.S.Garg, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri G.S.Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri P.M.Bapna, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Reply of IA No.9238/2015 is awaited.
As prayed, last opportunity of two weeks time is
granted to file reply.
List in the week commencing 25.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
FA No.463/2012
11/01/2016
Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7.
IA No.9414/2015 has been filed on behalf of
respondents No.6 and 7 for grant of temporary injunction.
As prayed, last opportunity of two weeks time is
granted to file reply. List thereafter for orders on IA
No.9414/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WA No.740/2013
11/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Balendu Dwivedi, learned
Counsel for the appellant, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
WA No.694/2013
11/01/2016
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel
for the respondents No.1 and 2, list on 13.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
COMA. No.6/2014
11/01/2016
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Counsel appears on
behalf of Shri Samarjeet Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for
the appellant.
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
In absence of arguing counsel case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
F.A.No.867/2015
07/01/2016
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 on advance notice.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.2/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent No.1 and, therefore, no further
notice is necessary.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard on IA No.8733/2015, an application
for grant of stay.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the impugned judgment as well as order passed
by the Apex Court on 28.09.2015 in petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.17240-17241/2015, wherein the
Apex Court considering the facts and circumstances of the
case directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the enhanced
amount of compensation and stayed recovery of the
remaining amount during pendency of the First Appeal before
the High Court. He submitted that similar order be passed in
the present First Appeal.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed
the prayer for grant of stay and has drawn our attention to the
Page 3 of the order whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court
considering the fact that this Court on the basis of an
exemplar that related to a very small piece of land measuring
not more than 0.022 hectares which the National Highways
Authority of India appears to have purchased by negotiation
with the land owners under a special scheme of the said
authority and directed to deposit 25% of the enhanced
amount of compensation. He further submitted that in the
present case date of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 27.06.2008 whereas the
respondent No.1 has filed four sale deeds much prior to the
date of notification before the reference Court whereby
compensation @ Rs.91,24,999/- per hectare had been fixed as
compensation.
Considering the aforesaid submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the appellant to
deposit 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation within
a period of six weeks from today and recovery of the
remaining amount be stayed during pendency of the First
Appeal, failing which the stay order shall automatically
comes to an end without reference to this Court.
Respondent No.1 land owner is permitted to
withdraw 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation.
IA No.8733/2015 is allowed in part to the extent
as indicated here-in-above.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.288/2015
07/01/2016
Appellant Shri Pramod Kumar Bhartiya is present
in person.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted
three weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter.
List thereafter along with WP No.7252/2014
decided on 12.05.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.501/2015
07/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2517/2015
07/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
List along with W.P.No.2508/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2518/2015
07/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
List along with W.P.No.2508/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2511/2015
07/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
List along with W.P.No.2508/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2508/2015
07/01/2016
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt.
Advocate, list in the week commencing 18.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7166/2015
07/01/2016
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.
In spite of time granted on 08.12.2015 till today
no reply has been filed of IA No.5680/2015/2015.
On due consideration prayer for amendment is
allowed. Necessary corrections in the cause title be carried
out within a week from today.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.571/2015
07/01/2016
Shri V.K.Patwari, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents.
They are heard.
Brief facts of this case are that the respondents
have issued an order of recovery of Rs.2,83,494/- and interest
of Rs.4,961/- which was deposited by the petitioner on
08.03.2007. Case of the appellant before the Writ Court is
that he received a letter of demand from the Accountant
General on 12.01.2007 and after processing minus balance of
Rs.2,83,494/- upto the retirement was worked out. After
retirement amount has been deposited on 08.03.2007.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to Annexure P/1 which was issued on 27.02.2007 by
the Office of Accountant General and submitted that Sub
Rule 7 of the Rule 14 of the M.P. General Provident Fund
Rules came into force w.e.f. 31.03.1987 and, therefore,
interest to be charged @ 2.5% w.e.f. 31.03.1987 and not from
1974. He has also drawn our attention to the notice
(Annexure P/2) and submitted that from the notice it appears
that interest @ 8% and penal rate of interest 2.5% has been
made w.e.f. January, 2007. Since the amount has been
deposited in March, 2007, therefore, the respondents are
entitled for the interest @ 2.5% for two months period only.
In reply, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that Sub Rule
7 of the Rule 14 came into force w.e.f. 31.03.1987, therefore,
the appellant is entitled to pay penal rate of interest since
1974.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and the law
laid down in the case of Ramesh Kumar Gugnani V/s. The
Accountant General (Writ Petition No.2593/2007, decided
on 02.04.2009) the Writ Appeal is allowed in part by
modifying the penal rate of interest @ 2.5% on the amount
minus balance of General Provident Fund w.e.f. 01.04.1987
till March, 2007 as the amount has been paid in the month of
March, 2007. Respondents are directed to examine the matter
and refund the excess amount, if any, deposited after
considering the period since 1974 within a period of three
months from the date of filing of certified copy, failing which
the appellant is entitled for interest.
With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal is allowed in part
by modifying the order passed in W.P.No.844/2008 (S).
No costs.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.8119/2015
07/01/2016
Smt. Shanno Shagufta Khan, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 5.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4/State.
As per record, on 06.01.2016, some documents
have been filed by the petitioner without any application and
therefore, we direct the petitioners to file appropriate
application for taking documents, failing which the
documents will not be considered at the time of admission of
the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite
of order dated 13.12.2015 Municipal Corporation is not
releasing Thelas (carts) to the petitioners and others,
therefore, appropriate order be passed. She submits that
around 1,200 Thelas (carts) have been taken away then
Manoj Munshi, Advocate submitted that claimants are much
more, therefore, they are asking for affidavits to prove that
they are real owner of the carts.
Considering the aforesaid, no further order as
prayed is required. In case Municipal Corporation fails to
comply with the order dated 13.12.2015 then the petitioners
are having remedy to file Contempt Petition.
As prayed, Three weeks further time is granted to
st
file rejoinder. List in the 1 week of February, 2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
C.E.A.No.22/2015
06/01/2016
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
The question involved in this appeal has been
decided by the Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in
the matter of Ganesh Yadav V/s. Union of India reported
in 2015 (320) E.L.T. 711.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is
granted one week's time to ascertain and verify whether any
Special Leave Petition against the said judgment is pending
before the Apex Court or not?
th
List in the week commencing 18 January,
2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.51/2014
06/01/2016
Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Mangesh Bhachawat, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Reply of respondent No.1 has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she
is not having copy of the same.
Considering the aforesaid, we direct learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 to supply the same to the
counsel for the appellant within a period of three days from
today.
List along with WA No.1157/2013, WA
No.40/2014, W.A.No.41/2014 and W.A.No.51/2014 on
13.01.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.134/2015
06/01/2016
Shri G.K.Patidar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents/State.
As prayed by Shri G.K.Patidar, learned counsel
th
for the appellant, list in the week commencing 18 January,
2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.241/2015
06/01/2016
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents/State.
As per record, after issuance of impugned notice
learned authority passed an order which has been challenged
in WP No.7307/2015.
Office is directed to list this matter along with WP
No.7307/2015 in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.275/2015
06/01/2016
Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant,
last opportunity is granted to the appellant to argue the case.
List on 13.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.287/2015
06/01/2016
Shri N.S.Pooniya, appellant is present in person.
Shri Prakash Verma, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1/Devi Ahilya University.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
As prayed, list along with the record of WP
No.13217/2013 on 25.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.286/2015
06/01/2016
Shri N.S.Pooniya, appellant is present in person.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
Shri Prakash Verma, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5.
As prayed, list along with the record of WP
No.4990/2011 decided on 05.05.2015 and WP
No.13217/2013 on 25.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.612/2015
06/01/2016
Shri M.M.Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process within a week, returnable within six weeks.
Record of the Court below be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.629/2015
06/01/2016
Shri Vijay Vishwakarma, learned Counsel
appeared on behalf Shri R.S.Laad, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by Shri Vijay Vishwakarma, learned
Counsel for the appellant, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.840/2014
06/01/2016
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate
along with Shri M.S.Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents/State.
As prayed by learned Govt. Advocate, list along
with the record of WP No.6926/2003 decided on 15.02.2006
th
and WP No.5847/2010(S) in the week commencing 18
January, 2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.638/2015
06/01/2016
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the appellants/State.
Heard on the question of admission as well as IA
No.6423/2015, an application for stay.
Sole contention of the learned Govt. Advocate is
that, in the present case after inquiry show cause notice has
been issued to the respondent as per Circular dated
10.07.2007 whereas the learned Writ Court gave a finding
that no show cause notice was issued while terminating
Aanganwadi Workers in compliance of Circular dated
10.07.2007.
Considering the aforesaid, let show cause notice
be issued on merit as well as on IA No.6423/2015 to the
respondent on payment of process fee within 10 days,
returnable within six weeks. In the meanwhile, operation of
the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.643/2015
06/01/2016
Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State
and, therefore, no further notice is required to them.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted four
weeks time to seek instructions in the matter and if necessary
to file affidavit in support of respondent No.4.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.917/2015
06/01/2016
Shri R.Chandrawade, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process within a week, returnable within six weeks.
Record of the Court below be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.918/2015
06/01/2016
Shri A.S.Garg, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Rakesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent No.11/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned Govt.
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent
No.11/State and, therefore, no further notice is required to
him.
Notice be issued to the respondents No.1 to 10 on
payment of process within two weeks, returnable within ten
weeks.
Record of the Court below be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.A.No.2127/2015
06/01/2016
Shri Brajesh Garg, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission as well as on
IA No.8447/2015.
Issue notice on both counts to the respondent on
payment of process within a week, returnable within six
weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
COMA. No.13/2015
14/12/2015
Shri D.S.Panwar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.8970/2015, an application for
ignoring defect of delay pointed out by the Registry.
As per office note under Article 117 of
Limitation Act period of 30 days is prescribed. Hence, the
appeal is delayed by 56 days and no application for
condonation of delay has been filed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhchain
Singh V/s. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (in
Liquidaton) and another reported in (2010) 154
Company Case No.338 (MP) held that as per Section 2 of
M.P. Uchch Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 (in short "Adhiniyam, 2005"), the appeal
under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 would lie to
a Division Bench, for which period of limitation is 90 days,
whereas the office has calculated the period of limitation 30
days i.e. incorrect. In such circumstances, the defect of
delay pointed out by the Registry is liable to be ignored.
We have gone through the record. We are
convinced with the argument of learned Counsel for the
appellant that against the order of the Company Judge
passed in exercise of original jurisdiction Appeal under
Section 483 would lie to a Division Bench and as per
Section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2005, limitation is
prescribed 90 days. We are of the view that the Article 117
of the Limitation Act would not apply to this appeal. Thus,
the appeal is within limitation, hence, the defect of delay
pointed out by the Registry be ignored.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
other defects pointed out by the office has already been
cured.
Office is directed to list the appeal for admission.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
COMA. No.12/2015
14/12/2015
Shri D.S.Panwar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.8971/2015, an application for
ignoring defect of delay pointed out by the Registry.
As per office note under Article 117 of
Limitation Act period of 30 days is prescribed. Hence, the
appeal is delayed by 56 days and no application for
condonation of delay has been filed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhchain
Singh V/s. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (in
Liquidaton) and another reported in (2010) 154
Company Case No.338 (MP) held that as per Section 2 of
M.P. Uchch Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 (in short "Adhiniyam, 2005"), the appeal
under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 would lie to
a Division Bench, for which period of limitation is 90 days,
whereas the office has calculated the period of limitation 30
days i.e. incorrect. In such circumstances, the defect of
delay pointed out by the Registry is liable to be ignored.
We have gone through the record. We are
convinced with the argument of learned Counsel for the
appellant that against the order of the Company Judge
passed in exercise of original jurisdiction Appeal under
Section 483 would lie to a Division Bench and as per
Section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2005, limitation is
prescribed 90 days. We are of the view that the Article 117
of the Limitation Act would not apply to this appeal. Thus,
the appeal is within limitation, hence, the defect of delay
pointed out by the Registry be ignored.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
other defects pointed out by the office has already been
cured.
Office is directed to list the appeal for admission.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
COMA. No.9/2015
14/12/2015
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
None for the respondent.
As per affidavit filed by the appellant and service
report of humdast notice, respondent refuses to accept the
notice.
Considering the aforesaid, we presume that
notice has been duly served.
Heard on IA No.8069/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 20 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we
are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is
sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.8069/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
Also heard on IA No.8070/2015, an application
for stay.
Interim stay granted by order dated 26.11.2015
shall continue till the next date of hearing. Meanwhile,
learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the
copy of the IA as well as Appeal to the Official Liquidator
so that he may take instructions in this matter.
th
List in the week commencing 26 January,
2016.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
R.P.No.116/2015
14/12/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list in the week commencing
11.01.2016 along with W.P.No.1361/2013 for analogous
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
R.P.No.378/2015
14/12/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on IA No.8393/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The Review Petition is barred by 66
days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we
are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is
sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.8393/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 66 days in filing the Review
Petition is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
vide order dated 12.10.2012 (Annexure P/4) in pursuance to
the order of repatriation dated 03.10.2012 he joined his
th
parent department on 12.10.2012 and thereafter from 15
January, 2013 Departmental Enquiry has been initiated and
this fact has not been considered. To support the aforesaid
he has drawn our attention to the decision of Division
Bench passed in the case of B.L.Satyarthi V/s. State of
M.P. and another reported in 2015 (2) MPHT 29.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, let notice
be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee
within three days, returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.527/2015
14/12/2015
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the appellants/State.
Heard on the question of admission as well as IA
No.5728/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
Learned Writ Court by impugned order dated
08.01.2015 disposed off the Writ Petition No.106/2015 by
holding that the directions issued in the matter of Kailash
Chandra (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court will
apply mutatis mutandis in the present case and the respondent
will examine the petitioner's case in the light of the aforesaid
directions within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that
the case of the appellants/State is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in the case of Kailash
Chandra (supra). Thus, the State will examine the matter in
the light of ratio decided by the Division Bench in the case of
Kailash Chandra (supra) within a period of three months
from today. No case for interference with the impugned order
as prayed is made out, therefore, the Writ Appeal
No.527/2015 as well as IA No.5728/15 deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.584/2015
14/12/2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.1/State.
Shri R.K.Shastri, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.3.
Heard on IA No.9461/2015, application under Section
70(2) of Cr.P.C. for recall of warrant.
After due consideration, we are of the view that no
case for recalling of warrant is made out, hence, IA No.9461/2015
is hereby dismissed.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) each be issued against the respondents
No.2 and 3 to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Dhar for their appearance before this Court on
28.01.2016.
List along with M.Cr.C.No.4854/2015 on 28.01.2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.560/2015
14/12/2015
As prayed by Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on Wednesday i.e. 16.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.559/2015
14/12/2015
As prayed by Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on Wednesday i.e. 16.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.558/2015
14/12/2015
As prayed by Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on Wednesday i.e. 16.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.557/2015
14/12/2015
As prayed by Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on Wednesday i.e. 16.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.556/2015
14/12/2015
As prayed by Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on Wednesday i.e. 16.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.555/2015
14/12/2015
As prayed by Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on Wednesday i.e. 16.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.179/2015
14/12/2015
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellant/State.
Bailable warrant has already been issued for presence
of the respondents on 25.01.2016.
Office is directed to list the matter on 16.02.2016 for
personal appearance of respondents before this Court/Registry.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.100/2015
14/12/2015
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Anand Singh Bahrawat, learned Counsel for
the respondent.
Heard on IA No.5729/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 7 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we
are of the view that the cause shown by the appellants is
sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.5729/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
List in the month of January,2016 for
admission.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1217/2013
14/12/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Report is awaited.
Shri S.M.Sanyal, learned Counsel for the appellant
prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application
under Order 5 Rule 20 of the CPC for service of notice to the
legal heirs No.1, 2 and 3 of respondent No.5 through publication.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.764/2012
14/12/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for
the respondents, list on 19.01.2016 for appearance of respondent
No.3 Shantilal Bavri.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
VATA. No.3/2014
14/12/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the appellant/State.
None for the respondent though served.
Heard on IA No.5007/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 14 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, IA No.5007/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
List for admission in the third week of January,
2016.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1756/2013
14/12/2015
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellant/State.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) be issued through Superintendent of Police,
Dhar to the respondents No.1 Sikandar and No.2 Aziz for a date
to be fixed by the Registry to secure the presence of the
respondents No.1 and 2, made returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1361/2013
14/12/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list in the week commencing
11.01.2016 along with R.P.No.116/2015 for analogous
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
COMA. No.6/2014
14/12/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Samarjeet Singh Chouhan,
learned Counsel for the appellant, list after winter vacation.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.6292/2015
14/12/2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6115/15, an application for stay.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
during pendency of the petition Bank Account has been
attached and amount Rs.23,36,205/- has been deposited through
challan (Annexure IA-1). He submits that the amount in
question has been paid, thereafter proceedings have been
initiated for recovery of interest.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that it
is a fit case for grant of stay and we direct to continue with
proceedings but amount of interest shall not be recovered until
further order of this Court. Meanwhile, return may be filed by
the respondent.
With the aforesaid IA No.6115/2015 stands
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.9202/2014
14/12/2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6112/15, an application for stay.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
during pendency of the petition Bank Account has been
attached and amount Rs.30,18,029/- has been deposited through
challan (Annexure IA-1). He submits that the amount in
question has been paid, thereafter proceedings have been
initiated for recovery of interest.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that it
is a fit case for grant of stay and we direct to continue with
proceedings but amount of interest shall not be recovered until
further order of this Court. Meanwhile, return may be filed by
the respondent.
With the aforesaid IA No.6112/2015 stands
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns. Judge Judge
W.P.No.6293/2015
14/12/2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6113/15, an application for stay.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
during pendency of the petition Bank Account has been
attached and amount Rs.68,58,903/- has been deposited through
challan (Annexure IA-1). He submits that the amount in
question has been paid, thereafter proceedings have been
initiated for recovery of interest.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that it
is a fit case for grant of stay and we direct to continue with
proceedings but amount of interest shall not be recovered until
further order of this Court. Meanwhile, return may be filed by
the respondent.
With the aforesaid IA No.6113/2015 stands
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.P.No.9200/2014
14/12/2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6114/15, an application for stay.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
during pendency of the petition Bank Account has been
attached and amount Rs.44,72,941/- has been deposited through
challan (Annexure IA-1). He submits that the amount in
question has been paid, thereafter proceedings have been
initiated for recovery of interest.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that it
is a fit case for grant of stay and we direct to continue with
proceedings but amount of interest shall not be recovered until
further order of this Court. Meanwhile, return may be filed by
the respondent.
With the aforesaid IA No.6114/2015 stands
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
ns Judge Judge
W.A.No.585/2015
14/12/2015
Smt. Preetha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the appellant/State.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.5986/15, an application for
condonation of delay and also on admission.
Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State submits that Kishorilal Prajapati's case is
distinguishable on facts because Kishorilal Prajapati was
granted the benefit of 5th Pay Scale but the appellant was not
granted the 5th Pay Scale.
In reply, Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for
the respondent submits that the case of respondent is covered
by the case of Bharat Darshan Shrivastava reported in 1998
MPLSR Page 278 and on the basis of the aforesaid judgment
the Writ Court has decided the case of Kishorilal Prajapati
and thereafter the Special Leave Petition No.28227/2013 (the
State of M.P. and others V/s. Kishorilal Prajapati) filed by the
State of M.P. has been dismissed by the Apex Court on
16.10.2013 by passing the following order which reads as
under :-
"The petitioners, who appear to have violated the
provisions of Section 2 (ra) and (4) read with Fifth Schedule of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by continuing the respondents
as daily wage employees for more than two decades have filed
this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution for setting
aside the order passed by the Division bench of the high Court
which, in our considered view, is mot innocuous.
The respondents had filed an application before the State
Administrative Tribunal for regularisation of their services and for
payment of salary and allowances at par with regular employees.
At the hearing of the application, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents gave up their claim for
regularisation and pleaded that they will feel satisfied, a
phenomena usually witnessed in the Court proceedings involving
poor and down trodden, if they are paid minimum of the regular
time scale.
The Tribunal accepted the submission of the learned
counsel and passed order dated 15.12.2000, the relevant portion
of which reads as under:
"So far as the claim of the applicants for the grant of
minimum pay in the pay scale of the post on which they are
working are concerned such claims are fully covered by the
earlier division bench decision of this tribunal rendered in the
case of Bharat Darshan Shrivastava and others vs. State of M.P.
And others 1998 M.P.S.I.R. 278. Hence by allowing the petition
the respondents are directed to pay the wages to the applicants
on the basis of minimum of the pay scale of the post against
which the applicants are working along with all applicable
allowances but without benefit of increments. This payment be
made with effects from the date of filing of this petition. Payment
of arrears shall be made within three months from the date of
this order with the aforesaid order and direction this case is
disposed off finally.
When the State Government accepted the
th
recommendations of the 6 Pay Commission and framed
Madhya Pradesh Salary Revision Rules, 2009, the respondents
claimed revision of the minimum of the pay scale.
The Division Bench of the High Court adverted to the
order passed by the Tribunal and held that the respondents are
entitled to the benefits under the revised pay scale.
We have heard Shri S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel
for the petitioners and carefully scanned the record.
We are in complete agreement with the High Court that
th
the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the 6 Pay
Commission and the petitioners are bound to enhance their pay
by fixing their salary at the minimum of the revised pay scale.
With the above observations, the special leave petition is
dismissed.
The petitioners are directed to implement the order of the
High Court within a period of three months failing which they
shall have to pay interest to the respondents at the rate of twelve
per cent pay annum from the date of enforcement of the revised
pay rules till the date of actual payment.
The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to
the respondents at the addresses mentioned in the memo of the
special leave petition. If the petitioners fail to pay their dues in
terms of the order of the High Court, then the respondents shall
be free to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971."
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of
the view that the learned Writ Court has rightly passed the
order and directed the appellants to comply with the order for
granting the benefit to the respondent. The appellants are
directed to comply with the order of Writ Court within a
period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order, failing which the appellants are liable to pay the
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement till
the amount is actually paid to the respondent.
No case for interference is made out, therefore, the
Writ Appeal No.585/2015 as well as IA No.5986/15 deserves
to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed on merit.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.659/2014
23/11/2015
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the appellant No.1/State.
Shri L.C.Patne, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.4214/2014, an application for
condonation of delay. The Writ Appeal is barred by 31
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, IA No.4214/2014 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent, therefore, no further notice is
necessary.
Shri L.C.Patne, learned Counsel for the
respondent prays for and is granted 10 days time to argue
on the question of admission.
List for admission along with the record of the
Writ Petition.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1611/2015
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
Counsel for the applicant is granted one week's
time to remove the defect as pointed out by the office and do
the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1607/2015
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
Counsel for the applicant is granted one week's
time to remove the defect as pointed out by the office and do
the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8026/2015
24/11/2015
None for the petitioner.
List on 26.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8028/2015
24/11/2015
None for the petitioner.
Adjourned.
List after a week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.841/2014
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
In absence of learned Counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.585/2014
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
In absence of learned Counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1257/2013
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
In absence of learned Counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.881/2011
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
List it along with Cr.A.No.833/2011.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.879/2011
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
List it along with Cr.A.No.833/2011.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.833/2011
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
In absence of learned Counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7873/2015
24/11/2015
Shri Lokesh Mehta, petitioner is present in person.
Shri Mahesh Sharma, Executive Engineer, Municipal
Corporation, Indore/officer-in-charge is present in person on
behalf of respondent No.3.
As prayed, list on 27.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.5281/2015
24/11/2015
None for the parties.
In absence of learned Counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3435/2015
24/11/2015
Ms. Madhuri Krishnaswami, representative of the
petitioner Sangathan is present in person.
Shri V.P.Baghora, Superintending Engineer, Water
Resources Department is present in person.
As prayed by the parties, list on 27.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7938/2015
24/11/2015
Shri Anil Salotara, Director of petitioner company is
present in person.
As prayed, list on 03.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6104/2014
24/11/2015
List it along with WP No.6037/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6037/2014
24/11/2015
Shri Sumer Singh, Director of Daily College Indore
Board of Governors/petitioner college is present in person.
IA No.5934/2015 has been filed by the petitioner for
issuance of direction to the respondent No.4 for issuing Eligibility
Certificate to the students of the petitioner institution.
It is submitted that by interim order dated 19.08.2014
this Court directed the respondent No.4 to issue requisite
Eligibility Certificate as were being granted to the students of the
petitioner institution. He further submits that the respondent No.4
has been issuing Eligibility Certificate to the students of the
petitioner institution and the committee constituted by the
respondent No.4 observed that the subject papers of Bachelor in
Management Business run by the petitioner institution are similar
to BBA three years programme offered by D.A.V.V. It is also
pointed out that other students
have also approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition
No.6104/2014 (Harsh Khandelwal and others V/s. Union of India
and others) and they have been issued Eligibility Certificate on
the directions issued by this Court.
Considering the aforesaid, we are inclined to grant
interim direction as prayed in IA No.5934/2015 and direct
respondent No.4 DAVV to issue Eligibility Certificates to Ms.
Ayushi Mangal and all other students who are unable to complete
their BBA Course from De Mont Fort University in the light of
the directions given by AICTE and in pursuance to the orders
passed by this Court for the session 2015-16 subject to final
outcome of the Writ Petition.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4442/2011
23/11/2015
Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
Shri Prashant Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.12 and 14.
IA No.5601/2015 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for permission to submit an application in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 28.10.2015.
Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submits that last
date for participation was 16.11.2015 and earlier three
applications of the petitioners were rejected on merit.
In view of the aforesaid, application (IA
No.5601/15) has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, it
is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.249/2012
23/11/2015
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.8649/2015, an application for
issuance of production warrant.
It is submitted that appellant Sagir @ Addapati
S/o Abdul Sattar is languishing in Central Jail, Indore,
therefore, he could not mark his presence on 21.07.2015.
Let production warrant be issued for production
of appellant Sagir @ Addapati on the next date of hearing.
With the aforesaid, IA No.8649/2015 is allowed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.872/2013
23/11/2015
Shri S.P.Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
As prayed, two weeks' further time is granted to
take appropriate steps.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.293/2007
23/11/2015
Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Avdhesh Polekar, learned Counsel for the
legal representatives of respondent No.2.
None for other respondents.
Let notice be issued on an application for
bringing legal representatives of respondent No.2 to other
as well as respondents No.1 and 3 on payment of process
fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within six
weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1257/2006
23/11/2015
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an
appropriate application for production of appellant Jitendra.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.484/2004
23/11/2015
Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Office is directed to list the appeal after receipt
of report.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.771/1999
23/11/2015
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
appellant/Lokayukt.
Office to call the report in compliance to order
dated 02.11.2015. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.521/1999
23/11/2015
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned Counsel for
the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7816/2015, an application for
condonation of absence of appellant Dhansingh on
15.09.2015.
It is submitted that on 15.09.2015 appellant was
in jail, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the
Registry of this Court on 15.09.2015.
Considering the aforesaid, prayer for
condonation of absence of appellant on 15.09.2015 is
allowed. He is directed to mark his presence before the
Registry of this Court on 16.12.2015 and on such other
dates, as may be given by the Registry in this behalf.
IA No.7816/2015 stands allowed and closed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1610/2015
23/11/2015
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State
and, therefore, no further notice is necessary.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List for orders on IA No.8715/2015 immediately
after receipt of the record.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1544/2015
23/11/2015
Shri Mohan Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
List for consideration of both the IAs (IA
No.8685/2015 and IA No.8686/2015) immediately after
receipt of record of the Trial Court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.237/2014
23/11/2015
Shri A.S.Garg, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State prays for one week's time
to file affidavit along with report supported by the affidavit
of the Doctor.
Prayer accepted.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.5460/2013
23/11/2015
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Avdhesh Polekar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 7/State.
Ms. Hemlata Gupta, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3 and 3A.
As prayed, further six weeks' time is granted to
the State to file reply.
List thereafter.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6615/2013
23/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list on any Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.222/2015
23/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
On due consideration of the arguments of
learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the
respondent is entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years
with all consequential benefits.
The order passed by learned Writ Court is just
and proper. No case for interference in the impugned order
as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, IA Nos.3004/15 & 3005/15 as well
as Writ Appeal No.222/2015 are dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.499/2014
23/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
On due consideration of the arguments of
learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the
respondent is entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years
with all consequential benefits.
The order passed by learned Writ Court is just
and proper. No case for interference in the impugned order
as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, IA No.5257/2015 as well as Writ
Appeal No.499/2014 are dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.659/2014
23/11/2015
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the appellant No.1/State.
Shri L.C.Patne, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.4214/2014, an application for
condonation of delay. The Writ Appeal is barred by 31
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, IA No.4214/2014 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent, therefore, no further notice is
necessary.
Shri L.C.Patne, learned Counsel for the
respondent prays for and is granted 10 days time to argue
on the question of admission.
List for admission along with the record of the
Writ Petition.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.684/2014
23/11/2015
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri M.I.Khan, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 4.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent No.6/State.
None for respondent No.5.
Reply as well as report of State is awaited.
As prayed further four weeks' time to file reply of
IA No.2042/2015 along with report of the Revenue Authority
regarding the income of the appellant is granted.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.31/2015
23/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri V.K.Jain, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.444/2015
23/11/2015
Shri Rishbh Sethi, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for and is granted time to argue on the
question of admission.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.500/2015
23/11/2015
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the appellants/State.
Heard.
The respondent Mohan Singh Chouhan is a
retired Government servant. He challenged the recovery
order dated 29.03.2014 by filing Writ Petition
No.736/2015(S). Learned Writ Court relying on the
decision of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others V/s. State
of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417
has held that as the recovery is bound to cause undue
hardship to the petitioner, who is a retired employee and
accordingly quashed the recovery order, however, the pay
fixation is upheld.
On due consideration, we are of the view that the
learned Writ Court has not committed legal error in passing
the impugned order. No case for interference with the
impugned order as prayed is made out. IA No.5527/2015 and
IA No.5528/2015 are accordingly dismissed.
Admission is declined.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R. No.680/2015
05.10.2015
Shri Manoharlal Dalal, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the respondent No.1.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for
respondent No.3.
With the consent of the parties, heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
Adarsh
17.11.2015
Order passed, signed and dated.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
Adarsh
M.Cr.C. No.454/2015
01.10.2015
Shri Atul Shridharan, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukt.
With the consent of the parties, heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
Adarsh
17.11.2015
Order passed, signed and dated.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
Adarsh
W.A.No.499/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
List after 10 days along with W.A. No.222/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.222/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
He is directed to supply copy of Writ Appeal to
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel, who gave
appearance on behalf of Shri Ratanlal Rathore within a
period of one week from today.
List after 10 days along with W.A. No.499/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.516/2015
06/11/2015
Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Anwar Khan, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
As prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties,
list before the Lok Adalat for settlement on 12.12.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.519/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed, list after three weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.523/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for
the respondent No.4 on advance notice
As prayed, list after three weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.800/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
This First Appeal is barred by 32 days.
Notice of IA No.8121/2015, an application for
condonation of delay, be issued to respondent on payment
of process fee within two weeks. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.9968/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the applicant/State.
Counsel for the applicant/State is granted 10 days
time to remove the defect as pointed out by the office and do
the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1544/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Mohan Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellants is granted two weeks'
time to remove the defect as pointed out by the office and do
the needful. Meanwhile, record of the Trial Court be called
for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.54/2014
06/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December, 2015
along with WP No.5370/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.47/2014
06/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December, 2015
along with WP No.5370/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.44/2014
06/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December, 2015
along with WP No.5370/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.46/2014
06/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December, 2015
along with WP No.5370/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.45/2014
06/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December, 2015
along with WP No.5370/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.37/2014
06/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December, 2015
along with WP No.5370/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.5370/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondents/State on advance
notice.
Reply of respondents are awaited.
As prayed, further four weeks time is granted to
file reply.
th
List in the week commencing 7 December,
2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.181/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Akash Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Reply in compliance to order dated 07.10.2015 is
awaited.
As prayed, further two weeks time is granted to
file reply.
rd
List in the week commencing 23 November,
2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.180/2015
06/11/2015
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Akash Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Reply in compliance to order dated 07.10.2015 is
awaited.
As prayed, further two weeks time is granted to
file reply.
rd
List in the week commencing 23 November,
2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7525/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents /State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
It is submitted that validity of Section 62(5) of
Punjab Value Added Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2011,
which has been challenged by filing Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.37727/2013 before the Apex Court, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 07.03.2014 directed the
respondents therein that they shall not take any coercive
action for recovering the amount in question which is subject
matter of this Writ Petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that under Section 16 of the M.P.VAT Act, 2002
read with Section 8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, no tax
under Section 9 or Section 10, as the case may be, shall be
payable on the sale or purchase of goods specified in
Schedule I, is provided but since they are challenging the
validity of provisions of the Act which is similar to Section
62(S) of the Punjab Value Added Tax (Third Amendment)
Act, 2011, and therefore, Writ Petition be heard finally.
Considering the aforesaid, we admit the Writ
Petition for final hearing.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within one week. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
As prayed, four weeks time is granted to file
return.
On the prayer for interim relief, it is directed that
keeping in view of the order passed on 27.02.2015 by
Gwalior Bench of this Court in WP No.952/2015 and various
other courts, no coercive action shall be taken sagainst the
petitioner for recovery of the amount in question subject to
his depositing 10% of the assessed/reassessed amount.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7121/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Akash Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Shri Arun Bhargava, Co-ordinator, Teacher
Education Cell, Rajya Siksha Kendra, Bhopal is present in
person.
On the last date of hearing this Court directed the
learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 to seek
instructions in the matter.
Today on the basis of instructions received from the
office-in-charge of the case, Counsel for the respondents No.1
and 2 submits that after fourth round of counseling merit list
has been prepared and on the basis of merit list candidate will
be permitted for admission in D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges.
In view of the fact that merit list has been prepared
and eligible candidates will be permitted for admission on
vacant seats for the course of D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges including the college run by the
petitioner Society. No further direction is required.
In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition
No.7121/2015 stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7025/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Shri Arun Bhargava, Co-ordinator, Teacher
Education Cell, Rajya Siksha Kendra, Bhopal is present in
person.
On the last date of hearing this Court directed the
learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 to seek
instructions in the matter.
Today on the basis of instructions received from the
office-in-charge of the case, Counsel for the respondents No.1
and 2 submits that after fourth round of counseling merit list
has been prepared and on the basis of merit list candidate will
be permitted for admission in D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges.
In view of the fact that merit list has been prepared
and eligible candidates will be permitted for admission on
vacant seats for the course of D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges including the college run by the
petitioner Society. No further direction is required.
In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition
No.7025/2015 stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7092/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Shri Arun Bhargava, Co-ordinator, Teacher
Education Cell, Rajya Siksha Kendra, Bhopal is present in
person.
On the last date of hearing this Court directed the
learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 to seek
instructions in the matter.
Today on the basis of instructions received from the
office-in-charge of the case, Counsel for the respondents No.1
and 2 submits that after fourth round of counseling merit list
has been prepared and on the basis of merit list candidate will
be permitted for admission in D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges.
In view of the fact that merit list has been prepared
and eligible candidates will be permitted for admission on
vacant seats for the course of D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges including the college run by the
petitioner Society. No further direction is required.
In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition
No.7092/2015 stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7120/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Shri Arun Bhargava, Co-ordinator, Teacher
Education Cell, Rajya Siksha Kendra, Bhopal is present in
person.
On the last date of hearing this Court directed the
learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 to seek
instructions in the matter.
Today on the basis of instructions received from the
office-in-charge of the case, Counsel for the respondents No.1
and 2 submits that after fourth round of counseling merit list
has been prepared and on the basis of merit list candidate will
be permitted for admission in D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges.
In view of the fact that merit list has been prepared
and eligible candidates will be permitted for admission on
vacant seats for the course of D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary
Education) in all the colleges including the college run by the
petitioner Society. No further direction is required.
In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition
No.7120/2015 stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7000/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Sumit Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.2/State.
None for other respondents.
By order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure P/3) passed
in WP No.6447/2015, High Court has issued following
directions to the respondents till next date of hearing :-
[1] The Central Government will grant
provisional permission to the petitioner to conduct
the course for the academic year 2015-2016 which
will be subject to final order to be passed by this
court.
[2] The State Government is directed to
start the process of the allotment and admission will
be made by the petitioner college subject to the
result of the present writ petition.
[3] The allotment and admission will be
made after giving the information to the students
regarding the pendency of this petition and that the
admission will be subject to the result of this writ
petition.
[4] Neither the petitioner nor the students
will claim any equity on the basis of
approval/permission for admission.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court by granting Special
Leave to Appeal stayed the order of High Court passed on
28.09.2015 in WP No.6447/2015 and directed that admission
given to the students, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Considering the aforesaid, at this stage, nothing
survives in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed with
liberty to revive his prayer, after final disposal of SLP
No.29258/2015/disposal of Writ Petition No.6447/2015.
With the aforesaid liberty, Writ Petition
No.7000/2015 is dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.381/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
Ms. Ranjana Gawade, learned Counsel for the
respondent on advance notice.
Learned Dy. Advocate General has drawn our
attention to Para 6 of the reply and submitted that provisions of
Rule 13 and 15 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1976
have not been considered while passing the final order.
Considering the aforesaid, we permit learned
Counsel for the appellant to file a Review Petition for
reviewing the order passed in the Writ Petition.
With the aforesaid liberty W.A. No.381/2015 is
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1512/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Prakash Patel, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.8251/2015, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process within 10 days. Notice be made returnable within six
weeks.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
Office is directed to verify and submit the report
whether any application for grant of leave to appeal against
the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2015 passed in Sessions
Trial No.629/2010 has been filed or not ?
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1527/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.8455/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 7 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, IA No. 8455/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be called for, thereafter
list the matter for orders on IA No.8312/2015, an
application for suspension of jail sentence.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1518/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State
and, therefore, no further notice is necessary.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1535/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Ramesh Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for
the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant is granted one week's
time to remove the defect as pointed out by the office and do
the needful. Meanwhile, record of the Trial Court be called
for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.515/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant was appointed on substantive post of Assistant
Warden in the Girl's Hostel, Gandhi Sagar not on the post of
Assistant Teacher.
Considering aforesaid, he is directed to supply the
copy of two sets of Writ Appeal along with documents to the
learned Dy. Advocate General.
List after 10 days.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.A.No.1769/2015
05/11/2015
Shri Nitendra Bajpai, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.7293/2015, an application for
stay.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process by tomorrow. Notice be made returnable within three
weeks.
List immediately after service of notice to the
other side.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.343/2013
05/11/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1/State.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List thereafter for admission.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.438/2015
04/11/2015
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the
appellants/State.
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for
the respondent.
Heard.
By this Writ Appeal the appellant is challenging
the order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the Writ Court
affirmed the order of stay passed on 30.01.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellants/State submits
that on the basis of interim stay respondent is continuing on
the post of Patwari and looking to the controversy involved
in the Writ Petition, the order dated 02.07.2015 passed in
WP No.654/2015 be set aside and the Writ Appeal be
allowed.
Office has raised an objection regarding
maintainability of the Writ Appeal on the ground that Writ
Appeal against the interim order is not maintainable,
therefore, at this stage without considering question of
maintainability of present Writ Appeal we direct the learned
Counsel for the appellants/State to file an appropriate
application for early hearing of the Writ Petition. In case
such an application is filed within 10 days, the Writ Petition
No.654/2015 shall be decided finally within a period of
three months and in case if it is found that Writ Petition
No.654/2015 cannot be decided within a period of three
months then the application for stay be considered
accordingly.
With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.438/2015 is
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.437/2015
04/11/2015
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Counsel for the
appellants/State.
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for
the respondent.
Heard.
By this Writ Appeal the appellant is challenging
the order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the Writ Court
affirmed the order of stay passed on 22.01.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellants/State submits
that on the basis of interim stay respondent is continuing on
the post of Patwari and looking to the controversy involved
in the Writ Petition, the order dated 02.07.2015 passed in
WP No.303/2015 be set aside and the Writ Appeal be
allowed.
Office has raised an objection regarding
maintainability of the Writ Appeal on the ground that Writ
Appeal against the interim order is not maintainable,
therefore, at this stage without considering question of
maintainability of present Writ Appeal we direct the learned
Counsel for the appellants/State to file an appropriate
application for early hearing of the Writ Petition. In case
such an application is filed within 10 days, the Writ Petition
No.303/2015 shall be decided finally within a period of
three months and in case if it is found that Writ Petition
No.303/2015 cannot be decided within a period of three
months then the application for stay be considered
accordingly.
With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.437/2015 is
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1506/2015
04/11/2015
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State
and, therefore, no further notice is necessary.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List thereafter for orders on IA No.8226/2015, an
application for suspension of jail sentence.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MCC No.884/2015
04/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned Counsel for the
applicant seeks permission to withdraw this MCC with
liberty to file a Review Petition.
With the aforesaid liberty, MCC No.884/2015 is
permitted to be withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MCC No.883/2015
04/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned Counsel for the
applicant seeks permission to withdraw this MCC with
liberty to file a Review Petition.
With the aforesaid liberty, MCC No.883/2015 is
permitted to be withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1484/2015
04/11/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time
to remove the defect as pointed out by the office and do the
needful. Meanwhile, record of the Trial Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.688/2015
04.11.2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel along with Shri
Ajay Mishra, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pal, learned Counsel appears on behalf of
Shri A.S.Gokhle, learned Counsel for the non-applicant/Special
Police Establishment, Ujjain.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant has filed a
copy of letter dated 25.02.2015 of Special Police
Establishment, Ujjain Division, Ujjain wherein it has been
stated that no criminal case has been registered against the then
C.E.O., Zila Panchayat, Neemuch.
In view of the aforesaid, nothing survive in this
M.Cr.C. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid document filed
by non-applicant/Special Police Establishment,Ujjain.
M.Cr.C.No.688/2015 is dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.722/2015
03.11.2015
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for appellants
No.2 Hazarilal, No.3 Shambhulal and No.8 Vishnu.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Counsel for the objector.
Heard on IA No.8157/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellants No.2 Hazarilal,
No.3 Shambhulal and No.8 Vishnu.
Appellants No.2 Hazarilal, No.3 Shambhulal and
No.8 Vishnu have been convicted under Sections 302/149 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation,
under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
six months R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation,
under Section 307/149 (5 counts) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.200/- with default stipulation and under Section
325/149 (2 counts) of the IPC sentenced to undergo one
year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- with
default stipulation and Section 323/149 of the IPC and
sentenced to three months R.I. by the learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh in
Sessions Trial No.192/2014 vide judgment dated 30.05.2015.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
as per statement of injured Dulichand Dangi (PW-3), the
allegation against the appellants is that they were armed with
farsi and lathi and inflicted injuries to the injured. The
allegation against Hazarilal is to cause head injury to
Dulichand (PW-3). As per Ex.P/47 X-Ray report, there is no
fracture. All the injuries are simple in nature. Learned
Counsel for the appellants submitted that co-appellant
Kishanlal has been granted bail by order dated 21.09.2015,
co-appellants Madanlal and Rameshchandra have been
granted bail by order dated 30.09.2015 and co-appellants
Gangaprasad and Omprakash have been granted bail by this
Court by order dated 13.10.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellants further
submitted that present appellants Hazarilal, Shambhulal and
Vishnu are having complete parity with co-appellant
Kishanlal, who is enlarged on bail by this Court by order
dated 21.09.2015, therefore, on the ground of parity with co-
accused Kishanlal appellants Hazarilal, Shambhulal and
Vishnu are also entitled for grant of suspension of jail
sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State as well as Counsel for the objector opposed
the prayer for suspension of jail sentence in respect of
appellant No.2 Hazarilal and submitted that he was armed
with farsi and caused injury to Dulichand and has been
convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC,
therefore, he is not having parity with Kishanlal.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and material
evidence available on record so also statement of Doctor that
injury to Dulichand is by hard and blunt object/hard and
sharp object and the fact that the case of the present
appellants is identical and similar to co-appellant Kishanlal,
we are inclined to allow this application for grant of
suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case, IA No.8157/2015, an
application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to
appellants No.2 Hazarilal, No.3 Shambhulal and No.8 Vishnu
is allowed and it is directed that the execution of jail sentence
awarded to the appellants appellants No.2 Hazarilal, No.3
Shambhulal and No.8 Vishnu shall remain suspended, subject
to their depositing the fine amount and upon their furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
th
appearance before this Court/Registry on 15 December,
2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry
in this regard.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1141/2013
03/11/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list after 10 days.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.180/2013
03/11/2015
Ms. Indu Rajguru, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.8255/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of appellant Lalta Prasad Sakya.
After arguing at length, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of IA No.8255/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.8255/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1189/2015
03.11.2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with Cr.A.No.1331/2015.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1118/2015
03.11.2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with Cr.A.No.1331/2015.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1010/2015
03.11.2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with Cr.A.No.1331/2015.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1082/2015
03.11.2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with Cr.A.No.1331/2015.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1331/2015
03.11.2015
Shri Manish Gadkar, learned Counsel for appellant
Ashish.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7470/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Ashish, who has
been convicted under Section 147, 304 Part-II/149, 324/149
(two counts), 323/149 (two counts) and sentenced to undergo
one year's rigorous imprisonment, 7 years' R.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, one year's R.I. with fine
of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation respectively by the
learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Atrocities Act), Indore in
Sessions Trial No.204/2007 vide judgment dated 24.07.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
there is no material available on record to show that present
appellant has caused injury to deceased Subhash Yadav and
injured Santosh, Kallu, Sandeep and Mamtabai. He submitted
that appellant is having complete parity with co-accused
Ashok, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order
dated 07.10.2015 passed in Cr.A.No.1118/2015 and other co-
accused Yogesh @ Betu, Subhash Raikwar, Jeevan Raikwar
and Laxman have also been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 21.09.2015 passed in Cr.A.No.1010/15,
Cr.A.1082/15 and Cr.A.No.1189/15, therefore, on the ground
of parity with co-accused Ashok appellant Ashish is also
entitled for grant of suspension of jail sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the
fact that the case of the present appellant is identical and
similar to co-appellant Ashok, we are inclined to allow this
application for grant of suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
case, IA No.7470/2015, an application for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail to appellant Ashish is allowed and
it is directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant Ashish shall remain suspended, subject to his
depositing the fine amount and upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before this
th
Court/Registry on 16 December, 2015 and on such other
dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1370/2015
03.11.2015
Shri Imran Bangash, learned Counsel for
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Record of the Trial Court is awaited.
List the matter after receiving record of the Trial
Court for hearing on IA No.8285/2015, an application for
suspension of sentence.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1487/2015
03.11.2015
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned Counsel for appellant
Rajesh.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General appears on behalf of Shri Manoj Dwivedi, Counsel
for the respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.8155/2015, first application
for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Rajesh, who
has been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation
by the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore
in Special Case No.9/1998 vide judgment dated 30.09.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that jail
sentence of the appellant Rajesh has been suspended by the
Trial Court till 26.11.2015 and prays for grant of suspension
of sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit
case for grant of suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA
No.8155/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to appellant Rajesh is allowed and it is
directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant Rajesh shall remain suspended, subject to his
depositing the fine amount and upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before this
nd
Court/Registry on 2 February, 2016 and on such other
dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
List the matter for final hearing along with
Cr.A.No.1463/15 and Cr.A.No.1486/15 for analogous
hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1486/2015
03.11.2015
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned Counsel for appellant
Sebestian.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General appears on behalf of Shri Manoj Dwivedi, Counsel
for the respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.8154/2015, first application
for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Sebestian,
who has been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation by the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption
Act), Indore in Special Case No.9/1998 vide judgment dated
30.09.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that jail
sentence of the appellant Sebestian has been suspended by
the Trial Court till 26.11.2015 and prays for grant of
suspension of sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit
case for grant of suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA
No.8154/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to appellant Sebestian is allowed and it is
directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant Sebestian shall remain suspended, subject to his
depositing the fine amount and upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before this
nd
Court/Registry on 2 February, 2016 and on such other
dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
List the matter for final hearing along with
Cr.A.No.1463/15 and Cr.A.No.1487/15 for analogous
hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1463/2015
03.11.2015
Shri M.A.Bohra, learned Counsel for appellant
Malti Dubey.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General appears on behalf of Shri Manoj Dwivedi, Counsel
for the respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.8066/2015, first application
for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Malti Dubey,
who has been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation and under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code
sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation by the Special Judge,
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore in Special Case
No.9/1998 vide judgment dated 30.09.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that jail
sentence of the appellant Malti Dubey has been suspended by
the Trial Court till 26.11.2015 and prays for grant of
suspension of sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit
case for grant of suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA
No.8066/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to appellant Malti Dubey is allowed and it is
directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant Malti Dubey shall remain suspended, subject to her
depositing the fine amount and upon her furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for her appearance before this
nd
Court/Registry on 2 February, 2016 and on such other
dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
List the matter for final hearing along with
Cr.A.No.1486/15 and Cr.A.No.1487/15 for analogous
hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1459/2008
03.11.2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the appellant/State.
Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3 Ahmed Noor Magwa.
Respondent No.3 Ahmed Noor Magwa S/o Haji
Mohd. Hussain is also present in person.
Heard on IA No.8235/2015, an application for
condonation of absence of respondent No.3 Ahmed Noor
Magwa on 07.10.2015.
It is submitted that respondent No.3 Ahmed Noor
Magwa could not mark his presence before the Registry of
this Court on 07.10.2015 as he has gone for Haj Pilgrimage to
Saudi Arabia.
Considering the aforesaid, prayer for condonation
of absence of respondent No.3 Ahmed Noor Magwa on
07.10.2015 is allowed. He is directed to mark his presence
before the Registry of this Court on 19.02.2016 and on such
other dates, as may be given by the Registry in this behalf.
IA No.8235/2015 stands allowed and closed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1382/2012
03.11.2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General prays for and is granted further time to verify the
factum of death of Nisar Ahmed Khan and submit a detailed
report.
List on 17.11.2015, as prayed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.829/2014
03.11.2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for appellant
Sarfaraz @ Fauza.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
Heard on IA No.4777/2015, an application under
Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of
State for cancellation of bail and recalling the bail order dated
09.09.2014.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/State
submitted that after suspension of jail sentence the appellant
committed four offences vide Crime No.883/2014 on
17.11.2014 under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, Crime
No.85/2015 on 11.03.2015 under Sections 341, 327, 307, 294
and 506 of the IPC, Crime No.186/2015 on 21.05.2015 under
Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC and Crime No.316/2015 on
26.03.2015 under Section 327 and 341 of the IPC. His sole
contention is that after grant of bail appellant misused his
liberty, therefore, order dated 09.09.2014 be recalled.
Learned Counsel for the appellant opposes the
prayer and submitted that appellant is already in jail and,
therefore, prayer for cancellation of bail be considered after
his release because at present no prejudice has been caused to
the appellant and prays for dismissal of the application.
On due consideration, we are of the view that it is
a fit case to cancel the bail of the appellant. Accordingly, we
allow the prayer and recall the order dated 09.09.2014 and
cancel the bail granted to the appellant Sarfaraz @ Fauza on
the aforesaid date.
IA No.4777/2015 stands allowed and disposed of.
In respect of prayer for grant of liberty, there is no bar to
repeat the application for suspension of jail sentence,
therefore, no liberty is granted to the appellant.
Office is directed to inform the jail authorities
about recalling the order dated 09.09.2014 that he will suffer
the sentence awarded by the impugned judgment.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1126/2015
29/10/2015
Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non-applicant/State.
Reply of the State is awaited.
As prayed, last opportunity of 10 days time is
granted to file reply and to keep ready with the case diary at
the time of hearing, failing which Investigating Officer
shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1107/2015
29/10/2015
Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri D.K.Chhabra, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non-applicant/State.
Reply of the State is awaited.
As prayed, last opportunity of 10 days time is
granted to file reply and to keep ready with the case diary at
the time of hearing, failing which Investigating Officer
shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.898/2013
28/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.6056/2015 on
04.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.10111/2013
28/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with WP No.6056/2015 on
04.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6056/2015
28/10/2015
Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the
intervenor.
This Writ Petition is yet to be heard on the
question of admission.
Shri Ajay Gupta, Advocate, who is appearing on
behalf of the petitioners in other two connected matters (i.e.
WP No.10111/2013 and WA No.898/2013), submitted that
today he is filing rejoinder in all the petitions and submitted
that last opportunity of one week's time is granted to argue
the matter on the question of admission.
Prayer is allowed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall
be granted on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be fixed along with WP
No.10111/13 and W.A.No.898/13 on 04.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.10172/2013
28/10/2015
Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3.
Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submits that reply is
ready and he is filing the same during the course of the day.
Office is directed to place it on record.
Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate is also directed to
supply the copy of the same to the Counsel for the petitioner
in respect of cost amount, which was awarded on 27.04.2015.
Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate prays for and is
granted further two weeks' time to deposit the same, failing
which petitioner may take appropriate action for recovering
the amount.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday of the
month.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1282/2015
28/10/2015
Shri Mangesh Bhachawat, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision is admitted for final hearing.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for
and is granted two weeks' time to seek instructions in the
matter.
Also heard on IA No.7622/2015, an application
for ad interim relief.
No case for grant of interim stay, as prayed for, is
made out. Accordingly, IA No.7622/2015 stands rejected and
disposed of.
Office is directed to list the matter for final
hearing under caption/category "Criminal - High Court
Expedited Cases - other than above".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1420/2014
26.10.2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to list this matter before the
appropriate Division Bench.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1167/2015
26.10.2015
Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for appellant No.1
Kalabai.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6490/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.1 Kalabai.
Appellant No.1 Kalabai has been convicted under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with
default stipulation, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to three years' R.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Badwaha, District Khargone in Sessions Trial
No.31/2013 vide judgment dated 30.07.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant No.1 Kalabai is the second wife of deceased
Indersingh. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no
material available on record to show that chain of
circumstances has been completed. Kekdiya (PW-7) in his
statement has deposed that someone committed murder of
Indersingh. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
there was no motive nor any material evidence has come on
record to prove that present appellant is deeply involved in
committing murder of Indersingh and submitted that on the
basis of memorandum one Saree was seized, except that there
is no material available on record and prays for grant of
suspension of sentence.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the material evidence of
the prosecution and Para 19 of the impugned judgment, we
are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of
jail sentence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, IA No.6490/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1
Kalabai is allowed and it is directed that the execution of jail
sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 shall remain
suspended, subject to her depositing the fine amount and
upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her
th
appearance before this Court/Registry on 4 January, 2016
and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in
this regard.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1382/2006
19/10/2015
Shri A.K.Tiwari, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that
inspite of intimation given to appellant No.6 Bharat S/o
Yashwant he is not present. Earlier also on 13.08.2015 he was
absent. Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant
No.6 Bharat S/o Yashwant and also issue notice to his surety
as to why surety amount be not forfeited. Notice be made
returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.96/2009
19/10/2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against
appellant No.2 Kalu @ Dariyao S/o Bharat Bhil and also
issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount be not
forfeited. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.291/2015
19/10/2015
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4/State.
Heard on IA No.3527/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 12 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the
cause shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the
delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 3527/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
List along with WP No.10915/2012 in the week
th
commencing 27 October, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.289/2015
19/10/2015
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri V.K.Jain, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4/State.
Heard on IA No.3522/2015, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 12 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the
cause shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the
delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 3522/2015 stands allowed
and disposed of. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
List along with WP No.10958/2012 in the week
th
commencing 27 October, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1382/2012
19.10.2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for appellant
Dudla.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General prays for and is granted further 10 days time to
verify the factum of death of Nisar Ahmed Khan and submit a
detailed report.
List on 03.11.2015.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MA No.2237/2010
19/10/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri V.K.Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Since Counsel for the appellant is absent,
therefore, the case is adjourned.
List in the first week of November, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.790/2015
19.10.2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for appellant
Dudla.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
Heard on IA No.7079/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Dudla.
Appellant Dudla has been convicted under Section
8(c)/20(a)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo 12
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with
default stipulation by the learned Special Judge (under
N.D.P.S. Act), Mandleshwar, West Nimad District Indore in
Sessions Trial No.33/2011 vide judgment dated 30.05.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to Para 10, 12 and 13 of the statement of Chhaganlal
Khande (PW-11) and submitted that the patta over the land in
question was granted upto 2006-2007. As per statement of the
aforesaid witness, there is no positive finding that appellant
was in possession of land. He submits that at the time of the
offence the appellant was of 70 years of age and he was on
bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty. He has
also drawn our attention to Section 20(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985 and submitted that maximum sentence may be extended
upto 10 years but learned Trial Court wrongly convicted and
sentenced for a period of 12 years and prays for grant of
suspension of sentence.
Learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State opposes the prayer and submitted that as per
Para 18 of the impugned judgment on the date of occurrence
present appellant was in possession of the land in question
and 7 Quintal 87 Kg. Cannabis plants were recovered from
the aforesaid land and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Considering the aforesaid and looking to the
nature of offence and recovery of huge quantity of Cannabis
plants, we are of the view that no case for grant of suspension
of sentence is made out. IA No.7079/2015 is accordingly
rejected. However, looking to the age of appellant, appellant
is granted liberty to renew his prayer after one week.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.805/2015
19/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list after three weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.897/2015
19/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Ramesh Verma, learned
Counsel for the appellants, list after 10 days.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.1055/2015
19/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned
Counsel for the appellants, list after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.130/2010
19/10/2015
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Shri Patwa, learned Counsel for the respondents
prays for and is granted 10 days time to file reply of IA
No.6459/2015. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.701/2010
19/10/2015
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.6429/15, an application for
bringing legal heirs of appellant/deceased Mangibai Wd/o
Late Harishchandra on record, IA No.6433/15, an application
for setting aside the abatement and IA No.6430/15, an
application for condonation of delay.
No reply has been filed by the Counsel for the
respondents nor learned Counsel for the respondents is
having any objection in allowing the applications.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of
the view that good and sufficient cause is made out by the
Counsel for the appellant to condone the delay in filing the
application, for bringing legal heirs on record and setting
aside the abatement.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice IA
No.6429/2015, IA No.6433/2015 and IA No.6430/2015 are
allowed. Legal heirs of the deceased Mangibai Wd/o Late
Harishchandra are taken on record.
Necessary corrections in the memo of appeal be
carried out within two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.123/2010
19/10/2015
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.6425/15, an application for
bringing legal heirs of appellant/deceased Mangilal S/o
Kunwarji on record, IA No.6427/15, an application for
setting aside the abatement and IA No.6426/15, an
application for condonation of delay.
No reply has been filed by the Counsel for the
respondents nor learned Counsel for the respondents is
having any objection in allowing the applications.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of
the view that good and sufficient cause is made out by the
Counsel for the appellant to condone the delay in filing the
application, for bringing legal heirs on record and setting
aside the abatement.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice IA
No.6425/2015, IA No.6427/2015 and IA No.6426/2015 are
allowed. Legal heirs of the deceased Mangilal S/o Kunwarji
are taken on record.
Necessary corrections in the memo of appeal be
carried out within two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.121/2010
19/10/2015
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.6431/15, an application for
bringing legal heirs of appellant/deceased Masumbai Wd/o
Mamur Khan on record, IA No.6434/15, an application for
setting aside the abatement and IA No.6432/15, an
application for condonation of delay.
No reply has been filed by the Counsel for the
respondents nor learned Counsel for the respondents is
having any objection in allowing the applications.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of
the view that good and sufficient cause is made out by the
Counsel for the appellant to condone the delay in filing the
application, for bringing legal heirs on record and setting
aside the abatement.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice IA
No.6431/15, IA No.6434/15 and IA No.6432/15 are
allowed. Legal heirs of the deceased Masumbai Wd/o
Mamur Khan are taken on record.
Necessary corrections in the memo of appeal be
carried out within two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.113/2010
19/10/2015
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.6422/2015, an application for
bringing legal heirs of appellant/deceased Narayan S/o
Vinayakrao on record, IA No.6424/15, an application for
setting aside the abatement and IA No.6423/15, an
application for condonation of delay.
No reply has been filed by the Counsel for the
respondents nor learned Counsel for the respondents is
having any objection in allowing the applications.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of
the view that good and sufficient cause is made out by the
Counsel for the appellant to condone the delay in filing the
application, for bringing legal heirs on record and setting
aside the abatement.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice IA
No.6422/15, IA No.6424/15 and IA No.6423/15 are
allowed. Legal heirs of the deceased Narayan S/o
Vinayakrao are taken on record.
Necessary corrections in the memo of appeal be
carried out within two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.305/2015
R.P.No.313/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for
the petitioners/State.
List along with the record of WP No.5995/2012
(S) and WP No.5996/2012(S).
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.232/2015
13/10/2015
Shri M.D.Arya, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Heard on IA No.7109/2015,
On due consideration, one month's time is granted
to pay deficit court fee.
With the aforesaid, IA No.7109/2015 is allowed
and stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.166/2015
13/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned Counsel, who is appearing
on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, prays for and is granted
as a last opportunity two weeks' time to file reply to IA
No.4894/2015.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7055/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State on advance notice.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our
attention to order dated 17.03.2015 and submitted that
Appellate Authority without assigning any reason dismissed
the appeal.
Considering these facts, we direct the Appellate
Authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and
pass a detailed speaking order within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, till
then the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance or till
passing of the detailed speaking order, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.7055/2015 is
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.287/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned Counsel along with
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to
supply the copy of the Review Petition along with the
documents and compilation to Shri Prasanna Prasad,
Advocate who regularly appears on behalf of
respondent/Central Excise Department within a period of
three days from today.
List in the week commencing 26th October, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7046/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori, learned Counsel
along with Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
By order dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P/2), the
petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of Rule 9
(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (here-in-after referred to as
"the Rules"). Against the said order, an appeal under Rule 23
of the Rules has been filed by the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the appeal is still
pending and the same has not been considered/decided by the
Appellate Authority.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting
upon the merits of the case, the Appellate Authority is
directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal and decide it
within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of
certified copy of this order, if the same is still pending.
With the aforesaid, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7045/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori, learned Counsel
along with Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
By order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/3), the
petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of Rule 9
(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (here-in-after referred to as
"the Rules"). Against the said order, an appeal under Rule 23
of the Rules has been filed by the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the appeal is still
pending and the same has not been considered/decided by the
Appellate Authority.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting
upon the merits of the case, the Appellate Authority is
directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal and decide it
within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of
certified copy of this order, if the same is still pending.
With the aforesaid, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1488/2014
13/10/2015
Ms. Sangeeta Choudhary, learned Counsel for the
appellant No.3 Harish Chandra Ahirwar, submits that Shri
D.R.Rahul, Advocate is appearing on behalf of appellant
No.3 and prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue on
IA No.7360/2015.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.860/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned Counsel for the
appellant No.3.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7721/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.3 Raghunath.
After arguing at length, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of IA No.7721/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.7721/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.446/2015
13/10/2015
Shri Abdul Salim Khan, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6336/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of appellant Sabir @ Shabbir.
After arguing at length, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of IA No.6336/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.6336/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Writ Petition No.2367/2014
Contempt Case No.828/2014
Contempt Case No.954/2014
08/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Mohd. Iqbal Khan, President of Malwa Cable
Operators Sangh present in person. He has submitted that he has
filed an application for permission of appointment of new
Counsel on his behalf.
Shri Dinesh Rawat, learned Counsel who has
appeared for the petitioner has submitted that he is appearing on
behalf of other members of the society. Members of the Society
have filed number of applications.
Considering the aforesaid, let issue of grant of NOC
be resolved by themselves and all the IAs be listed for passing an
appropriate order after a week.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CRR No.1398/2014
08/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel
for the petitioner, list on 15.10.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1351/2015
08/10/2015
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7612/2015, an application for
withdrawal of Cr.A.No.1351/2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for
withdrawal of Cr.A.No.1351/2015 on the ground that before
filing this appeal Cr.A.No.1139/2015 has been filed by the
appellant against the impugned judgment, which is pending for
consideration.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, Cr.A.No.1351/2015 is dismissed as
withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CRR No.1398/2014
08/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel
for the petitioner, list on 15.10.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.9244/2014
08/10/2015
Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned Counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondents No.1, 3 and 4/State.
Shri Lucky Jain, learned Counsel appeared on
behalf of Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2.
As prayed by Shri Lucky Jain, learned Counsel for
the respondent No.2, one week's additional time is granted to
file additional reply.
List after a week, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1498/2015
08/10/2015
Shri Kishore Deepak Kodwani, petitioner present
in person.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1/State.
Shri D.S.Pawar, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Incomplete tariff order of 2015-16 has been filed
by the respondents along with the return. Detailed order by
which objection has been decided by the State Regulatory
Commission has not been filed. Respondent No.2 is directed
to produce the same on the next date of hearing and keep
ready with the same at the time of hearing for perusal of the
Court.
Two weeks' time is granted to the respondent
No.1/State to seek instructions and if necessary he may file
the reply on behalf of the respondent/State.
List thereafter.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.235/2014
07/10/2015
Shri Manoj Dwivedi, learned Counsel along with
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Counsel for the
petitioner/Economic Offences Wing.
Shri P.M.Bhargat, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2.
It is submitted that allegation against Surendra
Singh Rajawat and Suhas Pandit are same but in the matter of
Suhas Pandit charge has been framed whereas in the matter of
Surendra Singh Rajawat no sanction was granted by the
Municipal Corporation, Ratlam on 24.07.2007 and thereafter
when the matter was again placed for grant of sanction they
vide resolution No.125 dated 04.09.2008 and resolution
No.96 dated 28.07.2012 refused to grant sanction.
Considering these facts, reply is necessary. As
prayed by the learned Counsel for the respondents one week's
time is granted to file the reply. List immediately after one
week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6927/2015
07/10/2015
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 4/State on advance notice.
By this Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation)
petitioners are praying for issuance of quo warranto
directing the respondents to restore their possession or in
alternative suitable place be allotted to them for their
livelihood because they are petty traders and Thelawala and
they have no other sources for their livelihood. It is also
submitted that they have filed a representation before the
respondent No.2/Collector, Ujjain and also filed an
application under the RTI but their representation has not
been decided and respondents are taking action against petty
traders/Thelawala whereas no action has been taken against
the persons, who have illegally encroached the land of
Govt./Municipal Corporation and constructed permanent
structure.
Considering these facts, at this stage we are not
inclined to issue notice to the respondent No.2, however,
directing the respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of the
petitioners and pass an appropriate order on their
representation (Annexure P/1) within a period of four weeks
from today.
With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.6927/2015 is
disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6895/2015
07/10/2015
Shri Sonal Gupta, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to argue
this Writ Petition on the question of admission.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 14.10.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1349/2015
07/10/2015
Shri Abhishek Chatterjee, learned Counsel for
the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on IA No.7556/2015, an application for
dispensing with compliance of Chapter X Rule 53 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we
exempt the appellant for compliance of the Chapter X Rule
53 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.
IA No.7556/2015 is accordingly allowed.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State
and, therefore, no further notice is necessary to them.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
Office is directed to process the matter for listing
it for final hearing under the category "Criminal> Appeal
against Conviction> Life imprisonment > others> in Jail".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.421/15, WA No.422/15, WA No.424/15, WA
No.426/15, WA No.427/15, WA No.428/15, WA No.433/15,
WA No.435/15 and WA No.436/15
05/10/2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the
appellants/State.
Heard on IA No.5049/2015 (filed in
W.A.No.421/2015), an application for condonation of delay
and also on the question of admission.
2. These bunch of appeals have been filed by the
State against the order passed in the Writ Petition whereby
learned Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition by holding
that the direction issued in the matter of Kailash Chandra
V/s. State of M.P. and others by the Division Bench of this
Court will apply mutatis mutandis in the present bunch of
Writ Appeals and directed the appellants to examine the case
in the light of aforesaid directions within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
3. Brief facts of this case are that, respondent was
appointed as a daily wager on the post of Peon on fixed
wages as per Collector's guideline on 30.09.1992. He had
filed a Writ Petition No.9451/12(S) for consideration of his
case for grant of regular pay scale as per Circular dated
17.03.1978.
4. On 14.05.2013, the said Writ Petition was decided
with direction to consider his case for grant of regular pay
scale in the light of earlier judgment passed in the matter of
Sukhlal V/s. State of M.P. and others. By order dated
24.05.2014 the appellants/State have granted regular pay
scale to the respondent.
5. On 22.07.2014, he filed Second Writ Petition i.e.
W.P.No.5358/2014 seeking modification of order dated
24.05.2014 issued by the appellant No.2 to the extent that the
benefit of regular pay scale be granted to the respondent from
the date of the respondent's entitlement i.e. on the completion
of period of 5 years. It is also stated that the identical benefit
has been granted to the other similarly situated employees.
6. Considering the aforesaid, learned Single Judge
disposed off the Writ Petition by order dated 16.01.2015,
relevant part of the judgment reads as under :-
"When the matter has taken up today,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
identical case i.e. in W.A. No.359/2010 in the matter of
Kailash Chandra vs. State of M. P. & others, the
Division Bench vide order dated 10.04.2014 has issued
certain directions, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled
for the same directions in the present case.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has not
disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
The Single Bench of this court in the matter of
Kailash Chandra Vs. State of MP & others passed in
th
W.P.No. 4327/2009(s) by order dated 26 August, 2010
had held as under:-
"8. Resultantly, the writ petition
is allowed. The respondents are directed
to consider the case of the petitioner
afresh for grant of regular pay scale, on
completion of five years service, keeping
in view the executive instructions dated
17.03.1978 of the Finance Department of
the State Government. Not only this, the
respondents shall also take into account
their earlier order dated 14.05.1996,
which has been upheld by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.128/2006, while considering the case
of the petitioner for grant of regular pay
scale. In case, the respondents arrive at
the conclusion that the petitioner is
identically placed person and is entitled
for grant of regular pay scale, on
completion of five years service, the
respondents shall grant all consequential
benefits to the petitioner, by fixing the pay
etc of the petitioner notionally. The
petitioner shall also be entitled for arrears
of pay fixation from the date of filing the
present writ petition. The respondents
shall conclude the exercise of considering
the case of the petitioner within a period
of six months from the date a certified
copy of this order is received."
The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Kailash Chandra vs. State of M. P. & others had
issued following directions :-
"Having gone through the order
passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Dhanubai in W.A.
No.85/2011 decided on 27.08.2011
(supra), we find that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge deserves to be
modified to the extent that "in case the
respondent arrives at a conclusion that
the petitioner is an identically placed
person and is entitled for grant of regular
pay-scale on completion of 5 years
services, the respondent (appellant
herein) shall grant all consequential
benefits from the date of entitlement and
not from the date of filing the present writ
petition."
Keeping the view the above undisputed position,
the present writ petition is disposed of by holding that
the directions issued in the matter of Kailash Chandra
(supra) by the Division Bench of this Court will apply
mutatis mutandis in the present case and the
respondent will examine the petitioner's case in the
light of the aforesaid directions within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
Signed order be kept in the record of
W.P.No.5358/2014 and the copy thereof be kept in the
file of the connected writ petition."
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants/State has
submitted that in the matter of Kailash Chandra V/s. State of
M.P. and others in W.P.No.5355/2014 an order was passed for
their regularization and for grant of regular pay scale and
thereafter the same was withdrawn and therefore the ratio
decided by the Division in Kailash Chandra V/s. State of M.P.
will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances
of the case.
8. Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that
learned Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing
the appellants to examine the case of the respondent in the
light of the Division Bench decision of Kailash Chandra
(supra) within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order. The entitlement of
benefit as granted in the other identical cases.
9. We are of the view that there is no legal error in
the impugned judgment. The State will examine the matter in
the light of ratio decided by the Division Bench in the case of
Kailash Chandra (supra) within a period of three months
from today. No case for interference with the impugned order
as prayed is made out all the Writ Appeals (WA No.421/15,
WA No.422/15, WA No.424/15, WA No.426/15, WA
No.427/15, WA No.428/15, WA No.433/15, WA No.435/15
and WA No.436/15) as well as IA Nos. (IA No.5049/15, IA
No.5057/15, IA No.5056/15, IA No.5060/15, IA No.5062/15,
IA No.5064/15, IA No.5070/15, IA No.5077/15 and IA
No.5079/15) respectively are accordingly dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be retained in all
connected Writ Appeals.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1347/2015
06/10/2015
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General on advance copy.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment dated 17.08.2015 passed in Sessions
Case No.339/2014, whereby non-applicants No.1, 2 & 3
have been acquitted by the Trial Court for offence
punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 306, 201 and 34
of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the M.P. Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1990.
Record of the Trial Court is necessary. Office to
requisition the record of the Trial Court and list thereafter
on the question of admission. Office is also directed to
verify whether any application for grant of leave to appeal
has been filed or not?
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1417/2014
06/10/2015
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned Counsel for the
applicant No.1.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the
applicant No.2.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
non-applicant/Lokayukt.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits
that today only he has filed reply and at the time of
arguments case diary is necessary and prays for one week's
time to keep ready with the case diary.
List after a week, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
.
Cr.A.No.274/2015
05/10/2015
Shri R.C.Mehra, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
one week's time to remove the defect as pointed out by the
office and do the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.142/2015
05/10/2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukt.
As prayed by Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned
Counsel for the respondent/Lokayukt, list on 14.10.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2762/2014
05/10/2015
Shri Anand Pathak, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
As prayed by Shri Anand Pathak, learned Counsel
for the petitioner, list on 07.10.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1382/2012
05/10/2015
Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/CBI.
Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for and
is granted two weeks' time to verify the factum of death of
Nisar Ahmad Khan and submit a detailed report.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.341/2011
05/10/2015
Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Service report is awaited.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) be issued through Superintendent of Police, Neemuch
to the respondent No.1 Raju @ Prahlad for a date to be fixed by
the Registry to secure the presence of the respondent No.1, made
returnable within eight weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.710/2008
05/10/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned Counsel for the appellant,
the case is adjourned. Further two weeks' time is granted to
carry out necessary corrections in the cause title.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.540/2006
05/10/2015
Shri S.K.Vyas, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7005/2015, an application for
recalling of order dated 10.08.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
on the last date of hearing final argument was started in one
of the criminal appeal and Counsel said that he would take
whole day, therefore, in this appeal no one appeared on
behalf of the appellant. Absence of appellant is bona fide,
therefore, it be condoned.
Considering the aforesaid, IA No.7005/2015, an
application for recalling of order dated 10.08.2015 is
allowed and the order dated 10.08.2015 is hereby recalled.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1285/2015
05/10/2015
Shri S.K.Meena, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
one week's time to remove the defect as pointed out by the
office and do the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1116/2015
05/10/2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellant/State.
Heard on IA No.7385/2015, an application for
deleting the name of respondents No.2 Manju and No.3
Sameer.
On due consideration, application (IA
No.7385/2015) is allowed. Necessary corrections be carried
out within a week from today.
As per order dated 30th July, 2015, Criminal
Appeal is already admitted for final hearing. Office is
directed to proceed accordingly.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1191/2015
05/10/2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellant/State.
Report is awaited.
List immediately after service of bailable warrant
on respondents No.1 to 4.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1232/2015
05/10/2015
Shri Ravikumar Poddar, applicant present in
person.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent No.1/CBI.
Shri Ravikumar Poddar, applicant prays for and is
granted two weeks' time to argue on IA No.7407/15, an
application for condonation of delay.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1285/2015
05/10/2015
Shri S.K.Meena, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
one week's time to remove the defect as pointed out by the
office and do the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.8522/2015
05/10/2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General for the applicant/State.
Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
one week's time to remove the defect as pointed out by the
office and do the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.166/2015
05/10/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by the learned Counsel for the
applicant, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1011/2008
24/09/2015
None for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Let explanation be called from the Superintendent
of Police, Rajgarh (Biaora) regarding as to why non-bailable
warrant issued against appellant No.6 Ratanlal S/o Khemraj
has not been served. Fresh non-bailable warrant be issued
against appellant No.6 Ratanlal S/o Khemraj and also issue
notice to his surety as to why surety amount be not forfeited.
Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.348/1999
24/09/2015
Shri A.K.Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Let explanation be called from the Superintendent
of Police, Khargone regarding as to why non-bailable warrant
issued against Pachia has not been served. Fresh non-bailable
warrant be issued against appellant Pachia and also issue
notice to his surety as to why surety amount be not forfeited.
Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.10351/2014
24/09/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the non-
applicants No.7, 8 and 9.
Heard on IA No.9803/2014, an application for
condonation of delay. The application is barred by 38 days.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicants submits that
Public Prosecutor had been appointed by the State and applicant
had knowledge about the impugned judgement and prays for
rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the cause
shown by the applicant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.9803/2014 stands allowed and
disposed off. Delay of 38 days in filing the application is hereby
condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed
under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the
application and material available on record, we are of the view
that it is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal
can be allowed, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted
for final hearing. Accordingly, application filed by the
applicant/State under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and
permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.
Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be
registered and proceeded as per rules, as admitted.
On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed
to issue bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/- each against the non-
applicants. They are also directed to furnish a bail bond in the
sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each with
one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
CJM/Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry/Office
of this Court on 07.12.2015 and on all other subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C.No.10351/2014 is allowed
and is accordingly, disposed off.
Office is directed to list the appeal along with
Cr.A.No.1314/2014 and Cr.A.No.1504/2014 for analogous
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.261/2015
24/09/2015
Shri V.P.Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondents No.1 & 2/State.
This is a review petition for reviewing the order
dated 16.07.2015 passed by this Court in WP No.8332/11.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our
attention to the order dated 06.02.2014 and submitted that
auction proceeding is going on.
In view of the aforesaid, we direct the
petitioner/Bank to proceed with the auction and deposit all
the auction amount to the respondent No.1 and 2, who will
keep the same in a fixed deposit carrying interest and the
amount shall not be adjusted towards the outstanding dues
without leave of this Court.
With the aforesaid, review petition is dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.260/2015
24/09/2015
Shri V.P.Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondents No.1 & 2/State.
This is a review petition for reviewing the order
dated 16.07.2015 passed by this Court in WP No.14561/10.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our
attention to the order dated 06.02.2014 and submitted that
auction proceeding is going on.
In view of the aforesaid, we direct the
petitioner/Bank to proceed with the auction and deposit all
the auction amount to the respondent No.1 and 2, who will
keep the same in a fixed deposit carrying interest and the
amount shall not be adjusted towards the outstanding dues
without leave of this Court.
With the aforesaid, review petition is dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.267/2015
24/09/2015
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri Peyush Jain, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
Learned Counsel submits that affidavits on behalf
of respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have been filed.
Office to verify and place it on record.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6479/2015
24/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Learned Counsel submits that affidavits on behalf
of respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have been filed.
Office to verify and place it on record.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4342/2015
24/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri D.S.Kale, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.7 submits that today he has received copy of the Writ
Petition along with documents and prays for and is granted
two weeks' time to file reply on behalf of private respondent.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7632/2013
24/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list after two weeks'.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.7021/2015
24/09/2015
Shri C.B.Pandey, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the non-applicant/CBI.
Reply is awaited.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the non-
applicant/CBI, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4381/2015
23/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with WP No.1966/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8727/2014
23/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with WP No.1966/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3606/2014
23/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with WP No.1966/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3252/2014
23/09/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List along with WP No.1966/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1966/2014
23/09/2015
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in
WP No.1966/14, WP No.11031/12, WP No.10790/13 and WP
No.74/14 reply on behalf of respondents/State has been filed
whereas in WP No.3252/14, WP No.3606/14, WP
No.8727/14, WP No.4381/15 and WP No.5269/15 reply is
awaited.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted
two weeks time to file detailed reply/return on behalf of the
State and file an appropriate application for adopting the
return filed in four Writ Petitions as mentioned here-in-above.
List after two weeks along with WP No.11031/12,
WP No.10790/13, WP No.74/14 and WP No.5269/15 which
are not listed today for analogous hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.730/2004
23/09/2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that IA
No.9034/2014 is an application under Section 7-A(1) read with
Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000 &
Rules 2007 and till today no reply has been filed. He has also
drawn our attention to the report dated 07.08.2015 of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh
(Biaora). As per report, on the date of occurrence appellant was
below 17 years of age.
In the interest of justice last opportunity of 10 days time is
granted to file reply or arguing on IA No.9034/2014.
List in the week commencing 13.10.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4682/2015
23/09/2015
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondents No.1 & 2/State.
Ms. Heena Ansari, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.3.
Shri Kaustubh Pathak, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.4.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5
As prayed, further six weeks' time is granted to the
learned Counsel for the respondents to file reply. List
immediately thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4136/2014
23/09/2015
Shri Amit Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondents No.1, 3 & 4/State.
th
As prayed, list in the week commencing 13 October,
2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6111/2015
23/09/2015
Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Akash Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for the
respondents No.1, 2 & 4/State.
Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents No.1, 2 & 4/State submits that they are
adopting the reply filed by the Municipal Corporation,
Indore and, therefore, they are not filing any separate reply.
An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent
No.3, which is taken on record.
As prayed by Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior
Counsel, list tomorrow.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6554/2015
23/09/2015
Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General Shri Mukesh Kumawat, Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State on advance notice.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State submits that as per averments made in the
Writ Petition, the same cannot be entertained as a Public
Interest Litigation and prays for dismissal of the same.
From the perusal of newspapers, it appears that
an offence has been registered against the persons involved
in the incident.
As prayed, one week's time to seek instructions,
regarding action taken in the alleged offence which has
been stated in the Writ Petition, is granted.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.10115/2014
23/09/2015
Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State on advance copy.
The question involved in this petition, which is
filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has been decided by
this Court on 01.07.2015 by passing a detailed order in
Cr.R.No.442/2014 which reads as under :-
"Present petition is directed against the order
dated 31.01.2014 passed by learned Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case
No.01/10 framing charge under Section 120-B, 420/34,
467/34, 468/34, 409/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under Section 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Vide order dated 16.09.2011 passed in Criminal
Revision No.674/2011 this Court has dismissed one
petition with a liberty to the petitioner to raise the question
of framing of charge properly before the trial Court itself.
Vide order dated 25.06.2013 of this Court in Misc.
Criminal Case No.1951/13 this Court has directed the trial
Court to decide the issue of framing of charge against
each of the petitioner according to role of each of the
petitioner separately.
rd
Matter of framing of charge is challenged in 3
round of hearing by the petitioner. According to
prosecution, the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) has
registered a case against the petitioner who was working
as Sub-Engineer / Junior Engineer in Municipal
Corporation, Ratlam (M.P.) along-with Mayor, Chairman,
Commissioner, Revenue Inspector, Auditor and Assistant
Director etc of the Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, making
allegations that during the period of 1996 to 1998 they
have misused their official position to benefit the co-
accused for supply of statutes to be installed in Dewas
city and at various places and prepared false and fake
note sheets and quotations and has embezzled
Rs.32,30,000/- and caused loss to the State Exchequer
with dishonest intentions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Ram Manohar Pandey who was working as City Architect
in Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, has orally directed to
write a notesheet. Ram Manohar Pandey was exonerated
of the offence, as State did not issue sanction for his
prosecution. The petitioner was bound to obey the
instructions of his superiors.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
in the case of Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010
SC 3292 submits that the charge framed by the trial Court
is not only vague but is also incomplete. No specific
overtact has been reflected / mentioned against the
petitioner and text of the charge. In Main Pal's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The following principles relating to sections
212, 215 and 464 of the Code, relevant to this case,
become evident from the said enunciations:
(i) The object of framing a charge is to
enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is
being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to
meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of
date, time place and person against whom the offence
was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give
the accused notice of the matter with which he is
charged.
(ii) The accused is entitled to know with
certainly and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge
against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his
defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is
charged with having committed offence against one
person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for
committing offence against another person, without a
charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will
be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But
there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where
there was an error in the charge and the accused was
aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred
from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused
showed that he was defending himself against the real
and actual charge and not the erroneous charge.
(iii) In judging a question of prejudice, as of
guilt, the courts must act with a broad vision and look
to the substance and not to the technicalities, and
their main concern should be to see whether the
accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was
being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be
established against him were explained to him fairly
and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair
chance to defend himself".
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent -
State submits that sufficient evidence is available in the
FIR and Chargesheet against the petitioner. Whatever has
been averred by the petitioner in this petition and the best
can be said to be a matter of appreciation of evidence.
According to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, discharge is possible only when upon
consideration of the record of the case and documents
submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of
both the parties, it is considered that there is not sufficient
ground for proceedings against the accused. According to
section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if in
the opinion of the Court if there is ground for presuming
that accused has committed offence then the Court will
frame the Charge.
Whether it was a mistake of architect of Corporation
who has not been prosecuted for some or the other
reason cannot be a ground to believe that there is not
sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. On
prima facie perusal of the contents of chargesheet and
charges framed by the trial Court, in the considered
opinion of this Court, there appears to be no lapse or
mistake.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for
want of merits because the trial Court has framed the
charge on the basis of prima-facie evidence available on
charge-sheet. Whatever has been averred in the petition
is also a matter of fact and can be established in the trial
Court during the trial.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition has no
merit and is accordingly dismissed."
Earlier also M.Cr.C.No.5571/2013 was filed on
23.07.2013. The same was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file a fresh miscellaneous criminal case vide order
dated 17.09.2014, thereafter Cr.R.No.442/2014 has been filed
raising the same issue.
Considering the fact that in an identical matter i.e.
Cr.R.No.442/14, we have passed a detailed order, no case to
entertain this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
by Ramesh Chandra, for the reasons assigned in order dated
01.07.2015 passed in Cr.R.No.442/14 is made out. Thus,
M.Cr.C.No.10115/2014 has no merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1294/2015
23/09/2015
Shri M.A.Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1/State on advance copy.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
It is submitted that Cr.A.No.876/2015 and
Cr.A.No.1047/2015 filed on behalf of the accused persons are
pending for consideration.
Office is directed to list this appeal along with the
aforesaid appeals with the record of Trial Court for hearing on the
question of admission of this appeal, which has been filed under
Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of convicting for a
lesser offence.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1294/2015
23/09/2015
Shri M.A.Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1/State on advance copy.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
It is submitted that Cr.A.No.876/2015 and
Cr.A.No.1047/2015 filed on behalf of the accused persons are
pending for consideration.
Office is directed to list this appeal along with the
aforesaid appeals with the record of Trial Court for hearing on the
question of admission of this appeal, which has been filed under
Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal of
respondents No.2 to 4.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1297/2015
23/09/2015
Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State, therefore, no
further notice is required to be issued to the respondent.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List the matter for final hearing in category
"Criminal> Appeal against Conviction> Life imprisonment >
others> in Jail".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1299/2015
23/09/2015
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State, therefore, no
further notice is required to be issued to the respondent.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List the matter for final hearing in category
"Criminal> Appeal against Conviction> Life imprisonment >
others> in Jail".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.722/2015
21.09.2015
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for appellants
Kashiram and Kishanlal.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
Heard on IA No.7113/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellants No.5 Kashiram
and No.7 Kishanlal.
Appellants No.5 Kashiram and No.7 Kishanlal
have been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life Imprisonment with
fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation, under Section 148 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months R.I. with
fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation, under Section
307/149 (5 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- with
default stipulation and under Section 325/149 (2 counts) of
the IPC sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation
and Section 323/149 of the IPC and sentenced to three
months R.I. by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Biaora, District Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.192/2014 vide
judgment dated 30.05.2015.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our
attention to the statements of Dr. Sorin Datta (PW-12), Dr.
Vimla Prajapati (PW-24) and eye witness Kailash and
submitted that main allegation for causing fatal injury is
against the appellant No.5 Kashiram and prays for
withdrawal of application in respect of appellant No.5
Kashiram. Therefore, prayer for suspension of sentence of
appellant No.5 Kashiram is dismissed as withdrawn.
In respect of appellant No.7 Kishanlal, Counsel
for the appellant submitted that though this person was
present along with other co-accused persons and was a
member of unlawful assembly yet he has not inflicted any
injury to the deceased. He also sustained injury caused by the
complainant party. He further submitted that under Section
307 of the IPC Crime No.103/2014 was registered against the
complainant party and vide Sessions Trial No.179/2014 six
persons of the complainant party have been convicted and
sentenced for 5 years, and prays that looking to the fact that
no role has been attributed to the appellant No.7 Kishanlal for
causing any injury to the deceased nor common object of
unlawful assembly to murder, found established, application
(IA No.7113/2015) for suspension of jail sentence and grant
of bail, in respect of appellant No.7 Kishanlal be allowed and
appellant No.7 Kishanlal be released on bail.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that with
the aid of Section 149 of the IPC appellant No.7 was
convicted by the learned Trial Court and there is ample
evidence against the appellant No.7 that he was present along
with other co-accused persons and was a member of unlawful
assembly and prayed for rejection of his prayer.
On due consideration of the statements of eye
witnesses and looking to the fact that he has not caused any
injury to the deceased nor there is any material that present
appellant shared common object, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, IA No.7113/2015, an
application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to
appellant No.7 Kishanlal is allowed and it is directed that the
execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant No.7 shall
remain suspended, subject to his depositing the fine amount
and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
th
for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 15
December, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by
the Registry in this regard.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.790/2015
21.09.2015
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel Counsel
for appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
As prayed by Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned
Counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.805/2015
21.09.2015
Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel appears on
behalf of Shri C.L.Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
As prayed by Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list after two weeks.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1010/15, Cr.A.No.1082/15 & Cr.A.No.1189/15
21.09.2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned counsel for appellant
Yogesh @ Betu in Cr.A.No.1010/15.
Shri Manish Gadkar, learned Counsel for the
appellants Subhash Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar in
Cr.A.No.1082/15.
Shri Piyush Dubey, learned Counsel for the
appellant Laxman in Cr.A.No.1189/15.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
This order shall govern disposal of IAs (IA
No.6795/2015, IA No.6051/2015 and IA No.6604/2015) for
suspension of sentence in Cr.A. No.1010/2015, Cr.A.
No.1082/2015 and Cr.A.No.1189/2015.
Heard on IA No.6795/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Yogesh @ Betu.
Appellant Yogesh @ Betu has been convicted
under Sections 304/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo 7 years' rigorous
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation,
under Section 323/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation,
under Section 324/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation and under Section 147
of the IPC sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous
imprisonment by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T.
(Atrocities Act), Indore, District Indore in Sessions Trial
No.204/2007 vide judgment dated 24.07.2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the statements of injured Sandeep (PW-3),
Santosh (PW-5), Mamtabai (PW-6) and Kallu (PW-9) and
submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the
appellant Yogesh @ Betu. It is a case of free fight and
everybody is liable for his own act. He further submitted that
even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, it is alleged
that he caused injury by fists and kicks to the injured person.
He further submitted that no weapon has been seized from
the possession of the appellant Yogesh @ Betu and submitted
that a cross-case has been registered against the complainant
party under Section 307 of the IPC and 11 persons of other
side have been convicted in the aforesaid matter. With the
aforesaid, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant Yogesh @ Betu.
Also heard on IA No.6051/2015, first application
for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants Subhash
Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar.
Appellants Subhash Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar
have been convicted under Sections 304/149 (two counts) of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 7 years'
rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation each, under Section 323/149 (two counts) of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation, under Section 324/149 (two counts) of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation
each and under Section 147 of the IPC sentenced to undergo
one year's rigorous imprisonment each by the learned Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. (Atrocities Act), Indore, District Indore in
Sessions Trial No.204/2007 vide judgment dated 24.07.2015.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
similar allegation has been made against the appellants
Subhash Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar and prays for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
Also heard on IA No.6604/2015, first application
for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Laxman.
Appellant Laxman has been convicted under
Sections 304/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo 7 years' rigorous Imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, under Section
323/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, under Section
324/149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default stipulation and under Section 147 of the IPC
sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment by the
learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Indore, District Indore in Sessions Trial No.204/2007
vide judgment dated 24.07.2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
lathi has been seized from the joint possession of the
appellant Laxman and co-accused Ashok and the allegation
against the present appellant for causing injury to Mamtabai,
which is simple in nature and he is not named in the FIR. As
per prosecution story, co-accused Satish was armed with
sword, Sachin @ Sachhu was armed with Gupti, Sandeep @
Bakra was armed with knife and Ashok & Laxman were
armed with lathies and they had inflicted fatal injuries to
deceased Subhash and no overt act has been attributed to
Laxman regarding causing injuries to deceased, prays for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant
Laxman.
Learned Counsel for the appellants have drawn
our attention to the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court and submitted that the three accused persons have been
convicted under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the present
appellants and another co-accused total seven in numbers
have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC,
therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
applications for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellants i.e. Yogesh @ Betu, Subhash Raikwar,
Jeevan Raikwar and Laxman be allowed.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State opposed the prayer and drawn our attention
to the finding arrived at and submitted that there is no doubt
that the appellants were present along with other co-accused
persons and no allegation against them is for causing injury
to the deceased but they have been convicted with the aid of
Section 149 of the IPC, therefore, even though they have not
caused any injury to anybody then also they were members of
unlawful assembly and prayed for rejection of their prayer.
On due consideration of the statements of eye
witnesses and injured Sandeep (PW-3), Santosh (PW-5),
Mamtabai (PW-6) and Kallu (PW-9) and other material
available on record, so also the fact that, it is a case of free
fight and the appellants have not caused any injury to the
deceased, mere presence or association with other members
alone, is not per se sufficient to hold everyone of them
criminally liable for the offences committed by the others
unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each
one also intended or knew the likelihood of commission of
such offending act(s), it is a fit case for grant of suspension of
jail sentence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, IA No.6795/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant
Yogesh @ Betu, IA No.6051/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellants Subhash
Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar and IA No.6604/2015, first
application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant
Laxman are allowed and it is directed that the execution of
jail sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain
suspended, subject to their depositing the fine amount and
upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand) each with one solvent surety
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
th
for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 16
December, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by
the Registry in this regard.
C.C. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.911/2015
21.09.2015
Shri Shantanu Vakte, learned counsel for appellant
Prem Patel.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
Heard on IA No.5188/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Prem Patel.
Appellant Prem Patel has been convicted under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation and under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms
Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation by the learned
Sessions Judge, Indore, District Indore in Sessions Trial
No.235/2013 vide judgment dated 22.06.2015.
As per statement of eye witness and PW-7 Dr.
Pragya Jain present appellant was armed with knife and
inflicted multiple injuries (11 injuries) to the deceased and the
same has been medically corroborated.
In view of the above, no case for grant of
suspension of sentence is made out. IA No.5188/2015 is
accordingly rejected.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.5936/2015
11/09/2015
Petitioner Shri Ajay Gupta is present in
person.
Heard at length.
This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for recalling the order passed by this Court in
M.Cr.C.No.889/2014 on 13.05.2015.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 29.07.2009
petitioner's sister submitted a complaint at Police
Station Neelganga, Ujjain and the concerned SHO
marked this complaint to his subordinate Assistant Sub
Inspector Shahzad Beg (non-applicant No.1) for inquiry.
It is alleged that Shahzad Beg demanded Rs.5,000/-
from the complainant's sister for submitting favourable
report then complainant made a complaint to
Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment,
Ujjain. After verifying the demand a trap was arranged
and subsequently the non-applicant No.1 was
apprehended with the tainted currency notes of
Rs.5,000/-, thereafter he was prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After trial learned
Special Judge has acquitted the non-applicant No.1 from
the charges. Being aggrieved the State has filed the
application for leave to file appeal against the order of
acquittal whereas present petitioner has filed the petition
M.Cr.C.No.889/14 for setting aside the order of
acquittal and remanding the case for retrial. This Court
on 13.05.2015 dismissed the application for seeking
leave to file as well as the petitioner's petition. Being
aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.
[3] Petitioner submits that on 15.04.2015 the case
was adjourned for one month with the direction that it
be listed on any Wednesday and the case was listed on
13.05.2015. On that date petitioner and his Advocate
could not appear at the time of hearing, therefore,
without hearing the petitioner this Court has dismissed
the petition M.Cr.C.No.889/2014 by the impugned
order, thus the petitioner is deprived from getting
justice.
[4] Petitioner submits that in the said petition he
has raised many grounds to show that the trial was not
properly conducted and the material evidence in the
shape of electronic record has been destroyed. In the
impugned order the grounds raised in the earlier petition
have not been considered. In such circumstances, it is
requested that the impugned order be recalled. In
appropriate cases recalling of order is permissible. For
this purpose he placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Agrawal V/s.
State of U.P. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1232.
[5] Petitioner further submits that in earlier
petition he has raised the grounds to show that the
Special Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence,
therefore, the order of acquittal is not justified and the
retrial is required. The petitioner further submits that in
a criminal case the fate of proceedings cannot always be
left entirely in the hands of the parties. Crime is a public
wrong, in breach and violation of public rights and
duties, which effects the community as a whole and is
harmful to the society in general. For this purpose he
placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Dayal Singh V/s. State of Uttaranchal reported
in 2012 (8) SCC 263 and submitted that the order be
recalled and M.Cr.C.No.889/2014 be fixed for
rehearing.
[6] We have carefully examined the record of
M.Cr.C.No.889/2014, impugned order and the present
petition.
[7] We have considered whether this Court while
exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can
recall the earlier order by which this Court has declined
to set aside the order of acquittal and remitted for retrial.
For this purpose petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of Vishnu Agrawal (supra). Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sunil Kumar V/s. State of
Hariyana reported in 2012 5 SCC 398 held as under :-
7. The High Court dealt with the various
propositions of law while dealing with
the averments raised on his behalf
including the application of the
provisions of Section 362 of the
Cr.P.C. which puts a complete embargo
on the criminal court to reconsider any
case after delivery of the judgment as the
court becomes functus officio.
8. This Court in a recent judgment in State
of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
dealt with the issue considering a very large
number of earlier judgments of this Court
including Vishnu Agrawal v. State of U.P.
and came to the conclusion : (Davinder Pal
Singh case, (2012) 14 SCC 770 (Page 796 - Para
49)
"49. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that the
criminal justice delivery system does not
clothe the court with the power to add or
delete any words, except to correct the
clerical or arithmetical error as has
specifically been provided for under the
statute itself as after pronouncement of
the judgment the Judge becomes functus
officio. Any mistake or glaring omission
is left to be corrected only by the
appropriate forum in accordance with
law."
[8] In the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex
Court it is clear that once the Criminal Court delivers
the judgment the Court become functus officio and
cannot consider or recall its own judgment. Thus, we are
of the view that this Court cannot recall its own order
passed in M.Cr.C.No.889/2014 on 13.05.2015, thus the
petition is dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.4850/2015
13.08.2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the applicant/State.
Heard.
This application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.
has been filed to leave to file appeal against the judgment passed
by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in ST
No.218/2010 on 12.03.2015 whereby acquitted non-applicants
No.1 and 2 from the charge under Section 328, 376 (2) and 506
(Part-2) of the IPC and all the non-applicants from the charge
under Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, 2000.
As per the prosecution case, non-applicants No.1 and
2 offered intoxicated cold drink to the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix
had drunk the cold drink due to which she became in a state of
intoxication. Thereafter non-applicants No.1 and 2 had committed
rape upon her and had also made video of this incident through
their mobile phones. On the written complaint of prosecutrix
offence was registered at Police Station Mandsaur.
Learned Dy. Advocate General submits that learned
Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the non-applicants on the
ground of delayed FIR and uncorroborated testimony of
prosecutrix. It is a settled law that the conviction can be based on
sole evidence of prosecution even without corroboration.
Learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the
hard disk and mobile phones were recovered from the possession
of the non-applicants and as per the report of Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, they were used for recording
porn videos. Even though acquitted the non-applicants from all
charges, therefore, the applicant/State be permitted to file an
appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
We have perused the record.
We are of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for grant of leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal,
thus the application is allowed and the applicant is granted leave
to file appeal against the non-applicants.
Office is directed to register the appeal against the
non-applicants and in the appeal bailable warrant of Rs.20,000/-
be issued against all the non-applicants/accused for appearance
before this court on 05.10.2015.
Thus, the petition is disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC.No.1032/2014
31/07/2015
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
non-applicant.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant has drawn our
attention to the averments made in the Writ Petition and
notification dated 01.04.2011 which was impugned in WP
No.621/2013, as also interim relief which has prayed in the Writ
Petition and prayed that recovery of the entry tax as per the
impugned notification dated 01.04.2011 be stayed on the basis of
the pending decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal
Stainless Limited V/s. State of Haryana reported in (2010) IV
SCC 595.
As per interim order dated 05.09.2012, the Division
Bench has granted interim relief in the Writ Petition in the same
terms as contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Jindal Stainless Limited V/s. State of Haryana.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that
there was an interim order not to insist upon making pre-deposit
for a period after 01.04.2011 whereas assessment by the
department is for the assessment year 2010 i.e. 01.04.2010 to
31.03.2011.
Considering the aforesaid, there is no disobedience of
the interim order passed by this Court on 05.09.2012.
No case to draw any contempt proceeding against the
non-applicant, as prayed for, is made out.
Contempt Case No.1032/2014 is accordingly
dismissed.
Rule nisi is discharged.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC.No.828/2014
31/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list along with Contempt Petition
No.954/2014 and WP No.2367/2014 for analogous hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3628/2014
31/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
th
list in the week commencing 10 August, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.6695/2014
31/07/2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that on
29.07.2015 she has received copy of the rejoinder and prays for
three weeks time to go through the rejoinder and if necessary to
file the reply of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.
List thereafter.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7388/2014
31/07/2015
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Counsel for the
respondents/Indore Development Authority.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for
withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh petition,
if occasion arises.
Prayer is allowed.
Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8031/2014
31/07/2015
Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for
withdrawal of the Writ Petition. His prayer has been opposed by
the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 on the ground that as
per order of the M.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal certain
amount is to be recovered from the petitioner and, prays that the
prayer for withdrawal of the petition be not allowed.
A simple prayer has been made for withdrawal of the
Writ Petition. Accordingly, we allow the prayer for withdrawal of
the Writ Petition and dismissed the petition.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C. No.4022/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the applicant/State.
Heard.
This is an application under Section 378 (3) of the
Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking relief to file an appeal against
the judgment of acquittal of non-applicants from the offence
punishable under Section 302/34, 201 of the IPC in ST
No.238/13 on 20.02.2015 by Additional Sessions Judge,
Agar.
Brief facts of this case are that on 20.07.2013 at
Police Station Agar a merg No.42/2013 under Section 174 of
the Cr.P.C. has been registered. During merg inquiry
Tehsildar has prepared an inquest report. The dead body of
deceased Mayabai was sent for postmortem report. During
inquiry statements were recorded and on the basis of inquiry
Crime No.318/13 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the
IPC has been registered against the non-applicants. After trial
learned ASJ vide judgment dated 20.02.2015 acquitted the
non-applicants from all the charges, therefore, the
applicant/State has filed this application for leave to file an
appeal.
The deceased Mayabai was married 15 years back
with non-applicant No.1 Rambabu and the non-applicants
No.2, 3 and 4 are father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-
law. On 20.07.2013 deceased's husband non-applicant No.1
brought the deceased to the hospital. After her examination it
was found that she was dead.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
learned A.S.J. found that the death of deceased Mayabai is
homicidal in nature. Devilal (PW-1) and Sudhabai (PW-2) are
the father and mother of the deceased and they have
categorically stated that the non-applicants were used to
harass and beat their daughter Mayabai and on the dead body
a team of doctors found abrasion measuring 2.5 x 1 cm. on
left chin. However, learned A.S.J. overlooked this material
evidence and acquitted the applicants, thus the application be
allowed and State be permitted to file an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal.
After hearing learned Counsel for the applicant,
we have carefully examined the record. The incident has
taken place in the matrimonial home of the deceased
Mayabai. At that time her parents Devilal (PW-1) and
Sudhabai (PW-2) were not present, therefore, on the basis of
their evidence no conclusion can be drawn against the non-
applicants. Deceased's mother Sudhabai (PW-2) in her
examination admitted that Mayabai having two sons and till
birth of both the sons there was a good relationship between
non-applicants and her daughter Mayabai. He also admitted
that 6 months before her death her daughter Mayabai and her
son-in-law Rambabu were living separately from the non-
applicants No.2, 3 and 4. None of the neighbour of the
deceased stated that before her death any quarrel has taken
place between the deceased Mayabai and her husband
Rambabu. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence that
the non-applicants have murdered the deceased Mayabai.
Dr. Devesh Sharma (PW-7) opined that Mayabai
died due to asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.
@@@@@@
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A. No.226/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
In pursuance to the order dated 21.11.2013, learned
Collector decided the representation of the appellant on
06.03.2014. As per order of the Collector dated 06.03.2014 the
land was acquired way back in the year 1946 and the Writ
Petition was filed in the year 2015, therefore, no case for grant of
relief was made out and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is
the owner of the land bearing Survey No.86 and 87 of Gram
Lohara and his name is recorded as Bhoomi Swami in the
Column No.2 of Khasra entry.
It is contended by the State that the land in question
was acquired in the year 1946 and compensation has already been
paid to the land owner. In reply, it is submitted that no documents
have been filed by the State, thus the order passed by the learned
Writ Court is bad in law.
It is pointed out by the respondent/State that
compensation had already been paid to the landlord. Considering
the aforesaid the learned Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition
and gave following finding which reads as under :-
"In the light of the aforesaid fact that
the land was acquired way back in the year
1946 and the present Writ Petition has been
filed in the year 2015, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no case for grant of
relief is made out in the matter, as the
respondent State has already paid
compensation to the land owner. Earlier also,
the petitioner has filed Writ Petition in the
year 2013. However, no steps were taken by
the petitioner in the matter in time and his
predecessor-in-title has received the
compensation and, therefore, keeping in
view the totality of the circumstances of the
case no case for interference is made out in
the matter.
Accordingly, the admission is
declined."
For these reasons, there is no merit in this Writ Appeal,
accordingly Writ Appeal No.226/2015 is dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.354/2014
10/07/2015
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned Counsel appears on behalf
of Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent No.1/Union of India.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3.
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned Counsel for the appellant
submits that Senior Counsel is out of station and prays for one
week's time.
Prayer is accepted.
List after one week, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.276/2015
10/07/2015
Shri A.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for the respondent.
As prayed by Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for
the respondent, one week's time is granted to file reply.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.230/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel along with Shri
Vishal Baheti, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
List along with W.A.No.229/2015, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.229/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel along with Shri
Vishal Baheti, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
As prayed by Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned Counsel for the
respondent, two weeks time is granted.
List after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3977/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
As prayed by Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondent/State, further two weeks
time is granted to file reply.
List thereafter.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.599/2015
10/07/2015
Shri M.R.Sheikh, learned Counsel for the appellant.
He is directed to supply the copy of memo of appeal
to Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Standing Counsel for the
Lokayukt within a period of one week from today.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.729/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Jil Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State, therefore, no
further notice is required to be issued to the respondent.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List the matter for final hearing in category
"Criminal> Appeal against Conviction> Life imprisonment >
others> in Jail".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.584/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1/State.
As prayed by Shri Vinod Thakur, learned Counsel for
the appellant, list after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A. No.869/2014
10/07/2015
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5.
Shri D.S.Kale, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.8.
None for respondents No.6 and 7.
IA No.1478/2015 has been filed for vacating ex parte
order of stay.
Office to list the appeal for admission and for orders
on IA No.1478/2015 on 16.07.2015.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P. No.4014/2014
10/07/2015
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder to the reply filed by
the Municipal Counsel.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C. No.4907/2015
10/07/2015
Shri Gopal Yadav, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the non-applicant No.3 on advance notice.
Heard.
This is an application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 for restoration of Cr.A.No.1840/2015, which
has been dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order
vide order dated 09.02.2015.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted
that the applicant complied the peremptory order but due to
inadvertence he paid process fee only by ordinary mode, not
by the registered A.D., therefore, aforesaid Criminal Appeal
has been dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory
order.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and for the
reason assigned in the application, we allow the prayer for
restoration and restored Cr.A.No.1840/2015 to its original
number, subject to compliance of order dated 09.02.2015
within a period of two weeks from today.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.166/2015
10/07/2015
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Kishore Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned Counsel for the respondents
No.1 and 2.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant gave a letter on 04.07.2015 stating that while
considering the review application this Court has granted stay in
favour of the applicant. We may clarify that on 03.07.2015 no
stay has been granted in favour of the applicant.
Learned Senior Counsel prays for and is granted 3
days time to file all those orders as directed on 03.07.2015.
List in the next.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.389/2014
10/07/2015
Shri Gajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Heard.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
date of issuance of notice for termination of lease is
01.08.2013 but due to typographical error inadvertently it has
been typed as 07.08.2000 in Para 4 of the order dated
18.11.2014 in Writ Appeal No.816/2014.
Considering aforesaid and for the reasons assigned
in the application, we allow the prayer for correction.
Accordingly, in the order dated 18.11.2014 in Para No.4 in
place of "07/08/2000" it should be read as "01/08/2013".
This order shall be read conjointly with the order dated
18.11.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.816/2014.
With the aforesaid observations, review
application is allowed and disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A. No.54/2013
08/07/2015
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.2752/2015, which is an application
under Section 151 of the CPC for directing the appellant to
deposit the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Trial
Court.
As per reply Rs.1,31,000/- has been deposited by the
appellant and execution proceeding is already going on before the
Executing Court.
In view of the aforesaid, no further order on IA
No.2752/2015 is required. Accordingly, IA No.2752/2015 is
rejected.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.1106/2008
08/07/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the appellant/State.
None for the respondent.
IA No.3458/2015 has been filed by the respondent
Deepa @ Deepak for issuence of production warrant of
respondent as he is in jail in respect of some other matter and
presently confined to District Jail, Dhar.
Considering aforesaid, prayer for production warrant
has been allowed. Appellant is directed to produce him from the
Jail on the next date of hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.1041/2009
08/07/2015
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/CBI.
As prayed by Shri Deepak Rawal, Dy. Advocate
General, who is appearing on behalf of CBI, two weeks time is
granted to file reply of IA No.3006/2015.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.58/2014
08/07/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Shri Akhil Godha, learned Counsel for the
complainant/objector.
As per record, appellant Ansar @ Rahul Sheikh S/o
Siraj Sheikh failed to mark his presence before the Registry of
this Court on 10.02.2015 and thereafter before this Court on
12.02.2015, 27.04.2015 and 15.06.2015.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the
appellant Ansar @ Rahul Sheikh S/o Siraj Sheikh for securing his
presence on the next date of hearing through Superintendent of
Police, Indore.
As per report, notice to surety Jagdish Prasad S/o
Bhure Singh has been served on 05.06.2015. This Court directed
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore to take appropriate steps for
forfeiting the surety amount and submit a report within a period
of four months. Report of CJM, Indore is awaited. Explanation of
Superintendent of Police, Indore is also awaited.
As prayed by Dy. Advocate General for the State, two
weeks time is granted to submit explanation supported by the
affidavit of the person concerned.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.574/2013
08/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that today
only he has received the copy of reply of IA No.1074/2015 and
prays for one week's time to argue on IA No.1074/2015.
Prayer accepted.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.82/2014
08/07/2015
Shri R.K.Bakaliya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sofiya Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents
No.1 and 3.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.6/State.
Let fresh notice be issued to the respondents No.2, 4
and 5 on their present and correct address by registered A.D. as
well as ordinary mode on payment of process fee within two
weeks, returnable with 8 weeks.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.146/2015
08/07/2015
Ms. Nishat Kazi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Let fresh notice on merit as well as IA No.1316/2015
be issued to the respondent on his present and correct address by
registered A.D. as well as ordinary mode on payment of process
fee within a week, returnable with 6 weeks. In the meanwhile,
Clause A of Para 26 of the impugned judgement shall remain
stayed till the next date of hearing.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.374/2015
08/07/2015
Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Gupta, lerned Counsel for the
respondent.
Lerned Counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted two weeks time to file reply of IA No.3189/2015, an
application for condonation of delay.
List thereafter. In the meanwhile, record of the Trial
Court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.126/2015
08/07/2015
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.3491/2015, an application for
grant of interim maintenance.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/applicant
submits that appellant is having 10 Hectares of irrigated land
and his annual income is around Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) per annum and prays that he may be directed to pay
interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the
respondent/applicant.
This fact has been denied by the appellant. He
stated that he has no agricultural land in his name and prays
for rejection of the prayer.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and looking
to the present living cost, we award Rs.2,500/- per month to
the wife as interim maintenance from the date of application.
Appellant is directed to pay interim maintenance amount
regularly till the appeal is finally decided and also pay
Rs.7,500/- towards the litigation and other sundry expenses to
the respondent/applicant within a period of one month.
With the aforesaid, IA No.3491/2015 is allowed in
part and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1092/2014
08/07/2015
Ms. Honey @ Hiteshika daughter of Abhay Pal
Singh is present in person.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the
respondent along with Shri Abhay Pal Singh.
Heard on IA No.4117/2015, an application for
getting money directly from the salary of the respondent.
Appellant submits that at present total dues of
maintenance is Rs.66,000/-. Rs.54,000/- towards arrears for a
period from July, 2014 to May, 2015 and Rs.12,000/- arrears
of maintenance for the month of June and July, 2015. She
submits that execution proceeding is already pending before
the learned Trial Court and therefore, respondent be directed
to deposit the arrears within reasonable time and pay
maintenance regularly till his application for setting aside ex
parte judgment and decree is decided or until further orders
from this Court. She further submits that she has to deposit
Rs.50,000/- toward her tuition/admission fee.
Considering the aforesaid we direct the respondent
to deposit arrears amounting to Rs.66,000/- in three monthly
installments and shall regularly deposit the amount of
Rs.12,000/- per month, failing which the appellant is at
liberty to file appropriate application for getting money
directly from the salary of the respondent before the learned
Executing Court where the execution proceedings is pending.
With the aforesaid, IA No.4117/2015 is disposed
of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.866/2014
08/07/2015
Shri K.C.Raikwar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
It is not in dispute that by order dated 11.09.2002
passed by the disciplinary authority punishment has been
inflicted upon the appellant. His appeal against the order of
punishment has been dismissed on 04.10.2007. Learned
Counsel for the appellant submits that thereafter his juniors
have been promoted and therefore, he filed a writ petition
which has been wrongly dismissed on the ground of delay
and latches.
It is also submitted that wrong fixation of pay
gives continues cause of action the Writ Petition has to be
decided on merit.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that
basis of fixation of pension is of punishment order which was
passed on 11.09.2002 the delay for the period from
11.09.2002 to the year 2014 has not been properly explained
in Para 4 of the Writ Petition nor in Paras 5 and 6 of the Writ
Petition. Thus, we are of the view that the Writ Court has
rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and
latches. No case to interfere with the aforesaid order as
prayed is made out. Writ Appeal has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.236/2015
07/07/2015
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Learned Writ Court considered the fact that
respondent No.1 has obtained documents from the Board of
Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh under the Right to
Information Act (Annexures P/2 and P/3), which are the
copies of the documents maintained by the Center
Superintendent and the aforesaid documents establishes that
the respondent No.1 was very much present on 09.03.2013, at
the time of examination in respect of Physics subject has
been conducted.
Considering the aforesaid, learned Writ Court
allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondent No.2
and appellant to take average of the marks obtained by the
respondent No.1 in the subject of Mathematics and Chemistry
and by taking average marks obtained in the subject of
Mathematics and Chemistry, respondent No.2 and appellant
were directed to grant marks to the respondent No.1 in the
subject of Physics.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the Annexure A/4 dated 18.09.2014 and OMR
sheet. These documents were not filed before the learned Writ
Court nor in their reply they have stated anything. As per
Para 5 of the reply of the Writ Petition filed by the Board of
Secondary Education, they simply denied the averments
made in the petition.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, at this stage
we cannot permit the appellant to file the additional
document. On due consideration of the aforesaid reasons
assigned by the learned Writ Court on the basis of document
of Board of Secondary Education received by the respondent
under the RTI Act, we are of the view that learned Writ Court
has rightly allowed the Writ Petition and awarded cost to the
respondents. No case to interfere with the impugned order
dated 13.05.2015 passed in WP No.2374/2014 as prayed for
is made out. Writ Appeal has no merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.271/2015
07/07/2015
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
By this Writ Appeal, the appellant is challenging
the order dated 30.06.2015 passed in WP No.4185/2015,
whereby his writ petition challenging his transfer from Atal
Bihari Bajpayee Govt. Arts and Commerce College, Indore to
Government Mahaveer College, Petlawad, District Jhabua
has been dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he
is a victim of frequent transfers and it is a case of frequent
transfers and even without completing 3 years at the present
place of posting he has been transferred to Petlawad, District
Jhabua contrary to the transfer policy framed by the State
Govt. He further submits that his 75 years' old mother is
suffering from serious cardiac disease and her treatment is
going on at Indore. As per Certificate Annexure P/6 her
condition is critical and she needs medical attention and at
Petlawad there is no hospital to take care of and prays that the
impugned transfer be set aside and Writ Appeal filed by the
appellant be allowed.
It is not in dispute that at Indore he is working on
the basis of transfer order dated 13.07.2012 and, therefore, he
is going to complete three years at the same place. From the
orders of transfer, which are on record, it is not a case of
frequent transfer. In respect of transfer the law is well settled.
As per law laid down by the Apex Court, unless an order of
transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or
stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting
any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot
interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though
they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision
for that of the employer/management, as against such orders
passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the
service concerned.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that
learned Writ Court has not committed any legal error in
dismissing the writ petition. There is no averments in the Writ
Petition that due to some mala fide intention transfer order
has been passed. In respect of health of mother of the
appellant, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his
representation is pending before the Competent Authority of
the respondent No.1.
Considering the aforesaid, we direct the
Competent Authority of the respondent No.1 to consider the
representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order
within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of
certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.271/2015
stands disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.24/2014
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for therespondent
No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.25/2014
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for therespondent
No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.187/2014
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.188/2014
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.539/2010
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.537/2010
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.403/2012
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.446/2012
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.258/2015
07/07/2015
Ku. Rekha Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of the Writ Appeal with liberty to
file review application along with circular issued by the State
Govt. from time to time.
Prayer is allowed.
Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy today as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.255/2015
07/07/2015
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3277/2015, an application for stay.
In view of the order passed in WA No.254/2015 filed
by the husband of the appellant, this Writ Appeal has rendered
infructuous.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.254/2015
07/07/2015
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3275/2015, an application for stay.
Learned Additional Advocate General has made a
statement that appellant can be accommodated in Tonkkhurd,
District Dewas.
In reply learned Counsel for the appellant has no
objection if he has been posted to Tonkkhurd.
Considering the aforesaid, respondent is directed to
consider the representation of the appellant which is pending and
pass an appropriate order for posting of the appellant in
Tonkkhurd, District Dewas.
With the aforesaid IA No.3275/2015 is disposed of.
In case no order is passed within a period of 15 days
from today status quo in respect of posting of the appellant shall
be maintained till the decision of the representation.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.254/2015
07/07/2015
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3275/2015, an application for stay.
Learned Additional Advocate General has made a
statement that appellant can be accommodated in Tonkkhurd,
District Dewas.
In reply learned Counsel for the appellant submitted
that he has no objection if he has been posted to Tonkkhurd.
Considering the aforesaid, respondent is directed to
consider the representation of the appellant which is pending and
pass an appropriate order for posting of the appellant in
Tonkkhurd, District Dewas.
Status quo in respect of the posting shall be
maintained till the decision of the representation.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WP No.264/2015
07/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List the matter along with W.P.No.238/2015 in the week
commencing 28.07.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WP No.238/2015
07/07/2015
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer submits that
today he has filed additional reply and also praying for adopting the
additional reply and return in WP No.264/2015.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is directed to place the aforesaid reply on record.
List in the week commencing 28.07.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WP No.1011/2015
07/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
Writ Petition is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to list it for final hearing under caption
"Writ (Criminal) other than above - High Court Expedited Cases
".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2899/2015
07/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted four weeks
further time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2905/2015
07/07/2015
Shri Jitendra Mandloi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
As prayed, list in the week commencing
28.07.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3083/2015
07/07/2015
Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State appears on
advance notice.
Let notice of this petition be issued to the
respondents No.2, 3 and 4 by registered A.D. as well as by
ordinary mode on payment of fresh process fee within three
days, returnable within three weeks. In addition the petitioner
is at liberty to serve hamdust notice to the respondent on
payment of necessary charges as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4040/2015
07/07/2015
Petitioner - Vibhor Chopra is present in person.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer, who is
appearing on behalf of the respondent on advance notice
submitted that one more petition (WP No.8810/2015 Paras
Sukhlecha V/s. State of M.P.) in respect of the same matter is
pending at Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
Principal Registrar is directed to verify the same
and take appropriate orders for hearing these matters.
Looking to the urgency in the matter necessary
permission be taken or matter be transferred to Principal Seat at
Jabalpur.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.808/2009
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.416/2010
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.165/2010
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.166/2010
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.251/2010
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.550/2010
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.556/2010
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads ad under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.558/2010
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the legal
representatives of respondent No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.541/2010
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.788/2009
06/07/2015
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant/IDA.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.2/L.A.O..
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads ad under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.14/2014
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads as under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.13/2014
06/07/2015
Shri O.P.Arya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/L.A.O..
Smt. Mrudula Sen, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/IDA.
The question involved in this appeal, which is listed
today along with Bunch of appeals, is squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench passed in FA No.901/2009
(Hiralal (Dead) through Legal Representatives V/s. State of M.P.)
th
decided on 12 January, 2015, reads ad under :-
"68. We have perused the record of
F.A.No.1005/2010 (Babulal V/s. State of
M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his
house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near
Hira Nagar is two storied house having area
1056 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft.
Boundary wall was also there. He further
stated that his house is situated adjacent to
residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar,
Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala,
Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area
adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries
Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and
Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam
Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German
Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread
Factory and Electronic Complex are situated
adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-
deed Ex.P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and
also filed valuation report Ex.P/4.
69. Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner
of land bearing survey No.25/1/2. He has
purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a
consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. In para 4 of
his cross examination he has admitted that
he has not filed the sale deed. Even the
certified copy has not been filed hence the
statement of Rajendra is of no help.
70. Sale deed Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 of Village
Kumedi and Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 of Village
Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has
admitted in his cross examination that his
house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km.
away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away
from Village Kumedi. Though valuation report
Ex.P4 has been filed but valuer has not been
examined. As per Ex.P/4 the house has been
valued at Rs.6,83,250/-. Learned reference court
awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In our
opinion Rs.6,20,000/- would be just and fair
compensation.
71. F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09,
789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10,
384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10,
542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10,
554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have
been preferred by Chief Executive Authority,
I.D.A.
72. It is submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the reference court
is on the higher side. There is no evidence on
record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi,
Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the
industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies.
The learned reference court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and material on
record. It is further submitted that L.A.O.
has rightly assessed the market value in the
basis of Collector guidelines.
73. The learned senior counsel for the landowner,
on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O.
and the Reference Court have failed to award
just compensation.
74. In view of aforesaid discussion the submission
of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A.
Indore in F.A. No.754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09,
778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09,
790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10,
536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10,
551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10,
557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force.
Hence these appeals fails and hereby
dismissed.
75. F.A.No.901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09,
655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09,
763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10,
156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10,
161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10,
252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10,
145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the
claimant/landowners are partly allowed and
the cross-objections filed by the respondent
No.1 in F.A.No.384/2010 is hereby disposed
of. The impugned judgment therein modified
to the extent that the landowners of Village
Sukhalia whose land has been acquitted for
Scheme no. 139 of the I.D.A. for
construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of
village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim
compensation of irrigated land at the rate of
Rs.27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.18,58,666/- per hec.
Appellant of F.A.No.145/11 (Subhas Vs.
State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.) are
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
76. In addition appellants are also entitled for
other statutory compensation payable under
the Act which shall be worked out on the
basis of the rates determined by this court
alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the
Reference Court.
77. Counsel fees Rs.1000/- in each appeal to the
counsel for the appellants. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this
judgment be retained in all the connected
appeals."
For the reasons assigned therein, this appeal is
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.13/2014
06/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
In this Bunch of appeals, which are listed today, the
question involved is squarely covered by the decision of the
th
Division Bench rendered in FA No.901/2009 decided on 12
January, 2015.
68 to 77
For the reasons assigned therein disposed off these
appeals.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.788/2010
06/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Office is directed to delink this appeal from the
Bunch of these appeals and list it separately.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.820/2015
06/07/2015
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
None for respondent.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Special Judge be called for.
Heard on IA No.4755/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Shyambabu, who has
been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prohibition of
Corruption Act and sentenced to one year's imprisonment with
fine of Rs.5,000/- and one year's imprisonment with fine of
5,000/- with default clause respectively.
Learned Counsel for the appellant Shyambabu
submitted that jail sentence has been suspended by the learned
Trial Court till 17.08.2015 and prays that this application for
suspension of jail sentence be allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA
No.4755/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence is
allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant
Shyambabu is suspended subject to his depositing the fine
amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance
before this Court/Registry on 19.10.2015 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed for
final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.803/2015
06/07/2015
Shri M.I.Ansari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Special Judge be called for.
Heard on IA No.4669/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.1 Kamalsingh
Panwar, who has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1) read
with Section 13(2) of Bhrashtachar Nivaran Adhiniyam,1988 and
sentenced to two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/ with
default clause.
Learned Counsel for the appellant No.1 Kamalsingh
Panwar submitted that jail sentence has been suspended by the
learned Trial Court till 20.07.2015 and prays that this application
for suspension of jail sentence be allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA
No.4669/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence is
allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.1
Kamalsingh Panwar is suspended subject to his depositing the
fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his
appearance before this Court/Registry on 19.10.2015 and on all
other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
behalf.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed for
final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.12/2002
06/07/2015
Shri G.M.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant
prays for and is granted two weeks time to pay fresh process fee
to legal representatives of the deceased on their correct and
present address by fixation of summons.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.433/2015
06/07/2015
Shri N.S.Bhati, learned Counsel for the appellant.
As prayed by Shri N.S.Bhati, learned Counsel for the
appellant, further two weeks time is granted to argue on IA
No.4220/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.975/2011
06/07/2015
Shri G.S.Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.5015/2015, an application for taking
additional documents on record.
By the aforesaid application respondent has filed copy
of the order passed by the Apex Court in Cr.A.No.1744/2011 dated
12.03.2015 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR
registered against the family members of the respondent under
Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
The aforesaid document is taken on record and will be
considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.70/2013
06/07/2015
Smt. Rashmi Purohit, learned Counsel appears on
behalf of Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
As prayed by Smt. Rashmi Purohit, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list the matter on any Wednesday.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.1099/2013
06/07/2015
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned
Counsel for the appellant, list it along with WA No.1094/13, WA
No.1097/13, WA No.1098/13 and WA No.1100/13 on 08.07.2015
for analogous hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.1698/2013
06.07.2015
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State
Heard on IA No.1181/2015, an application for interim
custody of Hero Honda CD Delux motorcycle Engine
No.HA11EDB9K09603 and Chesis No.
MBLHA11EPB9K02722.
The aforesaid vehicle has been seized by the
respondent on the ground that in the aforesaid vehicle the present
appellant committed crime on 11.03.2012.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that after
investigation chargesheet has been filed and by the impugned
judgment the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of
the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.4,000/-. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that
in view of the decision in Sunderbhai v/s State of Gujrat,
reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the law laid down therein the
application for interim custody of the vehicle be allowed.
On due consideration of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and in view of the law laid down in Sunderbhai
(supra) the prayer for interim custody of the vehicle is hereby
allowed. The seized Hero Honda CD Delux motorcycle bearing
Engine No.HA11EDB9K09603 and Chesis No.
MBLHA11EPB9K02722 is directed to be released on interim
custody to the appellant upon his furnishing a bank guarantee to
the tune of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousands only) with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
JMFC/CJM on the following conditions:-
(i) That, the appellant shall produce the same
before the trial Court as and when directed to do
so and he will renew the Bank Guarantee from
time to time as per direction of the trial Court till
the matter is finally decided by the Court.
(ii) That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate
the vehicle or make use of vehicle for any unlawful
purpose; and
(iii)That, he shall not carry out any change in the
colour and outward appearance of the vehicle.
With the aforesaid, IA No.1181/2015 is allowed and
disposed of.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.472/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1/State.
Shri N.A.Sheikh, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Heard on IA No.2691/2014, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 48 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the cause
shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.2691/2014 stands allowed and
disposed off. Delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri
N.A.Sheikh, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2
therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) be issued to the respondent No.2 Jeevan to secure his
presence on 16.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.3701/2013
06/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, further four weeks time is granted to file
reply of IA No.2970/2013, an application for condonation of
delay.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
VATA No.3/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellant/State.
Heard on IA No.5007/2015, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice of IA No. IA No.5007/2015 to the
respondent on payment of process fee within a week. Notice be
made returnable within four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
VATA No.14/2014
06/07/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Office is directed to delink with VATA No.3/14 and
list it along with VATA No.3/13 for analogous hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.132/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the petitioner/State.
Service on IA No.3108/2014 is awaited. Learned Dy.
Advocate General is directed to supply the copy of this
application to Shri Sumeet Samvatsar,Advocate who marks his
presence on behalf of respondent in Writ Appeal No.140/2011.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.258/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the petitioner/State.
Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri D.Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents.
As prayed by the learned Counsel for the respondents,
list on 09.07.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.472/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1/State.
Shri N.A.Sheikh, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Heard on IA No.2691/2014, an application for
condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by 48 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the cause
shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.2691/2014 stands allowed and
disposed off. Delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri
N.A.Sheikh, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2
therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) be issued to the respondent No.2 Jeevan to secure his
presence on 16.11.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1183/2014
06/07/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the appellant/State.
Office to verify and submit the report whether in
compliance of the order dated 15.05.2015 fresh bailable warrant
has been issued to the respondent or not and list thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.352/2014
26/06/2015
Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1288/2015, a repeat/second
application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Imran, who has
been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and 7
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default clause respectively.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that
the earlier application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 10.11.2014. Prosecution case is depend on the
circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances are
incomplete. As per the prosecution evidence witness Gopal
had seen the deceased in the company of appellant and at that
time the appellant has introduced himself as Bhupendra S/o
Vallabhdas. However, before the Test Identification Parade
the Police has shown the photograph of the appellant to
Gopal. Therefore, there is no value of such Test Identification
Parade. For this purpose learned Counsel relied upon the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dana Yadav @
Dahuand @ others V/s. State of Bihar reported in AIR
2002 SC 3325. Learned Counsel for the appellant further
submitted that one of the circumstance is that on the date of
incident location of Mobile No.7489333595 was found at
Badnawar i.e. place of incident. Admittedly such SIM was
not allotted to the appellant whereas it was allotted to one
Jeenat and the prosecution has not produced any material to
connect the appellant with the SIM. Thus the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
appellant has a good case in appeal and the appeal will take
considerable time for final hearing. In such circumstances the
jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till pendency of
this appeal and he be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate
opposes the prayer. He submits that there is a complete chain
of circumstances against the appellant and he has failed to
give any explanation. The Trial Court has rightly convicted
the appellant. The case is based on the evidence of
independent witnesses and there is no reason for false
implication. In such circumstances, the application deserves
to be dismissed.
We have considered the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and gone through the record. Without
commenting on merits we are of the view that the appellant
has failed to make out a case for suspension of jail sentence,
thus the application is hereby dismissed.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed
for final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.382/2015
26/06/2015
Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1/plaintiff. He raised number of objections and prays for
time to file reply.
In reply Shri Lalwani, learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that in pursuance of the order passed by the
learned Trial Court execution proceeding has been started and
respondent No.1 is trying to dispossess the appellants, who are
defendants No.2 to 4.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff
Shri Satish Jain submits that mesne profit has been awarded to
the defendants and they are not depositing the same.
Considering the aforesaid, so far as partition
proceeding is concerned, let the same may be go on before the
Tehsildar but no final order be passed without leave of the
court. Subject to depositing mesne profit along with the cost of
the suit, the operation of Clause 4 of Para 65 of the impugned
judgment shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.716/2015
26/06/2015
Shri Hemant Purohit, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
one week's time to remove the defect as pointed out by the
office and do the needful.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.561/2006
26/06/2015
Shri S.C.Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for respondents.
Matter be placed before the Principal Registrar to
examine whether notice in compliance of order dated
06.04.2015 and 17.06.2015 have been issued or not?
Report be submitted within a week.
th
List in the week commencing 6 July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1392/2014
26/06/2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the appellant
No.2.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3934/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Bhagwan
Singh S/o Jujharsingh, who has been convicted under
Sections 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 and 148 of the IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/, 7
years' rigorous imprisonment, 1 year's rigorous imprisonment
and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Learned Counsel for the appellant No.2 submitted
that present appellant and co-accused Ratan Singh, Hakam
Singh and Padam Singh were armed with stick and inflicted
injuries to deceased Dhansingh. As per statement of PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7, the allegation against the applicant
and other co-accused is that they also caused injuries to the
deceased. As per postmortem report and the statement of
Autopsy Surgeon, deceased sustained only two injuries that
too by incised wound.
Considering aforesaid, by order dated 17.04.2015
this Court allowed the application of appellant No.1
Ratansingh, which reads as under :-
"Heard on IA No.2191/2015,
repeat application for suspension of jail
sentence on the ground of parity with co-
accused Hakam Singh and Padam Singh,
whose application for suspension of jail
sentence have been allowed by order dated
16.02.2015 and 24.02.2015 passed in
Cri.Appeal No.1527/2014.
His first application was
dismissed on the ground that he was
member of unlawful assembly and as per
statement of prosecution witnesses, he was
actively participated in the crime. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that
place of occurrence is house of co-accused
Nagu Singh. As per evidence of all the
material prosecution witnesses no overt act
has been attributed to the present
appellant. It is a case of free fight.
Appellant was standing at the place of
occurrence armed with stick, but he has
not caused any injury to any one. He
submits that from the appellant side four
persons have sustained injuries. They are
Nagu Singh, Shrawan Singh, Bhagwan
Singh and Suraj Singh. He also placed
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Parsuram Pandey & Ors.
v/s State of Bihar reported as 2004 (4)
Crimes 248 (SC) and submits that the
appellant No.1 though standing at the
place of occurrence armed with stick but
no overt act or role attributed to him,
which could point his common object to
kill deceased.
On due consideration of the
aforesaid and looking to the fact that case
of the present appellant is identical to
Hakam Singh, whose application for
suspension of jail sentence has been
allowed by order dated 16.02.2015 and
thereafter application for suspension of jail
sentence of Padam Singh has been allowed
on 24.02.2015, we are inclined to allow
this repeat application.
Considering these facts,
without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, on the ground of parity with
Hakam Singh, I.A. No.2191/2015, is
allowed and it is directed that upon
appellant's No.1 - Ratan Singh, depositing
the fine amount and on furnishing a bail
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court, the
substantive jail sentence of the appellant
No.1 Ratan Singh, shall remain suspended
till the final disposal of the appeal and he
shall appear before the Registry/Office of
this court on 18.8.2015 and all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
behalf."
It is further submitted that the application for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1
Ratansingh has been allowed by order dated 17.04.2015 and
present appellant is having complete parity with the aforesaid
co-accused and prays that this application for suspension of
jail sentence be allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer but very fairly conceded that the present appellant is
having complete parity with co-accused Ratansingh and as
per Ex.P/1 seizure memo lathi has been seized from the
possession of the present applicant.
Considering the fact that present appellant is
having complete parity with co-accused Ratan Singh, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA
No.3934/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence
is allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.2
Bhagwansingh S/o Jujharsingh is suspended subject to his
depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to
the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on
18.08.2015 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed
by the Registry in this behalf.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed
for final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.233/2015
25/06/2015
Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State on advance notice.
The appellant, who is working as Senior Auditor
at Rajgarh is aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2015
whereby he has been transferred from Rajgarh to Bhopal. He
was challenging his transfer order on the ground that same is
contrary to Clause No.8.10 of the transfer policy since the
appellant has only 11 months left for his retirement.
Learned Writ Court relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpi Bose V/s. State of
Bihar reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 dismissed the
Writ Petition by holding that the competent authority, who
has issued the transfer order did not violate legal right.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
appellant that at present appellant is not well and he is
suffering from fracture and therefore, on humanitarian ground
transfer order be stayed subject to filing of a representation
before the competent authority/respondent No.1 with a
direction that the same may be decided expeditiously, as early
as possible, till then he may be permitted to work in Rajgarh
because at present no one has joined in his place.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on
merits of the case, we direct the appellant to file a detailed
representation along with transfer policy before the
competent authority/respondent No.1 and if such
representation is filed, the same shall be decided within four
weeks from the date of receipt of representation. In the
meanwhile, for a period of four weeks impugned order shall
remain stayed, if appellant is not already relieved. With the
aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.233/2015 is disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MCC No.720/2014
25/06/2015
Shri Anand Pathak, learned Counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.1.
None for other non-applicants.
Heard on IA No.9563/2014, an application for
condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of
First Appeal No.1161/2009. The application is barred by 146
days.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant
No.1/defendant disputed the fact and submitted that the
application is barred by more than 200 days.
It is submitted that in compliance of order dated
15.12.2009 passed in First Appeal No.1161/2009 process fee
was paid but notice was sent on old address, therefore, notice
could not be served and on 21.01.2014 and by common
conditional peremptory order was passed and applicants were
directed to remove the defect within four weeks, failing
which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to
the court and vide office note dated 23.04.2014 in compliance
of peremptory order the appeal has been dismissed. He
further submitted that on 23.04.2014 applicants came to
know about the aforesaid order and thereafter immediately he
filed an application for condonation of delay on 17.10.2014.
The delay is bonafide and deserves to be condoned.
Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.1
vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay
and submitted that cause shown by the applicants is not
sufficient to condone the delay and prays for dismissal of the
restoration application.
On due consideration, we are of the view that the
cause shown by the applicants is sufficient to condone the
delay of 146 days in filing the present miscellaneous civil
case.
Accordingly, IA No.9563/2014 is allowed and the
delay of 146 days in filing the restoration application is
hereby condoned.
Office to list it for orders on the question of
restoration of First Appeal No.1161/2009 in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.242/2015
25/06/2015
Shri L.C.Patne, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Petitioner R.C.Khatediya, who has been working
as Tehsildar in Tehsil Hatod, District Indore is aggrieved by
his transfer order.
It is a case of frequent transfer. Appellant was
earlier transferred by an order dated 16.05.2011 from Dhar to
Dewas and by order dated 15.10.2013 from Dewas to Indore
and again by order dated 19.05.2015 he has been transferred
from District Indore to District Alirajpur.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that
it is not a case of frequent transfer, even while dismissing the
Writ Petition petitioner was granted liberty to submit a
representation to the respondent and thus no case for
interference, as prayed for is made out. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal No.242/2015 has no merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC.No.315/2015
25/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Hemandra Jain, learned Counsel for the
petitioner is directed to supply copy of this Contempt Petition to
the respondent so that he may seek instructions in the matter.
List after a week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.231/2015
25/06/2015
As prayed by Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for
the appellant, list immediately after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.678/2014
25/06/2015
None for the appellant. Even in the second round.
Since Counsel for the appellant is absent, therefore,
the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.5108/2015
25/06/2015
None for the applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State on advance notice.
Since Counsel for the applicant is absent, therefore,
the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.752/2015
25/06/2015
None for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State on advance notice.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, therefore, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondent.
Office to list for final hearing in due course.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.570/2015
25/06/2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the petitioner, list
along with Cr.R.No.566/2015 and Cr.R.No.571/2015 for
analogous hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.235/2014
25/06/2015
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Counsel for the
applicant/State.
Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.
He prays for and is granted two weeks time to take instructions to
mark his presence on behalf of Shri Surendra Singh Rajawat,
Additional Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
RP No.278/2014
25/06/2015
Petitioner/Shri Dilip Borade, who is present in person,
prays for and is granted one week's time to pay fresh process fee
with correct and present address of respondent No.1.
Let notice of petition be issued to the respondent
No.1 on his correct and present address by registered A.D. as
well as by ordinary mode on payment of fresh process fee
within a week, returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
RP No.298/2014
25/06/2015
None for the appellant.
Perused the record.
IA No.2294/2015, an application for substituting
service. No affidavit in support of the application is filed.
We grant four weeks' time to file an affidavit in support of
the application.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
I.T.A.No.45/2014
25/06/2015
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant
prays for and is granted one week's time to pay process fee with
correct address for issuing Hamdast notice of the appeal to the
respondent.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.324/2014
25/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellant is directed to supply copy of application
for substitution of legal representatives of respondent No.2,
application for condonation of delay and application for stay to
Shri S.Joshi, Counsel for the Indore Development Authority, so
that he may seek instructions and file reply, if any, to the
application filed by the appellants for bringing legal
representatives of respondent No.2.
Office to place all the IAs and fix the case for orders
th
on all the three IAs in the week commencing 10 August, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
I.T.A.No.45/2014
25/06/2015
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant
prays for and is granted one week's time to pay process fee with
correct address for issuing Hamdast notice of the appeal to the
respondent.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
I.T.A.No.65/2014
25/06/2015
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Anand Prabhavalkar, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Respondent is representing through his Counsel,
therefore, no further order is required.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.1056/2013
24/06/2015
Shri Narendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri D.M.Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Order dated 11.11.2013 has been affirmed by order dated
06.02.2014 and, therefore, no further order on IA No.6060/2013 is
required.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that
in view of the stay order, proceeding of arbitration has been held up.
Considering the aforesaid and looking to the controversy
involved in the present First Appeal, list for final hearing under
caption "Civil-High Court Expedited Cases-Civil ".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.66/2014
25/06/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3.
Since Counsel for the appellant is absent, therefore,
the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
I.T.A.No.66/2014
25/06/2015
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Respondent is representing through his Counsel,
therefore, no further order is required.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.69/2014
25/06/2015
Shri R.D.Sonvane, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rishabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.3/State.
As per office report, notice sent to respondent No.2
Chandabai returned unserved.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for
and is granted four weeks time to seek instructions on behalf of
respondent No.1.
Office is directed to list it for orders on IA
No.941/2014, an application for condonation of delay.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
I.T.A.No.71/2014
25/06/2015
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Respondent is representing through his Counsel,
therefore, no further order is required.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.534/2014
25/06/2015
Shri R.R.Batham, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Rukmini Dhangar, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.9825/2014, an application for
condonation of delay.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the cause
shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.9825/2014 stands allowed and
disposed off. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Smt. Rukmini Dhangar, learned Counsel accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent, therefore, no notice is required
to be issued to the respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
Shri R.R.Batham, learned Counsel for the appellant is
directed to supply copy of memo of appeal to the respondent
within a week from today.
List for final hearing in due course.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.572/2014
29/06/2015
Shri R.D.Sonvane, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent No.2/State.
Heard on IA No.4327/2014, an application for
grant of temporary injunction.
As per finding recorded by the learned Trial Court
in para 24 appellant/plaintiff failed to prove his possession
over the land in question and therefore, no case for temporary
injunction is made out. IA No.4327/2014 is accordingly
rejected.
Let notice of appeal be issued to the respondent
No.1 on her correct and present address by registered A.D. as
well as by ordinary mode on payment of process fee within a
week, returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.659/2014
25/06/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
Shri R.K.Pandagre, learned Counsel accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent, therefore, no notice is required to be
issued to the respondent.
Shri R.K.Pandagre, learned Counsel for the
respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply
of IA No.4214/2014, an application for condonation of delay and
IA No.4215/2014, an application for grant of stay.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.375/2009
24/06/2015
Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that
against adverse remark a detailed representation was made to the
competent authority/respondent No.1. The competent authority
by order dated 03.01.2007 rejected the representation without
considering the ground raised therein and learned Single Judge
upheld the said order in violation of the principle of natural
justice and prays that the impugned order be set aside and Writ
Appeal filed by the appellant be allowed.
It is not in dispute that against the adverse remark a
representation was made by the petitioner which was rejected by
order dated 03.01.2007 on the ground that the appellant did not
fill the Attendance Register of Post Graduate Classes after
November and did not complete allotted course for P.G. students.
He made no special efforts for brilliant students and for students
of poor performance. The explanation offered to by the appellant
was found to be not correct. Considering the aforesaid, learned
Single Judge has held that there is no illegality so as to invoke
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and dismissed the Writ Petition.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, and the reasons
assigned in the order dated 03.01.2007, we are of the view that
learned Writ Court has not erred in dismissing the Writ Petition,
therefore, no case for interference, as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal No.375/2009 has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.160/2011
24/06/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the appellants/State.
None for the respondent.
As per service report, notice has been duly served to
Hemsingh, respondent No.1(a) legal heir of sole respondent
Ramprasad and Uprasingh, respondent No.1(b) legal heir of sole
respondent Ramprasad has been reported to be expired.
IA No.9470/2014, an application for bringing legal
heirs of sole respondent on record, IA No.9471/2014, an
application for setting aside abatement and IA No.9472/2014, an
application for condonation of delay.
Learned Counsel for the appellants/State submits that
on 29.09.2014 for the first time Officer-in-charge of the case
came to know about the death of sole respondent Ramprasad and,
therefore, he could not file an application for bringing legal
representatives of the sole respondent on record within a period
of 90 days. This fact is supported by the affidavit.
Because sufficient reasons are assigned to condone
the delay and setting aside the abatement, accordingly IA
No.9472/2014 and IA No.9471/2014 are allowed. Consequently
prayer for bring legal representatives on record is also allowed.
IA No.9470/2014 stands allowed and disposed off.
Necessary corrections in the cause title be carried out within a
week from today.
th
List in the week commencing 13 July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.283/2003
24/06/2015
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Amit Purohit, Counsel for the appellants.
Shri M.K.Jain, learned Counsel for the legal heirs of
respondent No.1.
Heard on IA No.2960/2015, an application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants' suit for specific performance of contract has been
dismissed and counter claim filed by respondent No.1 for eviction
under Section 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act has
been decreed against the appellants. Now the legal representatives
of respondent No.1 are trying to break the wall and, therefore,
during pendency of this appeal status quo in respect of suit house
as it exists today shall be maintained.
Counsel for the respondent No.1 denied the aforesaid
allegation but very fairly admitted that eviction part of the decree
has been stayed. It is also submitted that on the basis of
agreement forged sale-deed has been executed in respect of the
suit house and a criminal case has been registered against the
present appellant, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we direct the
parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit house in
question during pendency of the appeal.
With the aforesaid, IA No.2960/2015 stands disposed
off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.972/2009
24/06/2015
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Patel, learned Counsel for respondent.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the parties, we are
appointing Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, Advocate as mediator to explore the
possibility of settlement between the parties. Parties are directed
to appear before the learned mediator on 25.08.2015 and
thereafter the mediator shall submit a detailed report within a
period of three months thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.972/2009
24/06/2015
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Patel, learned Counsel for respondent.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the parties, we are
appointing Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, Advocate as mediator to explore the
possibility of settlement between the parties. Parties are directed
to appear before the learned mediator on 25.08.2015 and
thereafter the mediator shall submit a detailed report within a
period of three months thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1041/2009
24/06/2015
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
respondent/State.
As prayed by Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy.
Advocate General for respondent/State, two weeks time is
granted to file reply of IA No.3006/2015, an application for
permanent exemption of the appellant from appearance.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.53/2010
24/06/2015
Shri Rohit Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
respondent/State.
As prayed by Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy.
Advocate General for respondent/State, 15 days time is granted to
file reply of IA No.3227/2015 and IA No.3229/2015.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
ITA No.70/2010
24/06/2015
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for appellant.
IA No.3699/2014, an application for leave to file
certain documents will be considered at the time of hearing of the
appeal.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.117/2010
24/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
appellant/State.
Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
As prayed by Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned Counsel
for the respondent, list after two weeks for orders on IA
No.5948/2013.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.690/2010
24/06/2015
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for appellant.
As per office report, notice has been served, therefore,
no further order is required.
List the appeal in due course.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.699/2010
24/06/2015
None for appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Perused the PUD dated 03.02.2015.
Considering the fact that appellant has completed
only 5½ years of jail sentence, whereas conviction is under
Section 302 of the IPC, we are of the view that no case for out of
turn hearing as prayed for is made out.
With the aforesaid, PUD stands closed and disposed
off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.837/2010
24/06/2015
None for appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Perused the PUD dated 19.03.2015.
Appellant is permitted to change his Counsel as per
High Court rules.
With the aforesaid, PUD stands closed and disposed
off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.928/2010
24/06/2015
Smt. Swati Ukhale, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri T.K.Modi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
As prayed, two weeks time is granted to file reply of
IA No.3560/2015, an application for grant of interim maintenance
and litigation expenses. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
T.R.No.3/2011
24/06/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the applicant/State.
None for non-applicant though served.
Office is directed to process the matter for final
hearing under caption "Civil - Taxation Expedited Cases ".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C. No.4774 of 2015
22/06/2015
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
THIS Petition is filed under Section 378 (4) of
Cr.P.C. Seeking leave to file an appeal against the Cr.P.C.
against the judgment passed by JMFC Khategaon, District
Dewas in Criminal Case No.518/2010 on 13/04/2015 by
which Non-applicants have been acquitted from the charge
under Section 420 of IPC.
[2] Facts of this case in brief are that the
applicant/complainant filed a complaint stating that he is an
agriculturist and Non-applicant No.1 is a dealer of Eicher
Tractor; whereas Non-applicant No.2 deals in trolley and
agricultural equipments. Applicant contacted with Non-
applicant No.1 for purchasing the tractor. The Non-
applicant No.1 assured him that he will arranged loan for
purchasing the tractor from the Bank and provide trolley,
cultivator, plow and thrasher machine along with Tractor
free of cost. On this assurance applicant purchased the
Tractor from the Non-applicant No.1. At the time of delivery
of Tractor the Non-applicant No.1 told that after 4-5 days,
Non-applicant No.1 will provide him other equipments.
Thereafter Applicant many time approached the Non-
applicants but they declined to provide other equipments.
Therefore, the applicant filed a complaint against the Non-
applicants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khategaon.
[3] Learned Magistrate after making the enquiry
registered a case against the Non-applicants for the offence
under Section 420 of IPC. The Non-applicants were tried for
the offence 420 of IPC. After taking the evidence, learned
Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that Applicant has failed
to prove the charge against the Non-applicants, thus
acquitted the Non-applicants. Therefore,the applicant has
filed this petition seeking leave to file an appeal against the
order of acquittal.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the Applicant had proved from the oral and documentary
evidence that the Non-applicants dishonestly induced the
applicant, that on purchasing the tractor from the Non-
applicant No.1, he will provide trolley, cultivator, plow and
thrasher machine without taking extra charge. But he failed
to full fill his promise. Learned Magistrate has not properly
appreciated the evidence and acquitted the Non-applicants
from the charge of cheating.
[5] Having considered the submissions on behalf of
learned counsel for the applicant, we have gone through the
impugned judgment. The main ingredients of the offence of
cheating is fraudulently or dishonestly inducement on the
part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a
subsequent stage. In the present case, the applicant has not
produced any evidence that from very inception, the
intention of Non-applicants was dishonest. The applicant in
his deposition admitted that he has already obtained the
tractor and trolley and Non-applicant No.2 has not
promised to provide any equipments. The evidence of
applicant is full of contradictions and unnatural. In such
circumstances, it is not proved that the Non-applicants have
cheated the applicant. The trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence and reached to the correct
conclusion.
[6] Accordingly, the petition for grant of leave to
appeal against the acquittal of Non-applicants is liable to be
dismissed.
Thus, the petition is hereby dismissed.
[P.K.Jaiswal] [Jarat Kumar Jain]
JUDGE JUDGE
Akhilesh
M.Cr.C.No.4980/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
Heard on IA No.4409/2015, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice to the non-applicant on payment of
process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within six
weeks. In the meanwhile, record of the trial court be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.192/2015
19/06/2015
As prayed by Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for
the appellant, list after 10 days.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.220/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Avtar Singh, appellant No.1 present in person.
List along with WA No.171/2015 which has been
filed by Smt. Surendra Kaur wife of Shri Tara Singh on
22.06.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC. No.321/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Praveen Pal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the proposed contemners.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that order
dated 13.10.2014 passed in CONC No.697/2014 has not been
complied with.
Considering the aforesaid, we direct Shri Pushyamitra
Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General to take instructions in
this matter within a period of two weeks from today. List
thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.488/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Rizwan Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 on caveat.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/caveator
has submitted that today only he has received copy of First
Appeal.
As prayed, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.520/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission and IA No.
4488/2015 .
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be requisitioned.
Let notice against admission and IA No. 4488/2015
be issued to the respondents by registered A.D. as well as by
ordinary mode on payment of process fee within a week. Notice
be made returnable within two weeks.
List immediately after service of notice to the other
side.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.524/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Aviral Vikas, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be requisitioned.
Let notice be issued to the respondent by registered
A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of process fee
within a week. Notice be made returnable within eight weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3653/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2 on advance notice.
Copy of this Writ Petition be supplied to Shri
Prasanna Prasad, who ordinarily appears on behalf of respondent
No.3 Central Excise Department within three days from today.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.720/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission,
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial court be requisitioned.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State accepts notice on behalf of the respondent,
therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.5000/2015
19/06/2015
Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel along with
shri Dharmendra Khanchandani, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a
criminal case was registered against the applicant in the year
2013, but till today no reply has been filed and because of
registration of criminal case he has been suspended by the
department.
Considering aforesaid, we direct the respondent to file
a specific affidavit regarding filing of challan before the
appropriate Bench.
th
List on 6 July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P. No.2073/2015
19.06.2015
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The petitioner is a registered contractor. It is alleged that after
lapse of months respondents have not finalized the final bill of the
petitioner for want of Royalty Clearance Certificate as per terms and
conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and
Department.
3. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this
Court as well as at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in various cases,
including the cases of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore &
Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, M.P.
Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v/s. Abrar
Construction Company & Ors., 2005 Arb. WLJ 379
(MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v/s. State of M.P. 2007 (3)
M.P.H.T. 433 (D.B.) and Tomar Construction Company
v/s. State of M.P. & Ors. 2008 (2) M.P.L.J 40 and
recently in Writ Appeal No.357/2012 (M/s. Arpit Heights
(P) Ltd. v/s. Indore Development Authority) decided
on 18.03.2013, the insistence of the respondents for production
of the Royalty Clearance Certificate is illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), this Court allowed the writ
petition by directing the following:-
"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, in
our considered view, the learned Single Judge has
committed error in dismissing the writ petition on the
basis of the aforesaid clause which runs contrary to
the statutory provisions because the Collector can
issue certificate with regard to payment of royalty
only, if the royalty is payable by the contractor. If the
contractor has purchased the material from a supplier
and the supplier has purchased the material from the
mine owner, who has extracted the mineral from a
place which is not known to the contractor, the
contractor cannot be expected to run from pillar to
post finding out of source of extraction and the
mineral consumed by him and then produce the
certificate. This condition seems to be impracticable
and inconsistent to the statutory provision.
12.Having regard to the aforesaid, we allow this writ
appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal by issuing
the following directions, akin to the directions issued
in the case of Tomar Construction Company (Supra),
which will safeguard and take care of the interest of
the petitioner as also of the respondents:-
(1) The State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent shall clear the
bills of the petitioner submitted in
connection with execution of the contract in
question without insisting upon producing
no dues certificate from the Collector or any
other authority with regard to payment of
royalty for the minerals consumed.
However, the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent can insist upon
production of bills with regards to purchase
of mineral and in case the bill is not
available, an affidavit indicating the
manner in which and the place or source
from where the mineral is purchased. This
affidavit can be used by the State
Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent for verification and for taking
further action for clearing the bills.
(2) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered
from the bills of the petitioner, shall be
refunded to the petitioner on the petitioner
M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s.
State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, filing the
bill or the affidavit as indicated herein-
above. In case, the petitioner is unable to
produce the bill or the affidavit as indicated
herein-above, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to represent the matter before the
State Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent pointing out the inability in
producing the bills or the affidavit and it
would be for the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent to consider the
representation and take such steps as may
be permissible or proper for clearing the
bills in the given set of circumstances, as
may be indicated by the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended
provisions of Rule-68 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996(in short
"Rules of 1996") will be applicable to quarry permit
holder/contractor as defined in the Rules of 1996. He submits that
Contractor means a person or firm that undertakes a contract to
provide materials or labour to perform a service or do a job. He
submitted that the present petitioner is neither have quarry lease or
quarry permit nor through auction any trade quarry contract has
been awarded by the Collector for lifting of minor mineral and,
therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), and M.P. Contractors
Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ
743, no Royalty Clearance Certificate is required and submitted
that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the order passed in
M/s Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra).
6. In reply, learned Govt. Advocate submits that in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State
Government amended the M.P. Minor Mineral Rule, 1996 w.e.f. 23rd
March, 2013 and as per 3rd proviso of sub-rules (1) of Rule 68, the
Contractor engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of
no mining dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work for the mineral excavated from quarry permit area
or used by purchasing from open market. Certificate of no mining
dues shall be issued by Mining Officer/officer in-charge of mining
section, after verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in construction work."
7. He submits that earlier there was no provision in the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 nor any provision in the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and, therefore, the
respondent cannot be conferred authority to obtain the royalty
clearance certificate from the mining department/officer in-charge of
the mining section, but after amendment dated 23/03/2013 all the
contractors who are using the mineral in construction work are
required to furnish Royalty Clearance Certificate before finalization
of their bill as per terms of the contract and submitted that the writ
petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Amended Rule 68 of Rules of 1996 dated 23.03.2015 reads as
under:-
26. In rule, 68 -
(1)In the heading for the words "permission for
removal of minor minerals for Central and
State Governments and their undertakings" the
words "permission for removal of minor
minerals" shall be substituted.
(2)After sub-rule (1), the following provisos
shall be inserted, namely :-
"Provided that information of in-principle
sanction of permit shall be given to the
applicant. Applicant shall furnish permission
from the District level environment committee,
within one month maximum, from the date of
receipt of such information :
Provided further that if in-principle sanction is
for five hectare or more area, then applicant
from the date of receipt of such information,
shall submit environment permission obtained
under notification dated 14.09.2009 of Ministry
of Environment and Forest with in period of six
months. After completion of all formalities
sanctioning authority shall issue sanction order
of quarry permit. Sanctioning authority may
permit to enhance the time period, if all
formalities are not completed in prescribed time
period, on the basis of satisfactory reasons:
Provided also that quarry permit
holder/contractor engaged in construction
work shall obtain certificate of no mining dues
to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral
used in construction work, for the mineral
excavated from quarry permit area or used by
purchasing from open market. Certificate of no
mining dues shall be issued by Mining
officer/officer in-charge mining section, after
verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in
construction work."
9. The State Government, in order to check the pilferage of
mineral and evasion of Royalties, amended Rule 68 M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996. By virtue of these amendment, the
petitioner/contractor are required to submit Royalty Clearance
Certificate before passing their bills. Under Rule 68 of the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, it is incumbent that the contractor
engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of no mining
dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work, for the mineral excavated from quarry permit
area or used by purchasing from open market. Thus, it is incumbent
to the petitioner to obtain certificate and for that they have to
maintain the correct accounts showing the quantity and other
particulars of all minerals obtained and purchased from the mine
owner or from the open market and the same can be examined by the
Mining Officer/Officer in-charge of mining.
10. In order to ask for information regarding accounts showing the
quantity despatched and royalty paid, the State Government can ask
for such information and in order to regulate that proper accounts is
maintained and proper despatch register is maintained for that
purpose, this power has been conferred on the State Government.
Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner/contractor is required to
obtain no mining dues certificate under Rule 68 of M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996 and, thus, no direction, as prayed in this writ
petition can be granted.
11. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1184/2009
19/06/2015
Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the appellant
No.1.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1509/2015.
This is Second/repeat application for suspension of
jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.1Sikandar. This
application was decided on merit by order dated 18.03.2014.
Order dated 18.03.2014 read as under :-
"Heard on I.A.No.1500/14, an
application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Learned counsel submits that the main
eye-witness Prakash has not been deposed
against the appellant Sikandar. Other eye-
witnesses Asif Khan and Farooq are closed
relative and Fulchand is a friend of deceased.
Their presence at the scene of occurrence is
doubtful. No motive of the crime has been
proved by the prosecution. The pistol used in
the incident was not recovered. In the
circumstance, the trial Court wrongly placed
reliance on evidence of the eye-witnesses. The
appellant has a good case. He has also suffered
jail sentence for more than 6 years and he is
ready to furnish surety as per order of the
Hon'ble Court. Therefore, he be released on
bail till pendency of the appeal.
Refuted the argument Learned Panel
Lawyer submits that the evidence of eye-
witness Ashif Khan, Farooq and Fulchand is
natural and convincing. Their evidence is
further corroborated by the medical evidence.
The Learned ASJ has closely scrutinized their
evidence. The Pistal was not recovered on this
count the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be
washout. Apart from this the application of co-
accused Mubarik has been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Court on 17/02/2014. The case of
appellant Sikandar is on same footing,
therefore the application be dismissed.
We have gone through the evidence and
impugned Judgment. The Learned ASJ has
answered all the pleas which were taken before
us. The reason assigned by him are not
perverse. There is direct evidence against the
appellant. Thus, there is no case made out for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
We make it clear that the observation
made in this order shall not come in way while
deciding the appeal on merit.
Thus, the application is hereby
dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid, there is no change in the
circumstances except that appellant No.1 is in jail and has
completed more than 8 years of jail sentence.
Considering aforesaid, we direct the office to prepare
the paper book urgently and thereafter the appeal be listed for
final hearing under caption "Criminal - High Court Expedited
Cases - (Criminal)".
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.911/2011
19/06/2015
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel appears
on behalf of Shri Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
As prayed, list after a week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.951/2015
18/06/2015
Shri N.S.Bhati, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Dixit, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
By this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging
the jurisdiction of the Private Arbitration Tribunal on the
ground that in view of the provisions of M.P. Madhyashtam
Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
decide the dispute between the parties.
In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent submits
that during pendency of this Writ Petition award has been
th
passed by the learned Tribunal on 14 June, 2015. The
petitioner is having jurisdiction to challenge the award by filing
an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition has been
rendered infructuous. The petitioner can challenge the award in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as
having rendered infructuous.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.840/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Shyam Singh Tanwar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4/State.
Smt. Anita Sharma, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2.
None for respondent No.5 though served.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 4, we grant further four weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.957/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Manoj Verma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondents/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Writ Petition is admitted for final hearing.
As prayed, 10 weeks time is granted to file return.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1146/2015
18/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted three weeks time to file rejoinder to the return filed by
the respondent.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1323/2015
18/06/2015
Shri A.K.Chitle, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Bharat Chitle, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5.
We direct learned Counsel for the petitioner to supply
copy of the petition with documents to Shri Prasanna Prasad, who
ordinarily appears on behalf of respondent No.8.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the respondents,
further four weeks time is granted to file reply.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
List after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1417/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Jery Lopez, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents.
Reply is awaited.
As prayed, further four weeks time is granted to
file reply. List thereafter for admission as well as IA
No.1552/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1675/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Abhay Kumar Chopra is present in person.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 to 4.
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5.
As prayed, further four weeks time is granted to
file reply. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1702/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Swati Mehta, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Smt. Swati Mehta, Advocate who appears on
behalf of Railway Board has submitted that Union of India
has filed their reply before the Central Administrative
Tribunal which is at Page No.71 (Ex.P/2).
In view of the aforesaid, no reply is necessary.
As prayed by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2096/2015
18/06/2015
Shri T.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel along with
Ms. Hemlata Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.4 and 5.
As prayed by Shri Anand Agrawal, learned
Counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 further 10 days time
is granted to file reply, failing which Commissioner, Indore
Municipal Corporation, Indore shall remain present on the
next date of hearing with record.
List on 09.07.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.513/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.4419/2015.
Let notice of IA No.4419/2015 be issued to the
respondent by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on
payment of process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P. No.3285/2015
18.06.2015
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1 on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The petitioner is a registered contractor. It is alleged that after
lapse of months respondents have not finalized the final bill of the
petitioner for want of Royalty Clearance Certificate as per terms and
conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and
Department.
3. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this
Court as well as at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in various cases,
including the cases of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore &
Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, M.P.
Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v/s. Abrar
Construction Company & Ors., 2005 Arb. WLJ 379
(MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v/s. State of M.P. 2007 (3)
M.P.H.T. 433 (D.B.) and Tomar Construction Company
v/s. State of M.P. & Ors. 2008 (2) M.P.L.J 40 and
recently in Writ Appeal No.357/2012 (M/s. Arpit Heights
(P) Ltd. v/s. Indore Development Authority) decided
on 18.03.2013, the insistence of the respondents for production
of the Royalty Clearance Certificate is illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), this Court allowed the writ
petition by directing the following:-
"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, in
our considered view, the learned Single Judge has
committed error in dismissing the writ petition on the
basis of the aforesaid clause which runs contrary to
the statutory provisions because the Collector can
issue certificate with regard to payment of royalty
only, if the royalty is payable by the contractor. If the
contractor has purchased the material from a supplier
and the supplier has purchased the material from the
mine owner, who has extracted the mineral from a
place which is not known to the contractor, the
contractor cannot be expected to run from pillar to
post finding out of source of extraction and the
mineral consumed by him and then produce the
certificate. This condition seems to be impracticable
and inconsistent to the statutory provision.
13.Having regard to the aforesaid, we allow this writ
appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal by issuing
the following directions, akin to the directions issued
in the case of Tomar Construction Company (Supra),
which will safeguard and take care of the interest of
the petitioner as also of the respondents:-
(1) The State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent shall clear the
bills of the petitioner submitted in
connection with execution of the contract in
question without insisting upon producing
no dues certificate from the Collector or any
other authority with regard to payment of
royalty for the minerals consumed.
However, the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent can insist upon
production of bills with regards to purchase
of mineral and in case the bill is not
available, an affidavit indicating the
manner in which and the place or source
from where the mineral is purchased. This
affidavit can be used by the State
Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent for verification and for taking
further action for clearing the bills.
(2) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered
from the bills of the petitioner, shall be
refunded to the petitioner on the petitioner
M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s.
State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, filing the
bill or the affidavit as indicated herein-
above. In case, the petitioner is unable to
produce the bill or the affidavit as indicated
herein-above, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to represent the matter before the
State Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent pointing out the inability in
producing the bills or the affidavit and it
would be for the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent to consider the
representation and take such steps as may
be permissible or proper for clearing the
bills in the given set of circumstances, as
may be indicated by the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended
provisions of Rule-68 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996(in short
"Rules of 1996") will be applicable to quarry permit
holder/contractor as defined in the Rules of 1996. He submits that
Contractor means a person or firm that undertakes a contract to
provide materials or labour to perform a service or do a job. He
submitted that the present petitioner is neither have quarry lease or
quarry permit nor through auction any trade quarry contract has
been awarded by the Collector for lifting of minor mineral and,
therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), and M.P. Contractors
Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ
743, no Royalty Clearance Certificate is required and submitted
that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the order passed in
M/s Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra).
6. In reply, learned Govt. Advocate submits that in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State
Government amended the M.P. Minor Mineral Rule, 1996 w.e.f. 23rd
March, 2013 and as per 3rd proviso of sub-rules (1) of Rule 68, the
Contractor engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of
no mining dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work for the mineral excavated from quarry permit area
or used by purchasing from open market. Certificate of no mining
dues shall be issued by Mining Officer/officer in-charge of mining
section, after verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in construction work."
7. He submits that earlier there was no provision in the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 nor any provision in the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and, therefore, the
respondent cannot be conferred authority to obtain the royalty
clearance certificate from the mining department/officer in-charge of
the mining section, but after amendment dated 23/03/2013 all the
contractors who are using the mineral in construction work are
required to furnish Royalty Clearance Certificate before finalization
of their bill as per terms of the contract and submitted that the writ
petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Amended Rule 68 of Rules of 1996 dated 23.03.2015 reads as
under:-
26. In rule, 68 -
(1)In the heading for the words "permission for
removal of minor minerals for Central and
State Governments and their undertakings" the
words "permission for removal of minor
minerals" shall be substituted.
(2)After sub-rule (1), the following provisos
shall be inserted, namely :-
"Provided that information of in-principle
sanction of permit shall be given to the
applicant. Applicant shall furnish permission
from the District level environment committee,
within one month maximum, from the date of
receipt of such information :
Provided further that if in-principle sanction is
for five hectare or more area, then applicant
from the date of receipt of such information,
shall submit environment permission obtained
under notification dated 14.09.2009 of Ministry
of Environment and Forest with in period of six
months. After completion of all formalities
sanctioning authority shall issue sanction order
of quarry permit. Sanctioning authority may
permit to enhance the time period, if all
formalities are not completed in prescribed time
period, on the basis of satisfactory reasons:
Provided also that quarry permit
holder/contractor engaged in construction
work shall obtain certificate of no mining dues
to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral
used in construction work, for the mineral
excavated from quarry permit area or used by
purchasing from open market. Certificate of no
mining dues shall be issued by Mining
officer/officer in-charge mining section, after
verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in
construction work."
9. The State Government, in order to check the pilferage of
mineral and evasion of Royalties, amended Rule 68 M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996. By virtue of these amendment, the
petitioner/contractor are required to submit Royalty Clearance
Certificate before passing their bills. Under Rule 68 of the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, it is incumbent that the contractor
engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of no mining
dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work, for the mineral excavated from quarry permit
area or used by purchasing from open market. Thus, it is incumbent
to the petitioner to obtain certificate and for that they have to
maintain the correct accounts showing the quantity and other
particulars of all minerals obtained and purchased from the mine
owner or from the open market and the same can be examined by the
Mining Officer/Officer in-charge of mining.
10. In order to ask for information regarding accounts showing the
quantity despatched and royalty paid, the State Government can ask
for such information and in order to regulate that proper accounts is
maintained and proper despatch register is maintained for that
purpose, this power has been conferred on the State Government.
Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner/contractor is required to
obtain no mining dues certificate under Rule 68 of M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996 and, thus, no direction, as prayed in this writ
petition can be granted.
11. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P. No.3282/2015
18.06.2015
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.1 on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The petitioner is a registered contractor. It is alleged that after
lapse of months respondents have not finalized the final bill of the
petitioner for want of Royalty Clearance Certificate as per terms and
conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and
Department.
3. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this
Court as well as at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in various cases,
including the cases of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore &
Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, M.P.
Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v/s. Abrar
Construction Company & Ors., 2005 Arb. WLJ 379
(MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v/s. State of M.P. 2007 (3)
M.P.H.T. 433 (D.B.) and Tomar Construction Company
v/s. State of M.P. & Ors. 2008 (2) M.P.L.J 40 and
recently in Writ Appeal No.357/2012 (M/s. Arpit Heights
(P) Ltd. v/s. Indore Development Authority) decided
on 18.03.2013, the insistence of the respondents for production
of the Royalty Clearance Certificate is illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), this Court allowed the writ
petition by directing the following:-
"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, in
our considered view, the learned Single Judge has
committed error in dismissing the writ petition on the
basis of the aforesaid clause which runs contrary to
the statutory provisions because the Collector can
issue certificate with regard to payment of royalty
only, if the royalty is payable by the contractor. If the
contractor has purchased the material from a supplier
and the supplier has purchased the material from the
mine owner, who has extracted the mineral from a
place which is not known to the contractor, the
contractor cannot be expected to run from pillar to
post finding out of source of extraction and the
mineral consumed by him and then produce the
certificate. This condition seems to be impracticable
and inconsistent to the statutory provision.
14.Having regard to the aforesaid, we allow this writ
appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal by issuing
the following directions, akin to the directions issued
in the case of Tomar Construction Company (Supra),
which will safeguard and take care of the interest of
the petitioner as also of the respondents:-
(1) The State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent shall clear the
bills of the petitioner submitted in
connection with execution of the contract in
question without insisting upon producing
no dues certificate from the Collector or any
other authority with regard to payment of
royalty for the minerals consumed.
However, the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent can insist upon
production of bills with regards to purchase
of mineral and in case the bill is not
available, an affidavit indicating the
manner in which and the place or source
from where the mineral is purchased. This
affidavit can be used by the State
Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent for verification and for taking
further action for clearing the bills.
(2) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered
from the bills of the petitioner, shall be
refunded to the petitioner on the petitioner
M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s.
State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, filing the
bill or the affidavit as indicated herein-
above. In case, the petitioner is unable to
produce the bill or the affidavit as indicated
herein-above, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to represent the matter before the
State Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent pointing out the inability in
producing the bills or the affidavit and it
would be for the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent to consider the
representation and take such steps as may
be permissible or proper for clearing the
bills in the given set of circumstances, as
may be indicated by the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended
provisions of Rule-68 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996(in short
"Rules of 1996") will be applicable to quarry permit
holder/contractor as defined in the Rules of 1996. He submits that
Contractor means a person or firm that undertakes a contract to
provide materials or labour to perform a service or do a job. He
submitted that the present petitioner is neither have quarry lease or
quarry permit nor through auction any trade quarry contract has
been awarded by the Collector for lifting of minor mineral and,
therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), and M.P. Contractors
Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ
743, no Royalty Clearance Certificate is required and submitted
that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the order passed in
M/s Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra).
6. In reply, learned Govt. Advocate submits that in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State
Government amended the M.P. Minor Mineral Rule, 1996 w.e.f. 23rd
March, 2013 and as per 3rd proviso of sub-rules (1) of Rule 68, the
Contractor engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of
no mining dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work for the mineral excavated from quarry permit area
or used by purchasing from open market. Certificate of no mining
dues shall be issued by Mining Officer/officer in-charge of mining
section, after verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in construction work."
7. She submits that earlier there was no provision in the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 nor any provision in the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and, therefore, the
respondent cannot be conferred authority to obtain the royalty
clearance certificate from the mining department/officer in-charge of
the mining section, but after amendment dated 23/03/2013 all the
contractors who are using the mineral in construction work are
required to furnish Royalty Clearance Certificate before finalization
of their bill as per terms of the contract and submitted that the writ
petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Amended Rule 68 of Rules of 1996 dated 23.03.2015 reads as
under:-
26. In rule, 68 -
(1)In the heading for the words "permission for
removal of minor minerals for Central and
State Governments and their undertakings" the
words "permission for removal of minor
minerals" shall be substituted.
(2)After sub-rule (1), the following provisos
shall be inserted, namely :-
"Provided that information of in-principle
sanction of permit shall be given to the
applicant. Applicant shall furnish permission
from the District level environment committee,
within one month maximum, from the date of
receipt of such information :
Provided further that if in-principle sanction is
for five hectare or more area, then applicant
from the date of receipt of such information,
shall submit environment permission obtained
under notification dated 14.09.2009 of Ministry
of Environment and Forest with in period of six
months. After completion of all formalities
sanctioning authority shall issue sanction order
of quarry permit. Sanctioning authority may
permit to enhance the time period, if all
formalities are not completed in prescribed time
period, on the basis of satisfactory reasons:
Provided also that quarry permit
holder/contractor engaged in construction
work shall obtain certificate of no mining dues
to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral
used in construction work, for the mineral
excavated from quarry permit area or used by
purchasing from open market. Certificate of no
mining dues shall be issued by Mining
officer/officer in-charge mining section, after
verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in
construction work."
9. The State Government, in order to check the pilferage of
mineral and evasion of Royalties, amended Rule 68 M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996. By virtue of these amendment, the
petitioner/contractor are required to submit Royalty Clearance
Certificate before passing their bills. Under Rule 68 of the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, it is incumbent that the contractor
engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of no mining
dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work, for the mineral excavated from quarry permit
area or used by purchasing from open market. Thus, it is incumbent
to the petitioner to obtain certificate and for that they have to
maintain the correct accounts showing the quantity and other
particulars of all minerals obtained and purchased from the mine
owner or from the open market and the same can be examined by the
Mining Officer/Officer in-charge of mining.
10. In order to ask for information regarding accounts showing the
quantity despatched and royalty paid, the State Government can ask
for such information and in order to regulate that proper accounts is
maintained and proper despatch register is maintained for that
purpose, this power has been conferred on the State Government.
Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner/contractor is required to
obtain no mining dues certificate under Rule 68 of M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996 and, thus, no direction, as prayed in this writ
petition can be granted.
11. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.717/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per noting of the office Cr.A.2002/2014 has
been filed by the appellant and the same is pending for
consideration.
In view of the above, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to assist
the Counsel for the appellant in other criminal appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty. Copy of this order be retained in the record of
Cr.A.No.2002/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.505/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Trial Court be requisitioned.
Let notice be issued to the respondent by registered
A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of process fee
within a week. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3724/2015
18/06/2015
Shri S.H.Moyal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within one week. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to
supply copy of the Writ Petition along with the documents to
Shri S.C.Sharma, Advocate, who ordinarily appears on behalf
of the Commissioner, EPF Organization.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3800/2015
18/06/2015
Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as on
the question of grant of interim relief.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within one week. Notice be made returnable within
six weeks, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed
without reference to this Court
In the meanwhile, keeping in view the interim order
passed under similar circumstances on 26.03.2015 by the
Gwalior Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1605/2015, we
permit the petitioners to fill up the examination forms and
participate in the Scheduled Diploma in Elementary Education
(in short "D.El.Ed.) Examination, which is going to commence
from June, 2015, provisionally subject to final decision of this
writ petition.
It is made clear that results of D.El.Ed. Examination
commencing from June, 2015 shall not be declared without
leave of this Court.
st
This apart, in case, the petitioners' result of the 1
Semester Examination is declared and they are declared as fail,
they are not entitled to seek any equity in the matter.
List the matter along with Writ Petition
No.2782/2015 for analogous hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.4840/2015
18/06/2015
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
As prayed by Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel
for the applicant, record of the Court of Special Judge (P.C.Act),
Ujjain be called for. List thereafter on the question of grant of
leave to file appeal.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.4824/2015
17/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
This application for grant of leave to appeal under
Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment
of acquittal dated 24.02.2015 passed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Shujalpur in S.T.No.198/2014 whereby the
learned Trial Court acquitted the non-applicant for an offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366(a), 376(1) and Sections 5 and
6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
As per prosecution story, on 01.11.2013, complainant
Gorelal lodged a report about missing of his daughter on
31.10.2013 at 5.30 a.m. in the morning. After registration of
missing person report (Ex.P/5) the matter was investigated and it
was found that she was abducted by the present respondent and
thus criminal case under Section 363 and 366 of the IPC was
registered after 9 months on 26.04.2010. As per report Ex.P/6, at
the time of occurrence prosecutrix was 17½ years of age. After
investigation chargesheet was filed. During trial prosecutrix (PW-
1) in her statement deposed that she had studied till Nineth Class
and her date of birth was 10.05.1996. In respect of date of birth in
the cross-examination it has been mentioned that it was as per
marksheet. Gorelal (PW-3), father of the prosecutrix has deposed
that on the basis of Janma Patrika her date of birth has been
recorded in the School. In Para 17 of the cross-examination
Gorelal (PW-3) has admitted that prosecutrix is a married woman
and her marriage was solemnized 6-7 months prior to the date of
occurrence.
Learned Trial Court considered the fact that she was
not medically examined for ascertaining her age and no supported
document was filed about her date of birth and it was concealed
by the prosecution from the Court that at the time of occurrence
she was married and prosecutrix in her statement deposed that she
stayed for a period of 9 months with the accused and she never
tried to run away from the company of the respondent nor raised
alarm and willing to marry with accused. In view of the aforesaid
we are of the view that learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted
the respondent from the offence under Section 363 and 366(a) of
the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and on perusing the impugned
judgment we are of the view that the reason assigned by the
learned Trial Court is based on appreciation of the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and admission made by the prosecutrix and
her father. There is no merit and substance in the matter,
therefore, no case for interferece, as prayed for is made out.
Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.5585/2014
17/06/2015
Shri P.M.Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushmitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5.
Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.6.
We have perused the affidavit of Collector, Dhar as
well as report dated 24.03.2015. As per the report, the authority
contrary to the norms awarded the contract.
At this stage learned Dy. Govt. Advocate prays for
time to seek instructions in the matter whether any report has
been lodged against the erring persons or not?
List after two weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7093/2014
17/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner prays for and is granted one week's time to argue on
the question of admission.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to bring the
judgment of the Division Bench in the matter of Board of
Secondary Education whereby the Division Bench dismissed
the Writ Petition filed by the students in respect of the matter of
revaluation.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7986/2014
17/06/2015
Shri Sumit Neema, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the respondent,
list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.8573/2014
17/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Sumit Neema, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for and is granted further 7 days time to file
rejoinder to the return filed by the State.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.460/2014
17/06/2015
Shri N.S.Karada, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by Shri N.S.Karada, learned Counsel for
the appellant, list after a month.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.4800/2015
17/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
This application for grant of leave to appeal under
Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment
of acquittal dated 18.03.2015 passed by Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.603/2013 whereby the learned
Trial Court acquitted the non-applicant for an offence punishable
under Sections 307/34 of the IPC (two counts).
On due consideration and fact and circumstances of
the case and reasons assigned in Para 2 of the impugned
judgment, we are of the view that it is a fit case in which
permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed, meaning
thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.
Accordingly, application filed by the applicant under Section
378(3) of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and permission for grant of leave
to appeal is granted.
Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be
registered and proceeded as per rules, as admitted.
On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed
to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against the respondent.
He is also directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry/Office of this Court on 05.10.2015 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C.No.4800/2015 is allowed
and is accordingly, disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.394/2009
17/06/2015
None for the appellant.
None for respondent.
Matter be placed before the Principal Registrar to
examine and submit report in compliance of order dated
06.04.2015.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.561/2006
17/06/2015
Shri S.C.Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent.
Matter be placed before the Principal Registrar to
examine and submit report in compliance of order dated
06.04.2015.
List in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.75/2014
17/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as
per her instructions matter has been settled between the parties.
Considering aforesaid, we direct appellant Anupam
Chauhan and respondent Sangita Chauhan to remain present on
the next date of hearing. Learned Counsel for the parties are
directed to inform the parties so that they may remain present
on the next date of hearing.
st
List on 21 July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CRRFC No.1/15 and Cr.A.No.238/15
07/05/2015
Shri Devendra Singh, learned Counsel for the
appellant/respondent.
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant/appellant.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
15/06/2015
Judgment delivered signed and dated. Copy of
this judgment be retained in Cr.A.No.238/2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.932/2003
16/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the appellant/State.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.4 Vishwas @ Lala.
IA No.4070/2015 has been filed by the respondent
No.4 Vishwas @ Lala for releasing him on bail on furnishing
adequate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the court below.
Counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that this
appeal has been filed in the year 2003. It is further submitted
that respondent No.4 was regularly marking presence before
the Registry but he failed to appear before the Registry as a
result of which non-bailable warrant was issued and on the
basis of arrest warrant respondent No.4 was arrested and
produced before the Court on 09.04.2012, since then he is in
custody. He further submits that respondent No.4 is ready to
comply all the stringent conditions, which will be imposed and
prays that this application be allowed and respondent No.4 be
released on furnishing adequate bail bonds.
Considering the aforesaid, prayer for releasing
respondent No.4 on furnishing adequate bail bond is allowed.
It is directed that the respondent No.4 be released
on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Ujjain for his appearance
rd
before this Court/Registry on 23 November, 2015 and on
such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
office.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.513/2005
16/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the appellant/State.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that
respondent No.2 is ready to furnish bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with
one surety in compliance with the order dated 20.03.2012.
Considering the aforesaid, he is directed to comply
with the order dated 20.03.2012 and mark his presence before the
Registry of this Court on 23.11.2015.
As per report No.1654/2015 dated 06.05.2015 of
S.H.O., Police Station, Mahakal, Ujjain, during pendency of this
appeal respondent No.1 Dharmendra died on 06.10.2014. Report
of S.H.O. is supported by the Death Certificate.
Considering the aforesaid, we direct the appellant to
delete the name of respondent No.1 Dharmendra from the memo
of appeal as after his death appeal stands abated against him.
Necessary corrections be carried out within 7 days from today.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.843/2005
16/06/2015
It appears that this appeal has wrongly been listed
before this Bench. Office to verify and list before the appropriate
Bench.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MCC No.447/2007
16/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.2.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the applicant/State prays for and is granted four weeks' time to
comply with the order dated 11.05.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
C.E.A.No.1/2011
16/06/2015
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.4511/2015, an application for
publication of notice.
For the reasons assigned in the application, we allow
the application and permit the appellant to serve the respondent by
publication of notice in the daily newspaper of Indore.
IA No.4511/2015 is allowed and stands disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1217/2013
16/06/2015
Shri S.M.Sanyal, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Heard on IA No.4446/2015, an application under Order
5 Rule 20 (1-A) of CPC.
Service on respondents No.1, 4, 7 and 8 is awaited.
It is submitted that respondents No.1, 4, 7 and 8 are avoiding
notices, therefore, service of notice could not be possible.
Considering the aforesaid, we allow the prayer for
publication of notice in the news paper "Nai Duniya", which is
widely published.
On payment of necessary charges as per rules, let notice
of IA No.4447/2015 be issued to the proposed legal heirs of
respondent No.5 and other respondents on payment of process fee
within a week returnable within 8 weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.3701/2013
16/06/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
Shri Vajid Khan, learned Counsel for the non-
applicants No.1, 2, 4 and 5.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the non-
applicants No.3 and 6.
As prayed, last opportunity of two weeks time is
granted to the non-applicants to file reply of IA No.2970/2013, an
application for condonation of delay.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
VATA No.3/2014
16/06/2015
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the State prays for and is granted further one week's time as a last
opportunity to cure the defect as pointed out by the office.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
A.R.No.5/2014
16/06/2015
Shri Ajay Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondents/State prays for and is granted two weeks time to
file reply of IA No.9821/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1774/2014
16/06/2015
Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Service of notice is awaited.
Office is directed to verify and submit a report
regarding service of notice to the respondent and surety.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.89/2014
16/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Ms. Mahim Pandey, learned Counsel for the
respondent prays for and is granted three days' time to file reply
of IA No.3824/2015, an interlocutory application for giving
permission to meet with child.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.472/2014
16/06/2015
As prayed by Shri K.K.Tiwari, Counsel for the
appellant, list in the next week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.553/2014
16/06/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondents No.1 and 2 prays for and is granted four weeks
time to file reply of IA No.4188/2014.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.617/2014
16/06/2015
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellants/State.
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted further three weeks time to file reply of IA
No.3858/2014, an application for condonation of delay.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.850/2014
16/06/2015
Shri P.J.Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Due to death of appellant Ramgopal Pachori learned
Counsel for the appellant is not pressing this appeal. Accordingly,
this appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1437/2014
16/06/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
As per record, in spite of number of opportunities
granted to the appellant defect as pointed out by the office has not
been cured nor any one is appearing on his behalf.
Considering the aforesaid, office is directed to place
the matter before the Legal Service Authority to provide legal
help to the appellant, who is in jail.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.113/2014
16/06/2015
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellants/State.
Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.1436/2014, an application for
condonation of delay.
The appeal is barred by 76 days.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the cause
shown by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.1436/2014 stands allowed and
disposed off. Delay of 76 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned Counsel accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent, therefore, no notice is required
to be issued to the respondent.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellants/State is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal
to the respondent No.4 within three days.
Record of the Reference Court be called for.
List FA No.1141/2013 for analogous hearing, as
prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
To,
Shri Basant Shriwas,
Personal Assistant
Court No.17,
JABALPUR.
Ph.9926549182
From :- Neeraj Sarvate,
INDORE.
To,
Smt. Manju Chouksey,
Personal Secretary to
Justice Vandana Kasrekar,
JABALPUR.
Ph.9329618471
From :- Smt. Preetha Nair,
INDORE.
To,
Smt. Manju Chouksey,
Personal Secretary to
Justice Vandana Kasrekar,
JABALPUR.
Ph.9329618471
From :- Smt. Preetha Nair,
INDORE.
Cr.A.No.1449/2013
15/06/2015
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Counsel along with
Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.878/2015, first application for
suspension of jail sentence of appellant Sonu S/o Kailash.
After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of IA No.878/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.878/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1646/2013
15/06/2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1704/2015, second/repeat application
for suspension of jail sentence of appellant Anand.
First application (IA No.8475/2013) for suspension of
jail sentence of appellant Anand has been dismissed on merit by
order dated 14.03.2014.
After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of IA No.1704/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.1704/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.709/2014
15/06/2015
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the
appellant No.2.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.978/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Pankaj
Malakar, who has been convicted under Sections 304-B and
498-A of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.2,000/- and sentenced to three years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively.
Learned Counsel for the appellant No.2 submitted
that as per statement of prosecution witnesses, there is no
allegation that soon before the death of deceased any demand
of dowry was made from the deceased. It is also submitted
that due to some medical problem she died on 07.03.2012. It
is further submitted that the application for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.3 Kalabai has been
allowed by order dated 05.03.2015 and present appellant is
having complete parity with the aforesaid co-accused and
prays that this application for suspension of jail sentence be
allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer but very fairly conceded that the present applicant is
having complete parity with co-accused Kalabai.
Considering the fact that present appellant is
having complete parity with co-accused Kalabai, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA
No.978/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence is
allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.2
Pankaj Malakar is suspended subject to his depositing the
fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her
appearance before this Court/Registry on 10.08.2015 and on
all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in
this behalf.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed
for final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1986/2014
15/06/2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for
withdrawal of IA No.3678/2015, an application for suspension of
jail sentence with liberty to file an appropriate application for
early hearing of the appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
IA No.3678/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.193/2015
15/06/2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3901/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.1 Shelbai, who has
been convicted under Sections 450 and 302/34 of the IPC and
sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-
and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-
respectively.
As per statement of eye witness Jeta (PW-3), present
appellant Shelbai has caused stone injury on the hand of the
deceased Bucha.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the statement of Dr. Anil Damor (PW-2) and submits
that no corresponding injury was found on the hand of the
deceased and submitted that main allegation for causing fatal
injury is against appellant No.2 and further submitted that there is
no material available on record showing that appellant No.1 was
having common intention to commit murder of the deceased and
prays that this application for suspension of jail sentence be
allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer.
On due consideration of the statement of Dr. Anil
Damor (PW-2) and eye witness Jeta (PW-3) so also the fact that
no overt act has been attributed to the present appellant, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA
No.3901/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence is
allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.1
Shelbai is suspended subject to her depositing the fine amount
and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her appearance
before this Court/Registry on 16.11.2015 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed for
final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.2550/2015
21/05/2015
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-
applicant/State.
This application is filed under Section 438 read with
th
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the 11
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore on 20.03.2015 whereby
cancelled the anticipatory bail granted on 04.03.2014.
th
11 Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide order
dated 04.03.2014 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in
connection with Crime No.1346/2013 registered at Police Station
Sanyogitaganj, Indore for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468
and 471 of the IPC. Subsequently on 27.02.2015 non-applicant
has moved an application for cancellation of bail on the ground
that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation. After
th
hearing the parties learned 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Indore
by the impugned order cancelled the anticipatory bail of the
applicant, therefore, the applicant has filed this petition.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
whenever he was called he appeared and co-operated with the
investigation. The Investigating Officer has not disclosed how
and when the applicant has disobeyed the terms and conditions of
the bail order. Before the Additional Sessions Judge the applicant
has given details on which dates he was called for investigation
purpose and he was detained there for a whole day. Not only this
he has been harassed by the police officials, therefore, it is totally
incorrect that the applicant is not cooperating with the
investigation or he has violated any of the condition of bail order.
It is further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge in
the impugned order has not specified which of the condition has
been breached or violated by the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Hazari Lal Das V/s. State of West Bengal AIR
2010 SC 91 held that the bail can be cancelled only when very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are exist. The bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering the supervening circumstances. In the present case
learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the
supervening circumstances, therefore, the order of cancellation of
bail is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant/State supports the order and submits that the
handwriting expert gave an adverse report against the applicant
but the applicant is not disclosing the names of middle man or a
scorer. Thus, he is not cooperating with the investigation. In such
circumstances application deserves to be dismissed.
At this juncture learned Counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant cannot be compelled to give evidence
against himself, therefore, there is no ground for cancellation of
bail even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the
application. The impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of
the parties, perused the record and the affidavits filed by the
applicant and the Investigating Officer.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned
order has not given a finding that which of the condition of bail
order has been violated by the applicant. The learned ASJ has not
passed a speaking order, thus the impugned order is hereby set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the ASJ with a direction
to decide the application afresh after giving proper opportunity to
the parties and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Hazari Lal Das (supra).
Parties are directed to appear before the concerned
Additional Sessions Judge on 01.06.2015.
Thus the petition is disposed off as aforesaid.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.2549/2015
21/05/2015
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-
applicant/State.
This application is filed under Section 438 read with
th
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the 11
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore on 20.03.2015 whereby
cancelled the anticipatory bail granted on 04.03.2014.
th
11 Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide order
dated 04.03.2014 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in
connection with Crime No.1346/2013 registered at Police Station
Sanyogitaganj, Indore for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468
and 471 of the IPC. Subsequently on 27.02.2015 non-applicant
has moved an application for cancellation of bail on the ground
that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation. After
th
hearing the parties learned 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Indore
by the impugned order cancelled the anticipatory bail of the
applicant, therefore, the applicant has filed this petition.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
whenever he was called he appeared and co-operated with the
investigation. The Investigating Officer has not disclosed how
and when the applicant has disobeyed the terms and conditions of
the bail order. Before the Additional Sessions Judge the applicant
has given details on which dates he was called for investigation
purpose and he was detained there for a whole day. Not only this
he has been harassed by the police officials, therefore, it is totally
incorrect that the applicant is not cooperating with the
investigation or he has violated any of the condition of bail order.
It is further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge in
the impugned order has not specified which of the condition has
been breached or violated by the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Hazari Lal Das V/s. State of West Bengal AIR
2010 SC 91 held that the bail can be cancelled only when very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are exist. The bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering the supervening circumstances. In the present case
learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the
supervening circumstances, therefore, the order of cancellation of
bail is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant/State supports the order and submits that the
handwriting expert gave an adverse report against the applicant
but the applicant is not disclosing the names of middle man or a
scorer. Thus, he is not cooperating with the investigation. In such
circumstances application deserves to be dismissed.
At this juncture learned Counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant cannot be compelled to give evidence
against himself, therefore, there is no ground for cancellation of
bail even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the
application. The impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of
the parties, perused the record and the affidavits filed by the
applicant and the Investigating Officer.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned
order has not given a finding that which of the condition of bail
order has been violated by the applicant. The learned ASJ has not
passed a speaking order, thus the impugned order is hereby set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the ASJ with a direction
to decide the application afresh after giving proper opportunity to
the parties and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Hazari Lal Das (supra).
Parties are directed to appear before the concerned
Additional Sessions Judge on 01.06.2015.
Thus the petition is disposed off as aforesaid.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.889/2014
13.05.2015
None for the applicant and non-applicant No.1.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.2.
This application is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the Special
Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain in Special Case
No.2/2010 on 04.07.2013.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 29.07.2009
applicant's sister submitted a complaint at Police Station
Neelganga, Ujjain stating that some persons came to her
house and they apprehended her on a revolver point in
respect of property dispute. S.H.O. mark this complaint to his
sub-ordinate Assistant Sub-Inspector Shahjad Beg (non-
applicant No.1) for inquiry. It is alleged that Shahjad Beg
demanded Rs.5,000/- from complainant's sister for submitting
favourable inquiry report, then the complainant made a
complaint to Superintendent of Police, Special Police
Establishment, Ujjain. After verifying the demand a trap was
arranged and subsequently the non-applicant No.1 was
apprehended with the tainted currency notes of Rs.5,000/-.
Thereafter, he was prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Section 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. After trial learned Special Judge has acquitted the
non-applicant No.1 from the charge. Being aggrieved State
has filed the application for leave to appeal against the order
of acquittal whereas the complainant has filed this petition on
various grounds.
3. In the petition it is averted that the prosecution has
successfully proved the motive, demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification even though Special Judge has acquitted
the non-applicant No.1 on minor contradictions came in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned Judge has not
considered that the complainant has no enmity with the non-
applicant No.1, therefore, there is no ground for false
implication. It is also alleged that during the trial complainant
has filed three applications viz. application under Section 195
read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C., application under Section
311 read with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., and an application
that the written arguments submitted by the non-applicant
No.1 cannot be considered as against the rules some portions
of the written arguments are underlined and some portions
are highlighted. All these applications were rejected by the
Special Judge erroneously, therefore, it is prayed that the
judgment of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded
back to Special Judge for retrial.
4. Today the case is listed for consideration but
applicant and his Counsel are absent. We have already
considered the application (M.Cr.C.No.7813/2013) for
seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal
filed by the non-applicant No.2 i.e. Special Police
Establishment, Ujjain and after due consideration we have
reached to the conclusion that the order of acquittal is
justified, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
Thus, we find no merit in this application. The application is
hereby dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.3836/2015
18/05/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
non-applicant/State.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time
to produce the case diary as well as affidavit of the Investigating
Officer on the next date of hearing.
List on 21.05.2015, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.197/2015
18/05/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel along with Shri
Romesh Dave, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that in
pursuance to auction notice (Annexure P/13) the Bank/
respondents No.1 to 3 is going to auction the property in question
and, therefore, looking to the urgency in the matter
respondents/Bank be restrained from finalizing the auction
proceedings.
Considering the aforesaid, IA No.2357/2015,
application for hearing during vacation and IA No.2358/2015,
application for urgent hearing are allowed. Let hamdust notice of
IA No.2359/2015, an application for grant of interim relief/stay,
be issued to the respondents No.1 and 2. Notice be made
returnable on or before 21.05.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.355/2011
15/05/2015
Shri R.D.Sonvane, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned Counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 5.
None for respondents No.6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and
16 though served.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer appears and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.17/State, therefore, no
notice is required to be issued against the respondent No.17.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file an appropriate application for
bringing legal representatives of respondents No.8, 11 and 12 on
record.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2503/2011
15/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Original record of ATA No.237 (8) 2006 of EPF
Appellate Tribunal is awaited.
As prayed, last opportunity of two months time is
granted to make available the record of ATA No.237 (8) 2006 of
EPF Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing, otherwise the Writ
Petition will be decided on the basis of record available with the
parties.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2259/2015
15/05/2015
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Reply of respondents are awaited.
As prayed by Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel
Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 4/State further four weeks
time is granted to file reply. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2
Collector, Mandsaur and Divisional Forest Officer, Forest
Division, Mandsaur are directed to verify whether respondent
No.6, for establishment of Solar Energy Plant has made any
construction in violation of any of the provision of M.P. Land
Revenue Code and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? In this
regard submit a detailed affidavit within one week. If it is found
that the construction regarding establishment of Solar Energy
Plant is made contrary to the aforesaid provisions, they shall be
held personally responsible for the same.
nd
List in the week commencing 22 June, 2015.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.43/2015
15/05/20151
Parties through their Counsel.
Reply is awaited.
As prayed by Shri R.S.Parmar, Panel Lawyer further
four weeks' time is granted to file reply.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.97/2015
15/05/20151
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellants/State.
Service is awaited.
List after service is completed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CRR.No.649/2014
15/05/20151
Parties through their Counsel.
List it along with CRR No.644/2014 in the week
th
commencing 13 July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MCC.No.60/2014
15/05/20151
Shri Vinay Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Archna Kher, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.1.
Smt. Archna Kher, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.1 submits that during the course of the day she will
supply the present correct address of the non-applicant No.2.
Let fresh notice be issued to the non-applicant No.2
by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within two weeks with present correct address. Notice
be made returnable within 6 weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONC.No.119/2014
15/05/20151
Ms. Nisha Tanwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Respondent No.1/State submits that by passing order
dated 26.02.2015 complied with the order passed on 05.08.2013
in WA No.702/2013.
In view of the aforesaid, no further action in this
contempt petition is required. Accordingly the contempt petition
is disposed off and the rule nisi issued against the respondents is
hereby discharged.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CRR.No.644/2014
15/05/20151
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, Shri Hemendra Jain, learned Counsel for
th
the applicant, list in the week commencing 13 July, 2015 along
with the connected matters.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3856/2014
15/05/20151
Shri Hemendra Jain, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 6.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5.
None for respondent No.2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to
argue on this Writ Petition.
Prayer is allowed.
List after summer vacation.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1823/2014
15/05/20151
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri I.Anwar, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.3 prays for and is granted three days time to file an affidavit.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4072/2014
15/05/20151
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel who is appearing
on behalf of Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the
petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file
rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents.
Return of respondents No.1 and 2 is awaited.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4968/2014
15/05/20151
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State prays for and is granted further four weeks time
to file counter/additional return to the rejoinder filed by the
petitioner.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.833/2002
15/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) be issued to the appellant Smt. Dhapubai W/o
Champalal for a date to be fixed by the Registry to secure the
presence of the appellant.
List the case for final hearing under the caption
"Cases relating to more than ten years' old (Criminal)" under
appropriate category.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.151/2015
15/05/2015
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellants/State.
Heard on IA No.2011/2015.
The sole contention of the Govt. Advocate is that
decision of Tejulal Yadav V/s. State of M.P., ILR (2009) MP
1326 will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances
of the case.
Considering the aforesaid, issue notice of IA
No.2011/2015 to the respondent by registered A.D. as well as by
ordinary mode on payment of process fee within a week. Notice
be made returnable within 4 weeks.
List it along with WA No.145/2015 for analogous
hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.435/2015
15/05/2015
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on IA No.3988/2015.
As prayed, we grant 8 weeks time to pay deficit court
fees.
With the aforesaid, IA No.3988/2015 is allowed and
disposed off. In the meanwhile, record of the trial court be called
for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.433/2015
15/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
By efflux of time IA No.4147/2015 has been rendered
infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.646/2015
15/05/2015
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukt on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.3392/2015, an application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Virendra Singh
Rathore, who has been convicted under Section 7 & 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to 3 years
rigorous imprisonment on each count with fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that fine
amount has been deposited by the appellant on 28.04.2015. He
further submits that his jail sentence has been temporarily
suspended upto 27.05.2015 vide order dated 28.04.2015 and
prays that this application for suspension of jail sentence be
allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA
No.3392/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence is
allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant Virendra
Singh Rathore is suspended subject to his depositing the fine
amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance
before this Court/Registry on 23.11.2015 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
Office is directed to process the matter to be listed for
final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.
Record of the Special Judge be called for.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.783/2013
12/05/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No.1, 2 and 3/State.
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4.
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.5.
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5.
None for respondent No.6.
Heard on IA No.5039/2013, an application for leave
to appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that these
appellants were not party to the proceedings before the Writ
Court and they are the allottees of the shops who had purchased
the shops way back in the year 2009. In pursuance to the
allotment order they have deposited whole amount. On the basis
of the complaint lodged before the Collector, Khargone,
Collector Khargone got enquired the matter and on the basis of
enquiry report cancelled the allotment order without hearing the
appellants. The appellants are necessary party but without
impleading them in the writ proceedings the impugned order has
been passed, therefore, the appellants may be permitted to file
this appeal.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, IA
No.5039/2013 is allowed.
Office to list it for admission after summer vacation.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1174/2013
14/05/2015
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Counsel for the
appellants/State.
Shri G.S.Yadav, learned Counsel for the proposed
legal heirs of the respondent.
Heard on IA No.6315/2014, an application for
bringing legal representative of deceased respondent on record,
IA No.6316/2014, an application for setting aside order of
abatement and IA No.6318/2014, an application for condonation
of delay.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that for
the first time appellants came to know about the death of
respondent Nanji on 22.04.2014 and, therefore, no application
was filed for bringing legal representative of deceased Nanji
within limitation. The delay is bona fide, therefore, the delay in
filing the application be condoned.
No reply or counter affidavit has been filed by the
proposed legal representative of respondent.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that
sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the
application for bringing legal representative of the respondent on
record and application for setting aside order of abatement.
Consequently application for bringing legal representative of
respondent on record is allowed. Necessary corrections be carried
out within a period of two weeks from today. IA No.6315/2014,
IA No.6316/2014 and IA No.6318/2014 are allowed and stand
disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.904/2013
14/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Learned Counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file reply to IA No.10538/2014, IA
No.2635/2015 and IA No.2638/2015 filed by the appellant. List
thereafter.
Interim order passed on 25.09.2013 shall continue till
the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.549/2013
14/05/2015
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Shri G.S.Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that a
cross objection has been filed on behalf of the respondents for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the reference court.
Office to verify and submit the report whether the
cross objection is in time or not and list thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.458/2013
14/05/2015
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.C.Singhal, learned Advocate for the
respondents/Bank.
Let record be called for and list for orders on IA
No.1203/2015, IA No.9766/2014 and IA No.6592/2013
immediately after receipt of record.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.321/2013
12/05/2015
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed
to issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) against the respondents. They are also directed to
furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Rajgarh for
their appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on
24.06.2015 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the office in this behalf.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.606/2013
14/05/2015
Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
As per report of Taxing Officer deficit court fee
amounting to Rs.27,123/- has not been paid.
As prayed by learned Counsel for the appellant, six
weeks time is granted to pay the deficit court fee, failing which
the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this court.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.735/2013
14/05/2015
None for the appellants.
None for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.4/State.
In absence of appellants and their Counsel, we
adjourned the case.
st
List the matter in the 1 week of August, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.940/2013
14/05/2015
None for the appellants.
As per service report notice has not been served on
respondent due to incomplete address.
Learned Counsel for the appellants is granted one
week's time to pay fresh process fee with correct address of the
respondent.
Let notice be issued to the respondent by registered
A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of fresh process fee
within a week. Notice be made returnable within 6 weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.937/2013
14/05/2015
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned Counsel for the appellant
prays for and is granted one week's time to pay fresh process fee
with correct address of the respondent.
Let notice be issued to the respondent by registered
A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of fresh process fee
within a week. Notice be made returnable within 6 weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.1084/2013
14/05/2015
Shri S.H.Moyal, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply
to IA No.6422/2013, an application for condonation of delay.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.1100/2013
14/05/2015
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned
Counsel for the appellant list along with WA No.1096/2013, WA
No.1097/2013 and WA No.1098/2013 for analogous hearing on
26.06.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.1129/2013
14/05/2015
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/Indore Municipal Corporation.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2 prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file
reply of IA No.6725/2013, an application for grant of ad interim
writ.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1200/2013
14/05/2015
Shri Gopal Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.
As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to remove the
defect as pointed out by the office.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1217/2013
14/05/2015
Shri S.M.Sanyal, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.M.Sanyal, learned Counsel for the appellants
prays for and is granted 3 weeks time to file appropriate
application for substituting service on respondents No.1, 4, 7 and
8 and to file an appropriate application for bringing legal heirs of
respondent No.5 on record.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4055/2014
13/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed by Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel
for the Indore Municipal Corporation, we grant further six weeks
time to file reply.
List in the week commencing second week of July,
2015.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.1338/2014
13/05/2015
Shri P.V.Namjoshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.3.
Heard on IA No.10866/2014 and IA No.3945/2015.
Interim order passed by this Court on 17.12.2014
shall continue during the pendency of this appeal.
With the aforesaid, IAs { IA No.10866/2014 and IA
No.3945/2015} stand disposed off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1216/2013
13/05/2015
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Devendra Singh Bais, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 to 5.
Heard on IA No.3389/2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that due to
personal reason respondents No.2 to 5 could not mark their
presence before the Registry of this Court on 06.05.2015. Today
they all are present. They are directed to mark their presence
before the office/Registry of this Court on 22.06.2015 and shall
remain present on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in
this behalf by the office.
With the aforesaid, IA No.3389/2015 is allowed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.387/2013
13/05/2015
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.K.Shastri, learned Counsel for the respondents
No.1 and 2.
Heard on IA No.3572/2015, an application under
Section 151 of the CPC.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case, we extend the period for depositing the amount of
mesne profit in compliance with the order dated 08.04.2015 and
direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the amount as
directed within a period of three months, failing which the order
dated 08.04.2015 shall automatically stand vacated.
With the aforesaid, IA No.3572/2015 stands disposed
off.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1485/2014
13/05/2015
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for petitioners.
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Indore Municipal Corporation along with Shri Kailash
Choudhary, Building Officer/Officer-in-Charge.
As prayed by Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Counsel
for the Indore Municipal Corporation, we grant further six weeks
time to file reply.
List in the week commencing second week of July,
2015.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.240/2015
13/05/2015
Shri Devendra Singh Bais, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the appellant/State.
As prayed, one weeks time is granted to remove the
defect as pointed out by the office.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.132/2015
13/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list after summer vacation.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.81/2014
13/05/2015
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that during
the pendency of the Writ Appeal appellant has already joined at
his transfer place, therefore, appeal has rendered infructuous.
Accordingly appeal is dismissed as rendered
infructuous.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.171/2015
13/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list after summer vacation.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.302/2007
13/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
As prayed, list in the month of July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1898/2014
13/05/2015
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel accepts notice
on behalf of respondent/Lokayukt, therefore, no notice is required
to be issued against the respondent.
Let the matter be fixed for final hearing in due course.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.241/2015
12/05/2015
Shri Devendra Singh Bais, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the appellant/State.
A bailable warrant be issued in compliance with the
order dated 30.01.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.154/2015 against
the respondent.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
FA No.300/2015
12/05/2015
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Appellant Smt. Dipti Korane and respondent Abhishek
Apte are present in person. They have been identified by their
respective Counsels.
Heard on I.A. No.4105/2015, an application for
dissolution of marriage on mutual consent
Learned counsel for the parties submit that during
pendency of this appeal, the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties, therefore, both parties requested for grant of
divorce by mutual consent. It is further submitted that they have
settled the matter on the following terms :-
"(a) That, the appellant has received a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty
Thousand Only) from the respondent as
permanent alimony through a demand draft
No.815930 of State Bank of India, Indore dated
01.05.2015 and in future she will not file any
application or case for getting maintenance from the
respondent.
(b) That, the appellant has filed an application
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the
st
1 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Indore in which the learned Family Court had
passed an order for payment of Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand only) per month as
maintenance and the appellant has filed a
Cr.R.No.780/2014 before this Hon'ble Court
against that order. Both the parties will file
a compromise application in that revision as
well and pray for dismissal of the order dated
28.06.2014 passed by the learned Family Court,
Indore.
(c) That, it has been further decided between the
parties that after the grant of divorce, no one
shall interfere in the life of another in any
manner whatsoever.
(d) That, the consent of the parties for mutual
divorce has not been obtained by any fraud,
force or undue influence etc.
(e) That, the application is not presented in
collusion with each other."
It is further submitted that the parties are living apart
th
since 11 September, 2012. Their wedlock has now virtually
become a deadlock and chances of reunion are nil, therefore, in
interest of justice a decree by mutual consent may kindly be passed.
We have considered the prayer. The appellant-wife has
filed the application for divorce on the ground of cruelty under
Section 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Learned First Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore has dismissed the petition on
18.02.2015 against that judgment and decree the present appeal has
been filed.
Parties have entered into compromise and the appellant
has received permanent alimony Rs.2,50,000/-. They have amicably
th
settled their dispute. The parties are living separately since 11
September, 2012 and their wedlock has now become a deadlock.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow the application.
Consequently the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is
set aside and a compromise decree for dissolution of marriage with
consent is passed in terms of compromise. A decree be drawn up
accordingly.
Appeal stands disposed off. No costs.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.874/2014
12/05/2015
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashok Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Satish Tomar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
As prayed by Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior
Counsel, we list the matter for admission in the week
th
commencing 15 June, 2015 along with WA No.873/2014 with
the instruction that no further adjournment shall be granted on the
next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.873/2014
12/05/2015
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashok Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Satish Tomar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Heard on IA No.1459/2015, an application for
amendment.
On due consideration IA No.1459/2015, an
application for amendment is allowed. Necessary corrections be
carried out within three days from today.
As prayed by Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior
Counsel, we list the matter for admission in the week
th
commencing 15 June, 2015 with the instruction that no further
adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.873/2014
12/05/2015
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashok Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Satish Tomar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Heard on IA No.1459/2015, an application for
amendment.
On due consideration IA No.1459/2015, an
application for amendment is allowed. Necessary corrections be
carried out within three days from today.
As prayed by Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior
Counsel, we list the matter for admission in the week
th
commencing 15 June, 2015 with the instruction that no further
adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
WA No.178/2015
12/05/2015
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellants/State.
Heard on IA No.2181/2015, an application for
condonation of delay.
Let notice of IA No.2181/2015 be issued to the
respondent by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on
payment of process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable
within 6 weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.241/2015
12/05/2015
Shri Devendra Singh Bais, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the appellant/State.
A bailable warrant be issued in compliance with the
order dated 30.01.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.154/2015 against
the respondent.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.276/2015
12/05/2015
Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file reply to IA No.2319/2015. In the
meanwhile, the respondent shall not solemnized any marriage
until further order without leave of this court.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.95/2015
12/05/2015
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel accepts notice
on behalf of respondents, therefore, no notice is required to be
issued against respondents.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the
respondents prays for and is granted four weeks time to argue on
the question of admission.
List after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
MCC No.148/2015
12/05/2015
Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
As per report notice has not been served on
respondent No.1.
Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent No.1 by
registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within three days. Notice be made returnable within 4
weeks. Office to list the matter along with the other connected
matters for analogous hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.181/2015
12/05/2015
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri M.S.Dwivedi Advocate and Shri Akash
Vijayvargiya,Advocate for the appellant.
Appellant is partly aggrieved by the impugned order
whereby learned Writ Court rejected the claim of backwages.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer accepts
notice on behalf of respondents, therefore, no notice is required to
be issued against respondents.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer prays for
and is granted four weeks time to argue on the question of
admission.
List after four weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.176/2015
12/05/2015
Shri R.B.Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.
By this intra court appeal the appellant is challenging
the order dated 01.05.2015 passed in W.P.No.7352/2014 whereby
learned Writ Court quashed the order dated 23.07.2014 passed by
the Collector, Indore in Jan Sunvai.
Learned Writ Court considering the fact that no
statutory provision has been brought to the notice of the Writ
Court by the learned Counsel for the respondents which permits
the learned Collector to direct the delivery of possession by
holding a Jan Sunvai that too in respect of civil litigation the
aforesaid order was set aside.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the
Writ Court has rightly set aside the order dated 23.07.2014. No
case is made out to interfere with the aforesaid as prayed. The
Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P. No.2651/2015
11.05.2015
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The petitioner is a proprietor of Anay Construction. It is
alleged that after lapse of months respondents have not finalized the
final bill of the petitioner for want of Royalty Clearance Certificate as
per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the
petitioner and Department.
3. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this
Court as well as at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in various cases,
including the cases of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore &
Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, M.P.
Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v/s. Abrar
Construction Company & Ors., 2005 Arb. WLJ 379
(MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v/s. State of M.P. 2007 (3)
M.P.H.T. 433 (D.B.) and Tomar Construction Company
v/s. State of M.P. & Ors. 2008 (2) M.P.L.J 40 and
recently in Writ Appeal No.357/2012 (M/s. Arpit Heights
(P) Ltd. v/s. Indore Development Authority) decided
on 18.03.2013, the insistence of the respondents for production
of the Royalty Clearance Certificate is illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), this Court allowed the writ
petition by directing the following:-
"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, in
our considered view, the learned Single Judge has
committed error in dismissing the writ petition on the
basis of the aforesaid clause which runs contrary to
the statutory provisions because the Collector can
issue certificate with regard to payment of royalty
only, if the royalty is payable by the contractor. If the
contractor has purchased the material from a supplier
and the supplier has purchased the material from the
mine owner, who has extracted the mineral from a
place which is not known to the contractor, the
contractor cannot be expected to run from pillar to
post finding out of source of extraction and the
mineral consumed by him and then produce the
certificate. This condition seems to be impracticable
and inconsistent to the statutory provision.
15.Having regard to the aforesaid, we allow this writ
appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal by issuing
the following directions, akin to the directions issued
in the case of Tomar Construction Company (Supra),
which will safeguard and take care of the interest of
the petitioner as also of the respondents:-
(1) The State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent shall clear the
bills of the petitioner submitted in
connection with execution of the contract in
question without insisting upon producing
no dues certificate from the Collector or any
other authority with regard to payment of
royalty for the minerals consumed.
However, the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent can insist upon
production of bills with regards to purchase
of mineral and in case the bill is not
available, an affidavit indicating the
manner in which and the place or source
from where the mineral is purchased. This
affidavit can be used by the State
Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent for verification and for taking
further action for clearing the bills.
(2) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered
from the bills of the petitioner, shall be
refunded to the petitioner on the petitioner
M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s.
State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ 743, filing the
bill or the affidavit as indicated herein-
above. In case, the petitioner is unable to
produce the bill or the affidavit as indicated
herein-above, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to represent the matter before the
State Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent pointing out the inability in
producing the bills or the affidavit and it
would be for the State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent to consider the
representation and take such steps as may
be permissible or proper for clearing the
bills in the given set of circumstances, as
may be indicated by the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended
provisions of Rule-68 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996(in short
"Rules of 1996") will be applicable to quarry permit
holder/contractor as defined in the Rules of 1996. He submits that
Contractor means a person or firm that undertakes a contract to
provide materials or labour to perform a service or do a job. He
submitted that the present petitioner is neither have quarry lease or
quarry permit nor through auction any trade quarry contract has
been awarded by the Collector for lifting of minor mineral and,
therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision in case of M/s
Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra), and M.P. Contractors
Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors., 1987 JLJ
743, no Royalty Clearance Certificate is required and submitted
that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the order passed in
M/s Arpit Heights (P) Ltd.(supra).
6. In reply, learned Govt. Advocate submits that in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State
Government amended the M.P. Minor Mineral Rule, 1996 w.e.f. 23rd
March, 2013 and as per 3rd proviso of sub-rules (1) of Rule 68, the
Contractor engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of
no mining dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work for the mineral excavated from quarry permit area
or used by purchasing from open market. Certificate of no mining
dues shall be issued by Mining Officer/officer in-charge of mining
section, after verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in construction work."
7. She submits that earlier there was no provision in the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 nor any provision in the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and, therefore, the
respondent cannot be conferred authority to obtain the royalty
clearance certificate from the mining department/officer in-charge of
the mining section, but after amendment dated 23/03/2013 all the
contractors who are using the mineral in construction work are
required to furnish Royalty Clearance Certificate before finalization
of their bill as per terms of the contract and submitted that the writ
petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Amended Rule 68 of Rules of 1996 dated 23.03.2015 reads as
under:-
26. In rule, 68 -
(1)In the heading for the words "permission for
removal of minor minerals for Central and
State Governments and their undertakings" the
words "permission for removal of minor
minerals" shall be substituted.
(2)After sub-rule (1), the following provisos
shall be inserted, namely :-
"Provided that information of in-principle
sanction of permit shall be given to the
applicant. Applicant shall furnish permission
from the District level environment committee,
within one month maximum, from the date of
receipt of such information :
Provided further that if in-principle sanction is
for five hectare or more area, then applicant
from the date of receipt of such information,
shall submit environment permission obtained
under notification dated 14.09.2009 of Ministry
of Environment and Forest with in period of six
months. After completion of all formalities
sanctioning authority shall issue sanction order
of quarry permit. Sanctioning authority may
permit to enhance the time period, if all
formalities are not completed in prescribed time
period, on the basis of satisfactory reasons:
Provided also that quarry permit
holder/contractor engaged in construction
work shall obtain certificate of no mining dues
to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral
used in construction work, for the mineral
excavated from quarry permit area or used by
purchasing from open market. Certificate of no
mining dues shall be issued by Mining
officer/officer in-charge mining section, after
verification of documents submitted by
contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in
construction work."
9. The State Government, in order to check the pilferage of
mineral and evasion of Royalties, amended Rule 68 M.P. Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996. By virtue of these amendment, the
petitioner/contractor are required to submit Royalty Clearance
Certificate before passing their bills. Under Rule 68 of the M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, it is incumbent that the contractor
engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of no mining
dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in
construction work, for the mineral excavated from quarry permit
area or used by purchasing from open market. Thus, it is incumbent
to the petitioner to obtain certificate and for that they have to
maintain the correct accounts showing the quantity and other
particulars of all minerals obtained and purchased from the mine
owner or from the open market and the same can be examined by the
Mining Officer/Officer in-charge of mining.
10. In order to ask for information regarding accounts showing the
quantity despatched and royalty paid, the State Government can ask
for such information and in order to regulate that proper accounts is
maintained and proper despatch register is maintained for that
purpose, this power has been conferred on the State Government.
Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner/contractor is required to
obtain no mining certificate under Rule 68 of M.P. Minor Mineral
Rules, 1996 and, thus, no direction, as prayed in this writ petition
can be granted.
11. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2904/2015
11/05/2015
Shri R.P.Joshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
As prayed by Shri R.P.Joshi, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, list on 13.05.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3022/2015
11/05/2015
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 4, therefore, no
notice is required to issue against respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Let notice be issued to the respondent No.3 by
registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within three days. Notice be made returnable within 4
weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.No.3026/2015
11/05/2015
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the petitioners.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.515/2015
11/05/2015
Shri S.K.Vyas, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Atul Shridharan, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Devendra Singh Bais, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate appears and takes notice on behalf of the
respondent/State, therefore, no notice is required to issue against
respondent/State. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to
seek instructions.
Office to place the chargesheet which has been filed
on Friday on record.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.3023/2015
11/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List after summer vacation, as prayed .
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1022/2013
11/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Report of hand writing expert has been filed by
the respondent.
Office is directed to place it on record and list
after summer vacation.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CEA.No.19/2013
11/05/2015
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for and is permitted to serve hamdust
notice to the respondent on payment of necessary charges
as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.7941/2011
11/05/2015
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel for
the petitioners.
Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.6, 7 and 8.
As per status report which has been filed today,
less than 5% of the work of distributaries is left which is in
progress and the installation of the control gates on the
main canal has been started to regulate the distribution of
water in the fields.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
more than 15 to 20% work is left and the same has not been
completed in the command area. He prays for and is
granted three weeks time to file counter to the status report
filed by the respondents No.6, 7 and 8. List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.8625/2014
08/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CONCR.No.1/2014
08/05/2015
Parties through their Counsel.
Shri Deepak Tiwari, Station House Officer,
Police Station Manak Chowk, Ratlam is present in person.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/State prays
for time.
Prayer allowed.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3775/2014
08/05/2015
Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.C.C.No.304/2015
08/05/2015
Shri Mukesh Tare, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents/State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for
withdrawal of the application under Section 13 of the Court
Fees Act for refund of Court fees with liberty to file Review
Petition.
Prayer allowed.
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.8831/2014
08/05/2015
Shri L.N.Soni, learned Senior Counsel along
with Shri Shraddha Dixit, learned Counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.1/CBI.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Counsel for the non-
applicant No.1 prays for three days time to file table/chart
in compliance of order dated 27.04.2015.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.454/2015
08/05/2015
Shri Atul Shridharan, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
At the request of learned Counsel for the
applicant, case is adjourned.
List after summer vacation, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2843/2015
07/05/2015
Shri S.C.Sharma, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the tender notice issued by the M.P.Fisheries
Federation in respect of Gandhi Sagar Reservoir which
contains an area of 68,234 hectares for a period of 5 years.
As per notice inviting tender earnest money fixed by the
federation is Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor fisherman and
just to exclude him and his community they fixed earnest
money deposit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and submitted that the
aforesaid clause in the notice inviting tender may be
deleted/quashed.
As per para 6.9 of the Writ Petition in the
preceding 5 years total 13914.718 Tonne fishes have been
lifted from the aforesaid reservoir and the aforesaid contract
was awarded for a sum of Rs.35,00,00,000/-.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that
the federation has rightly fixed the earnest money deposit. No
case is made out to interfere or to quash aforesaid condition
as prayed in the Public Interest Litigation. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.130/2015
07/05/2015
Shri Kailash Sajoniya, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
By this intra court appeal the appellant is challenging
the order dated 30.03.2015 passed in W.P.No.3205/2014 whereby
Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and
latches. It is not disputed that in the year 2014 he has filed a Writ
Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to make entry in the
service book of the petitioner in respect of the service rendered by
him on the substitution post.
Learned Writ Court considering the fact that the delay
has not been explained properly dismissed the Writ Petition.
On perusal of the impugned order so also considering
the fact that the delay has not been sufficiently explained by the
appellant, we are of the view that the Writ Court has rightly
dismissed the belated Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.414/2015
07/05/2015
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1a, 1b and 2, 3 and 4.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let notice be issued to the respondents No.1c, 1d and
respondents No.5 to 7 by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary
mode on payment of process fee within a week. Notice be made
returnable within 10 weeks.
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Govt. Advocate appears
and takes notice on behalf of the respondent No.8/State,
therefore, no notice is required to issue against respondent No.8.
Record of the Trial Court be called for.
Learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to
supply additional two sets of First Appeal to Shri Vishal Verma,
learned Counsel for the respondents.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.A.No.133/2015
07/05/2015
Shri G.P.Singh, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
As prayed by Shri G.P.Singh, learned Counsel
for the appellant, list on 11.05.2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.416/2015
07/05/2015
Ms.Seema Sharma, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the courts below be requisitioned.
Let notice be issued to the respondent by
registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2853/2015
07/05/2015
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned Counsel for
the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let notice be issued to the respondents by
registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
At this stage, interim relief as prayed for cannot
be granted. Application for interim relief will be considered
only after return or reply is filed by the respondents.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2880/2015
07/05/2015
Smt. Anjali Jamkhedkar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Let notice be issued to the respondents by
registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on payment of
process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable
within six weeks.
List after service of notice to the respondents.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.599/2015
07/05/2015
Shri M.R.Sheikh, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
This appeal has been filed by the complainant
against the order of acquittal of respondent No.1.
Office to verify whether against the impugned
order of acquittal dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Ujjain in Special Case
No.29/2013 any application for leave to appeal has been
filed by the respondent No.2 or any appeal filed by the
respondent No.2 against the impugned order is pending?
Office is directed to examine and submit a
detailed report. In the meanwhile, record of the Special
Judge be called for.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
CRR.No.1554/2014
07/05/2015
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
Lokayukt.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
Lokayukt prays for time to seek instructions in the matter,
and if necessary he may file reply supported by the affidavit
of the Investigating Officer.
List after summer vacation.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
F.A.No.955/2010
07/05/2015
Shri Kaushal Singh, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
this case has been wrongly listed.
Office to verify and list before the appropriate
Bench.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4136/2014
07/05/2015
Shri R.C.Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri D.S.Panwar, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 5.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents/State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Shri Brine D'Silva, learned Senior Counsel has been
engaged on behalf of the petitioner but today he is not
available.
As prayed, list in the second week of July, 2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1216/2015
07/05/2015
Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3 prays for and is granted last
opportunity of three weeks time to file reply.
th
List in the week commencing 6 July, 2015.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.5049/2014
05/03/2015
Shri T.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Jitendra Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents/State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner in Annexure P/1 and P/2 has very categorically
prayed that hand pump at his choice be installed, but no
hand pump has been installed as per Annexure P/1 and P/2,
which has been filed before the respondent No.1 on
04.06.2014 and 26.06.2014.
In reply learned Panel Lawyer submitted that as
per Para 5 and 6 of reply State Govt. has framed a policy
vide Annexure R/1 and in compliance to the aforesaid
policy hand pumps have been installed at number of places
as per Annexure R/2.
Considering aforesaid, we direct the respondent
No.1 to examine the matter and submit a detailed report
regarding installation of hand pumps as stated by Annexure
P/1 and P/2 within a period of three weeks from today.
List after three weeks.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4059/2014
05/03/2015
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Anita Sharma, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 5.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
Ms. Anita Sharma, learned Counsel for the
respondents submits that as per affidavit work has been
completed.
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the affidavit no date has been
mentioned in regard to completion of work.
Considering this fact, Counsel for the respondents
is directed to submit a detailed and specific affidavit
mentioning the date of completion of work and date of
issuance of Completion Certificate.
List in the week commencing 16th March, 2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.901/2015
05/03/2015
Shri S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Heard with consent.
The petitioner claims to be a Government contractor.
He has been awarded various civil works by the Public Works
Department, Ujjain Division. According to the petitioner, he has
submitted bills for making payments, which have become due;
but the payments are not being released by the respondents on the
ground that the petitioner has not submitted Royalty Clearance
Certificate.
According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid
down by this Court in various cases, including the cases of M.P.
Contractors Sangh, Indore & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Ors.,
1987 JLJ 743, M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v/s.
Abrar Construction Company & Ors., 2005 Arb. WLJ 379
(MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v/s. State of M.P. 2007 (3)
M.P.H.T. 433 (D.B.) and Tomar Construction Company v/s.
State of M.P. & Ors. 2008 (2) M.P.L.J 40 and recently in Writ
Appeal No.357/2012 (M/s. Arpit Heights (P) Ltd. v/s. Indore
Development Authority) decided on 18.3.2013 by a Division
Bench of this Court, the insistence of the respondents for
production of the Royalty Clearance Certificate is illegal.
Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
various judgments on which reliance has been placed and more
particularly, recently the view taken by this court in the case of
M/s. Arpit Heights (P) Ltd (Supra) in which the Division
Bench after taking into consideration all the earlier judgments,
has passed the following order, in our considered view, the
petition deserves to be allowed:-
"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, in our
considered view, the learned Single Judge has
committed error in dismissing the writ petition on
the basis of the aforesaid clause which runs contrary
to the statutory provisions because the Collector can
issue certificate with regard to payment of royalty
only, if the royalty is payable by the contractor. If
the contractor has purchased the material from a
supplier and the supplier has purchased the material
from the mine owner, who has extracted the mineral
from a place which is not known to the contractor,
the contractor cannot be expected to run from pillar
to post finding out of source of extraction and the
mineral consumed by him and then produce the
certificate. This condition seems to be impracticable
and inconsistent to the statutory provision.
12.Having regard to the aforesaid, we allow this
writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal
by issuing the following directions, akin to the
directions issued in the case of Tomar Construction
Company (Supra), which will safeguard and take
care of the interest of the petitioner as also of the
respondents:-
(1) The State Government / Indore
Development Authority / Competent Authority
of the respondent shall clear the bills of the
petitioner submitted in connection with
execution of the contract in question without
insisting upon producing no dues certificate
from the Collector or any other authority with
regard to payment of royalty for the minerals
consumed. However, the State Government /
Indore Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent can insist upon
production of bills with regards to purchase of
mineral and in case the bill is not available, an
affidavit indicating the manner in which and
the place or source from where the mineral is
purchased. This affidavit can be used by the
State Government / Indore Development
Authority / Competent Authority of the
respondent for verification and for taking
further action for clearing the bills.
(2) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered from
the bills of the petitioner, shall be refunded to
the petitioner on the petitioner filing the bill or
the affidavit as indicated herein-above. In
case, the petitioner is unable to produce the
bill or the affidavit as indicated herein-above,
liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent
the matter before the State Government /
Indore Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent pointing out the
inability in producing the bills or the affidavit
and it would be for the State Government /
Indore Development Authority / Competent
Authority of the respondent to consider the
representation and take such steps as may be
permissible or proper for clearing the bills in
the given set of circumstances, as may be
indicated by the petitioner."
In the circumstances, we allow this petition and issue
the following directions, which in our considered view, will
safeguard and will take care of interest of both the parties:-
(1)The respondent shall clear the bills of the petitioner
submitted in connection with execution of the contract
in question without insisting upon producing no dues
certificate from the collector or any other authority with
regard to payment of royalty for the minerals consumed.
However, the respondents can insist upon production of
bills with regards to purchase of mineral and in case the
bill is not available, an affidavit indicating the manner
in which and the place or source from where the mineral
is purchased. This affidavit can be used by the
respondents for verification and for taking further action
for clearing the bills.
(2)Amount of royalty, if any, recovered from the bills of
the petitioner, shall be refunded to the petitioner on the
petitioner filing the bill or the affidavit as indicated
hereinabove. In case petitioner is unable to produce the
bill or the affidavit as indicated herein-above, liberty is
granted to the petitioner to represent the matter before
the respondents pointing out the inability in producing
the bills for the affidavit and it would be for the
respondents to consider the representation and take such
steps as may be permissible or proper for clearing the
bills in the given set of circumstances as may be
indicated by the petitioner.
No orders as to costs. It is made clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1169/2015
05/03/2015
Shri Pranay Shukla, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for
withdrawal of the Writ Petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed as
withdrawn.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1216/2008
05/03/2015
Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.
Let notice be issued to the respondents No.2 and
3 by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary mode on
payment of process fee within three days. Notice be made
returnable within three weeks.
Failure to pay the process fee within the
stipulated time, interim order passed by this Court on
26.02.2015 shall stand automatically vacated.
List immediately after four weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing
subject to the condition.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4052/2008
05/03/2015
Ms. Pritha Moitra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents No.2 and 3.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to
supply copy of the Writ Petition along with the documents
to the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 to seek
further instructions in the matter and if necessary to file
reply to the petition within a week.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
C.R.R.No.60/2015
05/03/2015
Ms. Kiran Johar, learned Counsel for the
applicant submits that today she has filed some more
documents to support this Criminal Revision and prays for
one week's time to argue on the question of admission.
Prayer is allowed.
List after a week, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.38/2011
05/03/2015
Shri Pankaj Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri B.L.Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel for the respondent.
th
List on 12 March, 2015, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.38/2011
05/03/2015
Shri Pankaj Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri B.L.Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel for the respondent.
th
List on 12 March, 2015, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.C.C.No.496/2010
05/03/2015
Shri B.L.Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
th
List on 12 March, 2015, as prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.2112/2014
05/03/2015
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
As prayed by Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, further one week's time is
granted to seek instructions in the matter and argue on
admission.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.4136/2014
05/03/2015
Shri Brine D'Silva, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Amit Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
As prayed by Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned
th
Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, list on 17 March,
2015.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.3849/2014
05/03/2015
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the
respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to file
additional return to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
W.P.No.1213/2015
05/03/2015
Shri Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents/State.
By filing this petition in the nature of Public
Interest Litigation the petitioner is challenging the order of
awarding quarry lease dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P/1), by
which Respondent No.1 Collector, District Barwani granted
quarry lease in favour of Respondent No.4 Krushna Gole
under the Provisions of Rule 57 Madhya Pradesh Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996. As per Sub Rule (4) of Rule 57
M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, "Any person aggrieved by
any order passed or deemed to have been passed by the
State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred
under these rules, may, within sixty days of the date of
communication of the order to him, apply to the State
Government for review of the order."
In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions of
review and appeal provided under the M.P. Minor Mineral
Rules, 1996, no case to interfere with the impugned order
dated 27.08.2014 as prayed by the petitioner is made out.
Accordingly W.P. No.1213/2015 is dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for filing
an appeal against the impugned order.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1408/2013
09/02/2015
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.7538/2013, which is an
application for condonation of delay.
47 days' delay has occasioned in filing of the
present appeal.
Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is
a poor and illiterate villager and at present he is in custody.
There was no male member in his family to make
arrangement for the fund for presenting appeal within time,
hence the delay is bona fide and be condoned.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Counsel for the
respondent/State has opposed the submission of the appellant
and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Considering the above, in the interest of justice we
find that application (IA No.7538/2013) needs to be allowed.
Hence, the application is allowed and the delay is hereby
condoned.
The appeal is taken up for hearing.
Counsel for the appellant prays for a week's time
to supply a copy of memo of appeal along with the copy of
judgment to the Counsel for the respondent/State.
Prayer is accepted.
Counsel for the appellant is also directed to file an
affidavit of the appellant in support of the application for
condonation of delay within two weeks.
List for admission in the week commencing 23rd of
February, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.65/2012
09/02/2015
None for the appellant.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
None appears on behalf of the appellants on
22.07.2014, 19.08.2014 and on 22.09.2014 case was
adjourned at the request of Counsel for the appellants. Again
on 15.10.2014 Counsel for the appellants sought time. None
appears on behalf of the appellants on 14.11.2014 and again
on 15.12.2014 case was adjourned at the request of Counsel
for the appellants. On 16.01.2015 none appears for the
appellants and none appears today, application is, therefore,
dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.836/2011
09/02/2015
Shri K.P.Gangore, learned Counsel for the
appellant Mukesh @ Banti.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.170/2015, which is an application
for grant of suspension of sentence.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged
the fact that under similar circumstances co-accused Subhash
@ Banti has been granted suspension of sentence in
Cr.A.No.716/2011. He, however, candidly admitted that the
present appellant was wielding a sword and the co-accused
Subhash was wielding knife. He however prayed that on the
ground of parity appellant was entitled for suspension of
sentence, since no specific role has been assigned to the
present appellant. Besides this, he also submitted that the
appellant had completed almost 10 years in the custody.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other
hand, has objected to the grant of suspension of sentence. He
submitted that in Para 61 of the impugned judgment learned
Judge of the Trial Court has categorically held that deceased
Raja sustained 24 incised wounds and 3 stab wounds;
whereas second deceased Rajesh sustained 2 abrasions and 8
incised wounds with 4 stab wounds and in this light
considering the fact that the appellant was wielding sword he
cannot escape from the liability for offence under Section
148, 149 read with Section 302 of the IPC in the present case.
Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
Considering the number of injuries sustained
being incised, application for suspension of sentence cannot
be allowed only on the ground of long stay in custody.
Application is, therefore, dismissed as being without merit.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A. No.124/2014
10/12/2014
Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Raghuveer Singh Chouhan, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9298/2014, which is an
application for grant of suspension of sentence.
Counsel for the appellant has candidly admitted
that this is third application moved on behalf of the appellant
No.1 Ganesh, however, Counsel stated that the injured Dilip
had only single injury on the head and he has fully recovered.
Appellant is under custody for more than one and half years,
besides the appellant was on bail during trial and he never
misused the liberty granted to him. He has full chance of
success in appeal. Counsel submitted that the appellant would
likely to deteriorate in custody. He also submitted that co-
accused Anil has already been granted suspension of sentence
by this Court. Counsel prayed for grant of suspension of
sentence, since the appellant is only 23 years of age.
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other
hand, has submitted that the appellant was fully implicated in
the matter and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Considering the above and the young age of the
appellant and on the ground of parity, I find that the
application needs to be allowed. The application is, therefore,
allowed.
It is directed that the appellant be released on bail
subject to his having paid the fine amount, if any, and on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty
five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this
rd
Court/Registry on 23 January, 2015 and on such
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office.
In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence
of the appellant shall remain suspended till hearing of the
appeal.
C.c. as per rules.
Cr.A.No.905/2009
07/02/2015
Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the
appellant No.1.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9858/2014.
This is second application for temporary
suspension of sentence to the appellant No.1 Mahipal Singh.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
according to his information appellant No.1 Mahipal Singh
has suffered a stroke (heart attack).
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State prays for time to verify.
Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the
respondent/State to file medical status report of appellant
No.1 Mahipal Singh.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1042/2011
07/02/2015
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellant No.1.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for
the appellant No.1 submitted that he does not wish to press
IA No.1821/2014 provided liberty is granted to the appellant
to file application for early hearing.
Prayer being reasonable has not opposed by the
Counsel for the State. Hence, application (IA No.1821/2014)
is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for by the
appellant No.1.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.836/2011
07/02/2015
Shri K.P.Gangore, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for analogous
hearing with Cr.A.No.716/2011.
List for analogous hearing with Cr.A.
No.716/2011 in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.943/2014
07/02/2015
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the appellants prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1105/2001
07/02/2015
None for the appellants.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to
the appellants to amend the cause title.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1201/2005
07/02/2015
None for the appellants.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
R.P.No.185/2014
07/02/2015
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that he has paid the process fee, but there
is no service report as per provisions of amended High Court
Rules.
Registry to verify and do the needful.
List in the week commencing 23rd February, 2015
for service report.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.804/2007
07/02/2015
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.8824/2014.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned Counsel for the
appellants prays for suspension of sentence to the appellant
No.1 Pappu @ Surendra Singh on the ground that the father
of the accused is grievously ill.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State prays for time to verify. He is directed to
file medical status report in two weeks.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.9283/2014
05/02/2015
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
petitioner/S.P.E.(Lokayukt).
Heard on IA No.8887/2014.
Issue notice of this application to the respondent
on payment of process fee by registered as well as ordinary
mode within one week. Notice be made returnable within two
weeks.
Failure to pay the amount as earlier stated within
the stipulated time the petition shall be dismissed without
reference to this court.
In the meanwhile, Counsel for the petitioner is
directed to put proper seal on the Vakalatnama and also call
for record of the courts below.
List after service on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.1283/2014
05/02/2015
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
applicant/S.P.E.(Lokayukt).
Heard on IA No.8887/2014.
Issue notice of this application to the respondent
on payment of process fee by registered as well as ordinary
mode within one week. Notice be made returnable within two
weeks.
Failure to pay the amount as earlier stated within
the stipulated time the petition shall be dismissed without
reference to this court.
In the meanwhile, Counsel for the applicant is
directed to put proper seal on the Vakalatnama and also call
for record of the courts below.
List after service on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.144/2015
05/02/2015
Shri S.K.Meena, learned Counsel along with Shri
Bhagwan Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Counsel for the appellants prays for time to cure
the defect.
Two weeks time is granted to do so.
List in the week commencing 23rd February, 2015
subject to cure the defect.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.50/2015
05/02/2015
Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt).
Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt)
prays for time to place on record the challan, which is
vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the petitioner
submitting that the next date in the trial court is 9th of
February, 2015.
In view of the above, last chance is granted to
the Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E.(Lokayukt).
List on 12th of February, 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1556/2014
05/02/2015
Shri Vinod Bhavsar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt).
Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt)
prays for time to place on record the challan, which is
vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the petitioner
submitting that the next date in the trial court is 9th of
February, 2015.
In view of the above, last chance is granted to
the Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E.(Lokayukt).
List on 12th of February, 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1541/2014
05/02/2015
Shri S.C.Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt).
Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt)
prays for time to place on record the challan, which is
vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the petitioner
submitting that the next date in the trial court is 9th of
February, 2015.
In view of the above, last chance is granted to
the Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E.(Lokayukt).
List on 12th of February, 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1521/2014
05/02/2015
Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt).
Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E. (Lokayukt)
prays for time to place on record the challan, which is
vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the petitioner
submitting that the next date in the trial court is 9th of
February, 2015.
In view of the above, last chance is granted to
the Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E.(Lokayukt).
List on 12th of February, 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.817/2015
05/02/2015
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
applicant/S.P.E. (Lokayukt).
Call for the record.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.495/2010
05/02/2015
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent No.4/State.
None for other respondents though served.
Record of the Trial Court has been requisitioned,
which is not available along with the file. List in the
week commencing 23rd February, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.7525/2013
05/02/2015
None for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E.
Counsel for the respondent/S.P.E. Submits that
reply has been filed. None appears on behalf of the petitioner
today.
In view of the above, list on IA 9605/2014, an
application for taking additional documents on record.
List in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.996/2015
05/02/2015
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the applicant/State.
Counsel for the applicant/State prays for time to
file affidavit in support of the interim application.
List after a week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.193/2005
05/02/2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Call for record and list on admission preferably in
the week commencing 2nd March, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.728/2004
05/02/2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellant.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that he has no instructions and he is not
appearing on behalf of the appellant.
In view of the above, let production warrant be
issued for presence of the accused/appellant before this Court
on 23rd of March, 2015.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the C.J.M.
concerned for compliance.
List on 23rd March, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1175/2005
05/02/2015
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent/State.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellants submits that he has not received paper book and
would like to argue the matter in the next week.
List accordingly.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.235/2014
04/02/2015
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Counsel for the
applicant/State.
Shri Rajesh Bhargat, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Counsel for the
applicant/State prays for short time to file an application
to implead respondent No.2 Shri Surendra Singh Rajavat
as party.
He is granted one week's time to do so.
List on 18th February, 2015, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.639/2014
04/02/2015
None for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
non-applicant/Lakayukt.
Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to
argue.
List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.R.No.1140/2014
04/02/2015
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
non-applicant/Lakayukt.
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned Counsel for the
applicant prays for time to argue on admission and IA
No.7453/2014.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1626/2014
04/02/2015
Shri Neeraj Gaud, learned Counsel appears on
behalf of Shri O.P.Solanki, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Counsel for the
respondent/State.
Shri Neeraj Gaud, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for time to argue.
Last opportunity is granted to appellant to argue
on admission.
Record has already been requisitioned.
This appeal is filed by complainant.
List for disposal in the next week.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.6999/2014
04/02/2015
Shri M.I.Khan, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
non-applicant/Lakayukt.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Lakayukt prays for two weeks' time to file
reply.
Last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted
to the respondent to file reply as directed by this Court on
18.11.2014.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C.No.9490/2014
04/02/2015
Shri Rambhuvan Tiwari, applicant, present in
person.
Shri Arvind Gokhle, learned Standing Counsel
for the Lakayukt, submits that there is nothing in the
petition pertaining to the office of S.P., Lokayukt.
On perusal of the petition and the contents, we
find that Shri B.L.Yadav, Govt. Advocate can be
appointed to look into the matter.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to
handover a copy of this petition to the learned Counsel for
Lokayukt. He submits that there are financial constraints
and he cannot do so.
Registry is directed to prepare a photocopy of
the petition along with Annexures and handover to Shri
B.L.Yadav, Govt. Advocate within a period of two weeks.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate is
directed to file appropriate reply thereafter.
List after four weeks after compliance.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.189/2015
04/02/2015
Smt. Anita Gaud, learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that due to inadvertence the affidavit of the
accused could not be filed along with the application for
condonation of delay. Since the accused is in jail, she prays
for time.
List after a week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.954/2013
04/02/2015
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Counsel for the
appellant prays for time.
Last opportunity is granted to the appellant to
argue on IA No.6782/2014.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1699/2014
02/02/2015
Shri C.R.Karnik, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
The report of bailable warrant indicates that
bailable warrant could not be served due to paucity of time.
In view of the above, let fresh bailable warrant be
issued for the respondent-accused Mukesh, made returnable
on or before 23rd of February, 2015.
Registry is directed to positively do the needful.
Counsel for the State is directed to pay fresh
process fee regarding issuance of the said warrant and notice
to the respondent-accused.
List on 23rd of February, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
Cr.A.No.1987/2014
02/02/2015
None for the appellant.
None appeared on 05.01.2015 and 19.01.2015.
Last opportunity is granted to the appellant to
make submission.
List in the next week for disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C. No.5534/2014
02/02/2015
Shri C.R.Karnik, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.
Notices have been served on the respondents.
Last opportunity is granted to the respondents to
make submission.
List in the week commencing 16th February, 2015.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
M.Cr.C. No.10395/2014
02/02/2015
Shri C.R.Karnik, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.
By this MCC under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
learned Counsel for the applicant/State seeks leave to file
appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated
02.09.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur in
Sessions Trial No.120/2013.
Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case are that
the prosecutrix was a resident of Village Kumhariyapal and
was a labourer. It was an admitted fact that accused Mangilal
and prosecutrix had several disputes and some of them were
also pending. In a case, in the Court at Shajapur, on
05.03.2013, she had gone to the Court and was returning
home in the evening, when at around 8.30 p.m. returning
home by bus she had alighted at Kumhariyanaka and when
she was proceeding towards Kumhariyapal, Dhinka Road,
from behind the accused caught her and dragged her below
the road and committed rape on her. She tried to shout for
help but it was to no avail. After raping her the accused
Mangilal left the spot. After returning home the prosecutrix
narrated the incident to her son Govind. Since it was late in
the night, they went on the next day to Police Station Mo.
Badodiya and the FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged. The investigation
was started and consequently the accused was arrested and
duly charged. He was committed to his trial under Section
376 (1) of the IPC. Initially the crime was registered at
568/2013 by the Police Station concerned and on committal
by the Magistrate the accused was committed to his trial. He
pleaded that he was not guilty. On consideration of the
evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that there was
no incriminating evidence available on record to prosecute
the accused and the accused was acquitted from the said
offence, hence the State has preferred this application for
grant of leave to file appeal.
Counsel for the applicant/State has candidly stated
that the application is barred by 15 days and an application
has been moved for condonation of delay. Bureaucratic delay
is the reason for the delay.
Also considered the application on merits. We find
that the prosecutrix is not very reliable and there are several
omissions and contradictions in her statement as well as
statement of Govind, her son, besides this the previous
enmity was quite marked and significant and cannot be
overlooked. Similarly, Counsel for the applicant/State has
raised an objection that the FSL report (Ex.P/9) has not been
considered in its proper perspective. There was a positive
indication that sexual intercourse had been committed due to
the spot smearing found on the cloth of the lady. However, on
considering impugned Para 12 of the judgment, we find that
the learned Judge of the trial court has categorically come to
a finding that FSL is no use to the prosecutrix, because on the
date of incident she has returned in the night and FIR was
lodged on the next date. Similarly medical report by Doctor
clearly indicates that there were no injuries found on the body
whereas the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her son Govind (PW-2)
have made categorical statements that prosecutrix had
received injuries due to the breaking of the bangles and the
place of incident being a rough spot strewn with sharp stones
and irregular spot. However, the medical report does not
support the prosecution and in this light also we do not find
any merit and substance in this application and also the
application is barred by 15 days time, which has not been
properly explained. Application is dismissed as being without
merits and on ground of limitation, as well as on merits.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.
st
Matters notified on the Board dated 21 of November,
2014
21/11/2014
Common Order
S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the No. applicant/s respondent/State 125 CRA 333/14 Shri Imran Shri Amit Purohit Bangash 122 CRA 716/11 Shri Shri Amit Purohit Harshwardhan Pathak 123 CRA 598/13 Shri Imran Shri Amit Purohit Bangash Counsel for the appellant prays for time.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
ns.