Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganpat vs Deced. Gangabai Thru. Lrs. Deced. ... on 14 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.5388/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, list on 09.04.2018.
(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK
Date: 2018.03.14 18:29:42 +05'30'
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.1256/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed learned counsel for the appellant, list after
two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A.No.542/2007
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed learned counsel for the appellant, list after
two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.19900/2017
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned Government Advocate prays for, list the
matter on 28.03.2018.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.2378/2015
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Counsel for appellant is directed to pay fresh P.F. to
respondent No.2 on his present and correct address within 7
days.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No.75/2001 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant prays time to argue this appeal on admission.
List on 28.03.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Conc. No.812/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Petitioner through counsel. Issue notice to respondent No.3 and 4 on payment of P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No.324/2005 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Shri T.K. Modi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the Alok Ku- mar Dabar.
Heard on I.A. No.6795/2007.
Alok Kumar Dabar has filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment as a respondent in this appeal in place of respondent No.2, who has expired during pendency of this appeal. Alok Kumar Dabar is son of respondent No.2, who is claiming possession by virtue of sub tenancy. Gulshan brother of Alok Singh Dabar was already on record as respondent No. 8. ( now he has expired represented through his legal heirs) , therefore, Alok Kumar Dabar is a necessary party in this appeal, hence, I.A. No.6795/2007 is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be incorporated in the cause title of appeal.
List for final hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 1184/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned.
List after a week.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No.1390/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
In the meanwhile, record of Tribunal be called for.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No.652/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant. Record of court below be called for. List after receipt of record.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. 5679/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Petitioner through counsel. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Also heard on the question of admission. Since that written examination has already held and in which petitioner could not appear, hence, any appointment made in the respective category and post shall be subject to outcome of this petition.
C.C. as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.5871/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Petitioner through counsel. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH F.A. No.971/2016 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Shri Saheed Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
In the meanwhile, record of the court below be called for.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No. 1940/2017 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment to go through the record.
List after two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.5879/2017 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No.108/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Record is awaited.
List after receipt of record. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH C.R. No.110/2013 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to argue the matter on 28.03.2018.
List on 28.03.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH C.R. No.142/2014 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to argue the matter on 28.03.2018.
List on 28.03.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH C.R. No.172/2013 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to argue the matter on 28.03.2018.
List on 28.03.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.2815/2014 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, case is adjourned. List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.310/2018 Indore; dated 14.03.2018 Shri Sachin Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2017 by which learned trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C.. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction and removal of illegal construction raised by the defendant / plaintiff .
After receipt of summon, the defendant filed written statement contending that he has not raised any illegal construction but he purchased the constructed house and there is no illegal construction. On the basis of pleadings the learned trial court has framed the issues. The issue No.1 and 2 are in respect of the illegal construction raised by the defendant. The defendant has already filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and the case is fixed for cross examination his witnesses. At this stage the defendant has filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. The learned trial has rejected the aforesaid application by observing that the provision of under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. cannot use for collection of evidence. The Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. provides that :- "In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value, may issue a commission. The language of Order 26 Rule 9 is very plain and simple, according to which, if any court deems it proper to appoint a commission for the purpose of clarification of any issue in dispute, may appoint a commission. That any clarification requires only after the evidences are produced by both the parties. The parties in suit must prove their case by way of evidence and if the court wants that any issue or matter in dispute requires any clarification or elucidation it may appoint a commission. In the present case the plaintiff as well as defendants have not given their evidences so far. They have to stand on their lags as they have to prove their case by way of evidence and if thereafter any issue is required to be clarified then they may file an application or court suo moto may appoint a commission". The important is that at which stage application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. is filed in the suit.
In view of the above, the application filed by the respondent is premature and petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive his application after cross examination of his witnesses. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application at this stage.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of with above liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.19711/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent, list in the 1st week of April.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.18965/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent, list in the 1st week of April.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P. No.313/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 None for the petitioner, even in second round. Case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No.1373/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Appellant through counsel.
Record of the Tribunal be called for. List immediately after receipt of record.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No.1373/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Appellant through counsel.
Record of the Tribunal be called for. List immediately after receipt of record.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.5800/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Shri L.C. Patne learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5895/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Shri Abhishek Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they are bonafide purchaser and they purchased the property before same was put to mortgage to respondent No.5. They came to know about the order passed by Additional District Magistrate Indore, only when the notice dated 07.03.2018 was affixed in the premises.
At this stage, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent No.5 by way of humdust so that they can explain correct facts before this court.
P.F. be paid tomorrow, returnable within 1 week. List on 21.03.2018, till then status quo in respect of possession be maintained.
C.C. today.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No.1448/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Shri Abhishek Tungawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
(I). Whether the learned court below has committed error of law while dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation when the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he has requested for execution of sale deed and the defendant did not appear in the witness box to deny the said averments.
(II). Whether the court has erred in law in counting the period of limitation from the date of Ex.P-4 in which there is no period prescribed for execution of registered sale deed.
Also heard on I.A. No.15481.
Till the next date of hearing the respondent is restrained to alienate the suit property.
List for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3954/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5199/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Petitioner is present in person. Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondent.
By way of last indulgence 10 days time is granted to the petitioner and if the counsel of the petitioner is not present to argue the matter on the next date of hearing, then petitioner is free to change the counsel, but no further adjournment will be given to the petitioner.
List on 02.04.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.19227/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file rejoinder.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.21626/2017 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri L.C. Patne learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will file the rejoinder during course of the day.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
List after three weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.233/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Petitioner through counsel. Service of respondent is awaited. List after three weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3474/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.5622/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Shri Chandrakant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the letter dated 17.01.2018 by which forms were invited for 1st M.P. State Big Bore Shooting Championship at Rewati Range B.S.F., Indore scheduled on 23.02.2018 and 24.02.2018 which was further extended on 09.03.2018. The date has already been expired. With the efflux of time, present petition is rendered infractuous.
It is accordingly dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5797/2018 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondents.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within 3 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Also heard on the question of interim relief. The operation and effect of the order dated 05.03.2018 (Annexure P-4), shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No.2169/2015 Indore; dated 13.03.2018 Shri Anuj Bhargawa, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
(I). Whether " Washing Allowances" are included in the definition of "Wages" as defined under Section 2(22) of "the Act" ?
(II) Whether order of recovery dated 17.11.2006 was barred by limitation, and whether the Employees' Insurance Court was right in not giving any finding on the issues ?
Since, the respondent mark his presence, therefore, no further notice is required.
List for final hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7655/2015 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 None for the petitioner, even in second round. In the last date of hearing on 09.11.2018, no one has appeared on behalf of petitioner. The suit is pending since 2008, therefore stay order granted on 06.11.2015 is vacated.
The case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5706/2018 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Shri Sayyed Israr Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2017 by which the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Ujjain has terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal to challenge the said order.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this writ petition to approach the competent authority by way of appeal.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No.1932/2017 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Shri A.K. Sethi, senior counsel with shri Rishabh Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
(i). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justi-
fied in reversing the findings of the Trial Court without properly considering the provisions of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, particularly when the death of the attest- ing witnesses was an undisputed fact and their signa- tures were duly proved from the evidence of PW/3, PW/4 and PW/5 ?
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 and 3 on payment of P.F. within 7 days.
IA. No. 520/2018 shall be considered at the time of final hearing.
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays time to file reply on I.A. No.520/2018.
Time granted.
Till the next date of hearing status quo in respect of possession be maintained.
List after four weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 353/2018 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Petitioner through counsel. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.260/2016 (Vinod Kumar Nakda Vs. State of M.P. and others) Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondents/ State.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 04.11.2015 by which services of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist on contract basis vide order dated 05.09.2013. The period of contract of the petitioner was extended time to time. That, alongwith the petitioner other candidates were also appointed as Pharmacist. After the appointment the CMO, Mandsour (M.P.) has considered the eligibility of the petitioner and found that the appointment of the petitioner was against the rules and he was not eligible for the post of Pharmacist and his appointment is forged also.
The similar case came up for hearing before this Court in W.P. Nos. 749/2016, 1479/2016 & 1500/2016. By order dated 07.02.2018 all the writ petitions have been dismissed. The operative part of order is reproduced below:-
" The original record reflects that advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Pharmacist and after scrutiny of the applications, initially the merit list dated 7/3/13 was prepared. Thereafter a complaint was received alleging irregularities in preparing the merit list. Hence the selection process was stayed and appointment orders dated 20/3/13 were kept in abeyance. After the enquiry and considering the objections, the fresh select list was prepared and forwarded by the Incharge Officer to CMHO Mandsaur on 3/5/13. The said select list was displayed in the notice board of CMHO Mandsaur on 3/5/13 and objections were invited. The petitioner in WP No. 749/16 had submitted the objection which was rejected.
The appointment of petitioner in WP No. 749/16 was under OBC category and order of appointment of petitioner dated 31/8/2013 states that petitioner was appointed in pursuance to the revised merit list dated 3/5/13 but a perusal of the revised merit list dated 3/5/13 reveals that under the OBC male category, the last selected candidate had obtained 63.55% marks and last candidate in the waiting list had obtained 53.28% marks, whereas the chart containing the details of marks obtained by all candidates namely "all forms of pharmacist" reveals that petitioner's name figures in that chart at Sr.No. 595 and he had obtained only 36.12% marks. Since petitioner had obtained less than the cut-off marks in the main merit list and waiting list of OBC male candidate, therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on the post of Pharmacist.
So far as the petitioner in WP No. 1479/16 is concerned, he belongs to General Category and he was issued the notice dated 9/10/15 for cancellation of his appointment on the ground that neither his name figures in the select list nor he had submitted any application for appointment.
It has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents that the name of petitioner does not figure in the table of all forms of pharmacist which contains the details and marks of all applicants who had made the application for appointment nor does his name figure in the merit list or waiting list of selected candidates which means that the petitioner was appointed even without applying for the post.
In WP No. 1500/16 the petitioner was a candidate under Female General Category and she had obtained 36.15% marks whereas the cut-off marks in the merit list of the Female General Category was 55.13% and the cut-off marks in the waiting list of Female General Category was 39.27%. Since the petitioner had obtained less than the marks of last candidate of waiting list unreserved women candidate, therefore, she could not have been appointed.
The record further reflects that petitioners were issued the show cause notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing the impugned orders have been passed terminating their services on the ground that they had obtained less than the cutoff marks of the final select list and waiting list or had not even submitted the application for appointment. That apart it is also noticed that appointment of petitioners was on contract basis which as per terms of the appointment could be terminated after giving one month's notice or the contract amount in lieu thereof and in compliance of said condition, the petitioners have been paid the contract amount of one month.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by respondents in passing the impugned orders and terminating the services of petitioners. The writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit which are accordingly dismissed. The signed order be placed in the record of WP No.749/16 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ petitions.
In view of the above, the petition filed by petitioner is hereby dismissed.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No. 570/2016 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
"(a). Whether the learned court below has wrongly held that the plaintiff is not owner/landlord of the suit premises by virtue of sale deed Ex. P-1.
(b). Whether the both the courts below has wrongly held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant beween the plaintiff and defendant?
(c) Whether the court below has denied under Section 12 (1) (A) and 12 (1) (c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, mainly on the ground that there is no relationship between landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant ?"
List for final hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 513/2016 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file rejoinder.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 6494/2016 Indore; dated 12.03.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file rejoinder.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2481/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that return has been filed but the same is not available on record.
Office is directed to place the return on record. List in the week commencing 12.02.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No. 2570/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file compliance report.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2931/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Return has been filed.
List after two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3259/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Counsel for the respondent/ State submits that after filing return some new facts has been discovered, therefore, additional return is required. Four weeks time is granted to file additional return.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3445/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Return from the respondent is awaited. Let return be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3481/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3975/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 4852/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. At the request of the learned counsel for the petition- er, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5373/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 17252/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
I.R.if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 20239/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 20692/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 21078/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the peti- tioner prays for time to file rejoinder.
Time granted.
List in the next week.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCC No. 165/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice on IA No. 415/2018 as well as MCC on payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.
In the meantime, record of the court below be called for.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No. 212/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 633/2018 as well as MA on payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.
In the meantime, record of the court below be called for.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No. 283/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 317/2018 as well as MCC on payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.
In the meantime, record of the court below be called for.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCC No. 284/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Applicant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 689/2018 as well as MCC on payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.A. No. 376/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 451/2018 as well as MA on payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.
In the meantime, record of the court below be called for.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2152/2018 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within 7 days. Notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 1076/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 As prayed by local counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, list the matter on any Wednesday.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No. 1286/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Record of both the courts below be requisitioned. List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P. No. 1381/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri P.V. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. .............. for the respondent/ State. Learned Government seeks permission to file reply to the Review Petition.
Permission granted.
List after a week.
Copy of reply be supplied to Shri Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P. No. 1380/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri P.V. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. .............. for the respondent/ State. Learned Government seeks permission to file reply to the Review Petition.
Permission granted.
List after a week.
Copy of reply be supplied to Shri Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No. 1504/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 As prayed by Shri J.B. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List on 20.02.2018.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH S.A. No. 1680/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Counsel for the appellant prays time to examine the record.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5533/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri............. prays for time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner.
Time is granted.
List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 6075/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent prays and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 16947/2017 Indore; dated 29.01.2018 Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for the peti- tioner.
Shri ............... learned GA for respondent/ State. Petitioner has applied for changing of timings of Per- mit No. S.C.P.05/03/Badwani for route Anjad to Balwada extended up to Badwani.
According to the petitioner, he has submitted an ap- plication in the month of July 2017 but the same has not been decided so far.
The petition is disposed of with a direction to RTO, Indore to consider and decide the application in the next meeting in respect of the said permit. If no appeal or revi- sion is pending against the said application.
Petition is disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3619/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is grant- ed four weeks time to file rejoinder.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3477/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3301/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Counsel for respondent/ state prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3161/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply by way of last oppor- tunity.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3030/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is grant- ed four weeks time to file rejoinder.
List thereafter.
IR, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2761/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.
IR, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2432/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned GA prays for and is granted six week time to file reply.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2206/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2000/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 None for petitioner.
Shri V.K Jain, senior advocate with Shri Anubhav Raj Pandey for respondent.
Adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 1869/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the peti- tioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file appropriate application for amendment.
List thereafter.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 1420/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 1747/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 1420/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 1365/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 None for the petitioner.
Adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 1301/2017 Indore; dated 09.01.2018 Parties through their counsel. Shri Lilesh Sharma, learned counsel for re- spondent No.1 prays for and is granted time to file Vakalat- nama.
List after two weeks.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Alok THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Second Appeal No. 228/2016 Indore; dated 09.02.2018 Shri M.A. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Damodar Swarnkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3 and 4. The appellant (hereinafter referred as " Plaintiff") has filed present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2005 by District Judge.... in Civil suit NJHo. 2/2010 by which the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1996 passed in Civil Suit No 20-A/1999 passed by Civil Judge Class- I,...... decreeing the suit, has been set aside.
The plaintiff has filed the suit for delcaration, partition possession and mense profit against the defendant. According to plaintiff she is being a daugther of Ahmad Khan and the defendant No.1,2 and 3 son of Nannu Khan. Ahmad Khan, Nannu Khan and three others namely Chand, Munir... are son of Bahadur Khan. Chand, Munir... have died issueless, therefore, after the death of Bahadur Khan the defendants became jointly owner of the agricultural land, house mentioned in para 1, 2 and 4 of the plaint. As per description in the para 1 of the plaint the Ahmad Khan and defendant No.2 and 3 joinlty owned the agricultural land of difference servey Nos title area 8.904 hect. And house, mentioned in para 2 of the plaint.
Ahmad Khan died on............ and has left certain jewelly, Baffollo utnisil, bed etc as mentioned in para 4 of their valuation. Plaintiff being a dughter having ½ share of suit property mentioned in para 1, 2 and 4 of the plaint.
According to the plaintiff, Ahmad Khan was not keep good heath before his death and the defendant No.1 and 2 has got executed sale deed dated 12.09.1983 without informing the plaintiff. When she came to know about the sale deed dated 08.02.1984 after the death of Ahmad Khan is wife Jainabai is also expired within 3 months and the defendant did not informed about her death to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed dated 12.09. 1983 filed mainly on the ground that it does not contain the thumb impression of Ahmad Khan no sale consideration passed on to Ahmad Khan. At the time of execution of death so called sale deed he was not keep good health and was no in position to even travel office of Sub Registrar. The village Sharanpur is also having office of Sub Registrar which is 6 Km away from the house of Ahmad. Then why the sale deed has excusted office of Sub Registrar Shajgarh which is 60 km away.
The plaintiff has filed suit a proper personal claiming the relief ½ share in the agricultural land and house and other immovable properties from the defendant No.1 and 2.
After notice the defendant No.1 and 3 filed written satement refuting the allegations made in the plaint. By way of special pleading it was submitted that Ahmad Khan sold the sahre in the property by way of registered sale deed dated 12.09.1983 after sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of execution deed he was healty and hardly and in presence of witnesses the sale consideration and he put the Thumb- Impression bin the sale deed. He has also executed Bakshinama dated ............. in favour of the defendant No.1 and 2. Ahmad Khan and his wife Jainabai were looked after by the defendant No.1 and 2 and they performed the other cermonies. Hence, prays for dismisal of the suit.
On the basis of pleading the Trial Court has framed 9 issues for adjudication. The plaintiff has examined hereself as PW-1, Motilal S/o Peeru Lal, PW/4 and plaintiff has got exibited Copy of certificate in respect of income Ex.P/1, Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.09.1983 as Ex. P/2, Kisthbandi Khatoni 1992-93 in which name of Ahmad and defendant No.1 and 2 were jointly recorded as owner as Ex. P/3, Kisthbandi Khatoni 1983-84 in which the name of defendant No.1 and 2 are recorded as Ex. P/4, Khasra Panchshala from the year of 1979 to 1983 as Ex. P/5, document in relation to the treatment of Ahmad Khan as Ex. P/7 to P/9.
The defendant has examined Nurkhan as DW-1, Girja Shankar as DW-2, ........ DW-3, Heeralal as DW-4. The defendant has got exibited Bakshinama as D/1 and D/3, Registered sale dated 12.09.1983 as D/2. The learned Civil Judge vide judgement and decree dated 15.10.1996 has recorded the finding that the sale deed and Bakshinama has not been proved by the defendant therefore The petitioners have filed present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11/07/2016 by which application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been rejected.
The plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract against the present petitioners. The petitioners THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5362/2016 Indore; dated 03.02.2018 Shri ....................., learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri ...................., learned GA for respondent.
The petitioners have filed present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11/07/2016 by which application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been rejected.
The plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract against the present petitioners. The petitioners have filed written statement in which specifically denied the execution of agreement to sale and pleaded that agreement is forged and was not exeucted by them. On the basic of pleadings, the Trial Court has framed 5 issues under Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC. Thereafter, the petitioners have moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 and 151 of CPC for framing three additional issues in respect of the validity of the agreement. Learned trial court has rejected the said application, hence present petition.
After hearing both the parties. I perused the written statement filed by the present petitioners in which they had stated that agreement is forge and issues are liable to be framed on the basis of pleadings. On the basis of written statement impugned order is set aside and trial court is directed to frame issue No.6 whether the agreement of sale dated 07/04/2011 is forged or not ?
Petition is allowed.
C.C. as per rule.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No. 371/2017 Indore; dated 03.02.2018 Shri C.M. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri ...................., learned GA for respondent.
The petitioner has filed present contempt petition alleging non compliance of order dated 19/08/2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 5854/2015 by which respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to pay the salary as per the pay-scale provided under the Rules.
The respondents has filed an affidavit on 19/12/2017 by stating that he was given joining on 31.08.2017 and getting salary as per pay scale. He has also been paid the arrears on 08/12/2017, there is compliance of order dated 19/08/2016 passed in W.P. No. 5854/2015, by this court.
Shri Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay in part of the respondent to join him, therefore, he is entitlted for wages for entervening period.
It is disputed question of fact, the petitioner has liberty to approch the labour court to claim the benefit of that period.
Contempt petition disposed of. C.C. as per rule.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3718/2017 Indore; dated 02.02.2018 Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned GA for respondent No.1,2 and 3.
Shri N.Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and 5.
Petitioner has filed present petition seeking follwing reliefs:
"a. A writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashment of the order Annexure P/14 as also for directing the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of the land in question.
b. Costs of the petitioin be awarded to the petitioner from the respondents.
c. Any other relief, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioner."
Petitioner is proprietorship firm having bussiness within the District Ratlam. The Madhya Pradesh Government came with a policy to faciliated the Industrial Groath in the State to provide the land for setting up Industrial Unit. The said policy was framed under M.P. State Industrial Land and Industrial Building Management Rules, 2005 and came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2015.
The petitioner has submitted an application to respondent No.5 on 05.07.2016 for allotment of undeveloped plot of land admeasuring 4.348 hectare comrpised in servey No. 22/1/min-1 situated at Village Kumhari, Tahsil Jaora, District Ratlam.
The application of the petitioner forwarded to the Joint Director Industries, with recommendation, thereafter, the various communications were exchanged but no final order be passed. The petitioner was awaited the decision of the respondent in respect of allotment of the land on his application and meanwhile the respondent No.1 issued a order dated 28.02.2017 whereby the land in question has directed to be hand over by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.5. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition assailing the order dated 28.02.2017 on the ground that before considering his application for allotment the land in question oguht to have been transferred to respondent No.5.
After notice, respondent No.2 and 4 filed reply by submmitting that that after the order dated 28.02.2017 the land in question has already been handed over to respondent No.5, therefore, respondent No.4 has returned the application of the petitioner vide letter dated 03.05.2017, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and 4 are not competent to allote the land.
The respondent No.1, 3 and 5 also filed the return by submitting that the petitioner has applied with the project report of investment of approximately ..... and employment to about 80%, therefore, he is not eligible for allotment of the land against proposed unit. The petitioner comes within the purview of the larg scale industries which comes under the Commerce and Industrial Department. The respondent No.5 empowered to allote the land to micro, small and medium interprises. The land in question was ... of the land Jagra Sugar Mill and after .. of the mill the said land vested Joint Director AKVN vide letter dated 08.12.2015 therefore the the matter was transferred AKVN vide letter dated 27.07.2015 and thereafter out of 112 hectare land possession of land having area 42.7 hectare of survey No 2/21-Min has been handed over to respondent No.5 vide impugned letter dated 28.02.2017.
The grievance of the petitioner is that when he has submitted for allotment of the land that the respondent ought to have been considered.
In view of the policy envoke at the relevant time therfore the present petition is disposed of with direction respondent No. 1, 3 and 5 to consider the application of the petitinoer for allotment of the land as per law. Petitioner has filed present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17/11/2017 by which he has been transferred from Indore to Dewas in place of respondent No.2 has been transferred Dewas to Indore. The petitioner has assailed the transfer mainly on the ground that his son studying in Class 12th and taking coaching for IIT entrance examination and his transfer would adversly effect in study of his son.
Vide order dated 21/11/2017 this court has stayed the transfer order.
The present petition is filed being aggrieved by action of the respondent by which they had issued NIT for production and sell of fish for Mahi Dam by terminating the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2017 the respondent was also directed to deposite the amount of Rs.10,69,921/-.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 20039/2017 Indore; dated 02.02.2018 Shri LC Mehta Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned GA for respondent/State.
Shri Valmiki, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Petitioner has filed present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17/11/2017 by which he has been transferred from Indore to Dewas in place of respondent No.2 has been transferred Dewas to Indore. The petitioner has assailed the transfer mainly on the ground that his son studying in Class 12th and taking coaching for IIT entrance examination and his transfer would adversly effect in study of his son.
Vide order dated 21/11/2017 this court has stayed the transfer order.
The present petition is filed being aggrieved by action of the respondent by which they had issued NIT for production and sell of fish for Mahi Dam by terminating the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2017 the respondent was also directed to deposite the amount of Rs.10,69,921/-.
Shri.... on behalf of respondent... raised the maintaibility of the petition for want of arbitration clause in the agreement with the petitioner. Clause 45 is reproduced ¼vkfcVsª'ku½ 45- vuqca/k@ fufonk ds fu;e ,oa 'krksZa esa vuqca/k ds igys] vuqca/k vof/k esa ,oa okn esa fdlh izdkj dk fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks ml fLFkfr esa ,d i{k nwljs i{k dks uksfVl nsdj fokkn ds fu.kZ;@vokMZ gsrq ,deso e/;LFk ¼vkfcVsªVj½ dks lkSaisxk A ;g e/;LFk izca/k lapkyd] eRL; egkla?k] Hkksiky gksaxsA e/;LFkrk ¼vkfcVsª'ku½ dk fu.kZ;@ vokMZ nksuks i{kksa dks ekU; ,oa ca/kudkjh gksxkA vkfcVsª'ku dh dk;Zokgh ¼vkfcVsª'ku½ ,.M dkmfUlys'ku ,DV 1996 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr leiUu gksxhA vkfcVsª'ku ds fu.kZ; ds ckn gh vuqca/kxzghrk l{ke U;k;ky; esa tk ldsxkA blls lacaf/kr okn dk {ks=kf/kdkj ftyk Hkksiky jgsxkA bl vuqca/k i= dks mHk; i{kdkjksa us i<+dj le>dj vkt fnukad 11-01-2017 dks eRL; egkla?k] miiath;d dk;kZy; /kkj] ftyk /kkj mifLFkr gksdj esa gLrk{kj fd;k x;k] rkfd izek.k Lo:i miyC/k jgs vkSj le; ij dke vk;sA Shri Mehta submits that petitioner filed an application for appointment of Arbitrator which is filed as Annexure P-3. In similar facts and circumstances Principal Bench of this court in WP No 18445/2016 has disposed of the writ petition by reffering the dispute to arbitrator by religating the petitioner to resort the clause of arbitration.
In view of the above the present petition disposed of to the direction of the respondent No.2 to appointment the arbitrator on the request of the petitioner within a period of 30 days.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18298/2017 Indore; dated 02.02.2018 Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned GA for respondent/State.
The present petition is filed being aggrieved by action of the respondent by which they had issued NIT for production and sell of fish for Mahi Dam by terminating the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2017 the respondent was also directed to deposite the amount of Rs.10,69,921/-.
Shri.... on behalf of respondent... raised the maintaibility of the petition for want of arbitration clause in the agreement with the petitioner. Clause 45 is reproduced below...................................................
Shri Mehta submits that petitioner filed an application for appointment of Arbitrator which is filed as Annexure P-3. In similar facts and circumstances Principal Bench of this court in WP No 18445/2016 has disposed of the writ petition by reffering the dispute to arbitrator by religating the petitioner to resort the clause of arbitration.
In view of the above the present petition disposed of to the direction of the respondent No.2 to appointment the arbitrator on the request of the petitioner within a period of 30 days.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge M.Cr.C. No.19950/2017 Indore, dated 03.11.2017 Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Arguments heard.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Jawad, District-Neemuch, in Crime No.342/2016, under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act.
As per prosecution story, the co-accused Banti was arrested for having in his possession 196 kg of poppy straw and so far as the present applicant is concerned, he was having 60 kg of poppy straw, which was seized from joint possession of the present applicant and the co-accused Banti.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant and the quantity of contraband seized from his possession, is slightly above the commercial quantity prescribed by the Schedule appended to the Act. He further submits that co-accused Banti was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.19950/2017 dated 04.09.2017.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application on the ground that quantity falls within the limits of commercial quantity prescribed by the Schedule appended to the Act.
Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that the applicant shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge Note-Sheet 06.11.2017 As directed, the record kept with the Principal Registrar of this Court for safe custody relating to M.C.C. No.974/2015 may be kept in the record of aforesaid M.C.C. till final order of appeal, if filed against the order passed by this Court in Election Petition No.15/2014 dated 03.11.2017 before Hon'ble Apex Court.
The record of the aforesaid M.C.C. may also be preserved till disposal of appeal, if any, by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(Kafeel Ahmed Ansari) Personal Assitant to Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Verma Principal Registrar Note-Sheet 30.10.2017 As directed, C.D. as well as Pen Drive, which was sent towards you for safe custody in respect of E.P. No.15/2014, may kindly be returned back for perusal to his Lordship.
(Kafeel Ahmed Ansari) Personal Assitant to Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Verma Principal Registrar Cr.A.No.101/2017 21.02.2017 Due to paucity of time, the case is adjourned. List after two weeks.
Cr.A.No.101/201721.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainia, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Jaat, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant during the course of the day and he has no objection if bail is granted to the appellant.
Case diary is available. Counsel for the State submits that complainant has been served with an intimation regarding pendency of this appeal before this Court.
This criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), district Ratlam in Special S.T. No.137/2016 dated 10/01/2017 whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the present appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The accused/appellant is facing trial in Special S.T. No. 137/2016, registered at Police Station AJAK district Ratlam for offences under Sections 363, 366(A) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution story, present appellant took the prosecutrix, who was aged about 16 years with him under a false promise of marriage and had physical relationship with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court and she completely turned hostile and did not submit before the Court that present appellant had physical relationship with her.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection if appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the order passed by the learned Special Judge deserves to be set aside and accordingly this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.11150/2016 21/02/2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for respondent/CBN. Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- CBN District Mandsaur in Crime No. 4/2006 under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
As per the prosecution story, co-accused Iqbal Baig was arrested for keeping in his possession 150 gms of Heroine. In his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he informed that he obtained the alleged contraband from the present applicant, however, the present applicant could not be arrested earlier. The applicant was absconded for a long period and when the co-accused was acquitted by the trial Court, the present applicant surrendered and was arrested. Presently the trial is pending against him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if the test of purity is applied then quantity of the smack becomes 4.7 gms which is small than 5gms the small quantity of the smack and in the light of the amendment in the schedule even if the whole quantity smack is taken into consideration i.e. 150 gms which is slightly less than commercial quantity as prescribed in the schedule appended to the Act. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application, however, he admitted that as per report received from concerning police station, no criminal case is registered against the present applicant.
After taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and without commenting on merit, this application is allowed.
It is directed that the present applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) and one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that the applicant shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking their presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1761/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Ravindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicants were arrested by Police Station- Hatpeeplya District Dewas in Crime No. 410/2016 under Sections 307,294,325 and 506/34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution story, the present petitioners inflicted injuries by sword on head of the injured person, due to which he sustained muscle deep incised wound on his head.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed and there is no X-ray report on record to show that there was corresponding fracture in the skull bone of the injured. There was a fracture on left humerus bone caused by lathi blow by co-accused. It is further submitted that injured was never admitted in the hospital and now he has recovered.
Learned Govt. Advocate for State opposed the application .
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
They are further directed that on being so released on bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.235/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available, however, CT-Scan report which was referred by the trial Court is not available on record.
Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted a week's time to call case-diary as well as CT-Scan report.
List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt Cr.A. No.161/2017 21/02/2017 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted a week's time to call case-diary as well as acknowledgment of service of notice on complainant.
List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt Cr.A. No.224/2017 21/02/2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted a week's time to call case-diary as well as acknowledgment of service of notice on complainant.
List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.1320/2017 21/02/2017 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to call the case diary .
List on 28/02/2017.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt Cr.R. No.158/2017 21/02/2017 Shri Gagan Parashar on behalf of Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the point of admission. Let record of the courts' below be called for. Be listed for the admission immediately after receiving of the record.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.160/2017
21/02/2017
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the point of admission. Be listed alongwith record for admission in the next week.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.200/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the point of admission. Let record of the courts' below be called for. Be listed in the week commencing 06/03/2017 alongwith record for admission.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.44/2012
21/02/2017
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue the matter.
Be listed after two weeks .
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.421/2012
21/02/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks .
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1234/2014
21/02/2017
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Be listed after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 1095/2014.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1096/2014
21/02/2017
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Be listed after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 1095/2014.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1095/2014
21/02/2017
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter on IA No. 1187/2017.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1573/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted a week's time to call the criminal antecedents of the applicant by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the next week.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1554/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Avinash Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
Be listed in the next week.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1523/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Rahul Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted time to call the status report of the trial.
Be listed in the week commencing 06/03/2017.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1334/1998
02/02/2017
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt ......./....../2017 Judgment delivered separately, signed and dated.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Cr.A. No.1134/1997 02/02/2017 Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt ......./....../2017 Judgment delivered separately, signed and dated.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE M.Cr.C. No.10561/2016 02/02/2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhijit C. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt ......./....../2017 Order passed separately, signed and dated.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE M.Cr.C. No.8743/2016 02/02/2017 Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior counsel with Shri Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt ......./....../2017 Order passed separately, signed and dated.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Cr.R. No.1352/2016 02/02/2017 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt ......./....../2017 Order passed separately, signed and dated.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Criminal Appeal No.1327/2016 02/02/2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Record of the lower court is available. Heard on the point of Admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A. No.8648/2016, which is first application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant No.2-Ramesh S/o Thawariya Hatia The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprison
deposited ment in
details lieu of
fine
366 IPC 5 years R.I. Rs.3,000/- 3 months
S.I.
506(II) IPC 3 years R.I. Rs. 1,000/- 1 month
S.I.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is only allegation against the present appellant is that he took the prosecutrix with him to Morvi (Gujrat) and compelled her to live there with appellant No.1 Dinesh as his wife. He further submits that the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case and in her cross-examination she stated that she herself went to Morvi (Gujrat) with the appellant No.1 Dinesh and she lived there with appellant No.1 Dinesh as his wife.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and without commenting on merit of the case, the application is allowed. The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended. It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant No.2-Ramesh S/o Thawariya Hatia shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/04/2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.362/2016
02/02/2017
Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.760/2017
02/02/2017
Shri Suresh Chandav on behalf of Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for three days time to cured the defects pointed out by the Office.
Prayer is granted.
Subject to removal of the default, matter may be listed in the next week.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.511/2017
02/02/2017
Shri Ram Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Excise Department Circle- Sanwer District Indore in Crime No. 523/2016 under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act for keeping in his possession 54 bulk liters of contraband country made liquor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was falsely implicated in this case and applicant is not having any criminal antecedents.
Learned Govt. Advocate for State opposed the application .
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.385/2017
02/02/2017
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Dahi District-Dhar in Crime No. 120/2016 under Sections 307,341,294,323,324 and 506/34 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution story, in the night of 08/08/2016 when complainant coming back to his residence from the house of his mother Baytibai, it is alleged that present applicant met him and demanded money for purchasing liquor and when complainant refused to give the money, then he gave a blow from axe due to which complainant suffered one incise wound on his frontal bone and he was also sustained fracture in his skull bone.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that injured has already been discharged from the hospital and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that his personal presence is not required for the trial and trial will take time.
Learned Panel Lawyer for State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail .
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.756/2009
02/02/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
From the cause-list it appears that appellant is represented by none of the counsel.
Office is directed to verify and take necessary steps for appointment of lawyer for the appellant from the Panel of lawyers of M.P. High Court Legal Service Committee, Indore.
(ALOK VERMA) ( VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Cr.A. No.1426/2013
02/02/2017
Shri Santosh Khoware, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Matter is heard finally.
Reserved for orders.
(ALOK VERMA) ( VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
......./....../2017
Judgment delivered separately, signed and dated.
(ALOK VERMA) ( VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.11512/2016
25/01/2017
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
In view of the common order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11509/2016, this M.Cr.C. No. 11512/2016 stands disposed of.
A copy of the order be placed in the record of this M.Cr.C. No. 11512/2016.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12646/2016 30/01/2017 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Industrial Area, Jaora District-Ratlam in Crime No. 416/2016 under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution story, dead-body of an unknown woman was found in a well belonging to Dharmendra Singh S/o Ishwar Singh. Subsequently, the dead- body was identified as deceased -Sugan Bai, who was said to be the wife of Ganeshilal and mother of Bharat. So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he agreed to give Rs.15,000/- to co-accused Sheru and Ramlal to commit murder of deceased- Sugan Bai.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that apart from the seizure of one mobile phone, belonging to the deceased-Sagun Bai there is no other evidence on record to connect the applicant with the murder of deceased-Sugan Bai. There is no material to show any motive for the present applicant to commit murder of the deceased.
Learned Panel Lawyer for State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that one mobile phone belonging to the deceased-Sagun Bai was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, however, he fairly admits that there is no evidence to show any motive for the present applicant to commit murder of the deceased.
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.10425/2016
30/01/2017
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Nahargarh District-Mandsaur in Crime No. 345/2016 under Section 304-B of the IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the deceased Pappu Bai was married to applicant about 4 years prior to her death on 20/07/2016. It is alleged that prior to one month of the incident, father of the deceased gave a motorcycle to applicant, thereafter, applicant demanded a tractor from the father of the deceased, due to which she has committed suicide by jumping into a well.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no demand of dowry made by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Criminal Appeal No.148/2017
30/01/2017
Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Heard on the point of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Requisition the record of the lower Court. Heard on I.A. No.702/2017, which is first application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants- Subhan Khan S/o Nathu Khan, Aazad Khan S/o Subhan Khan and Shahrukh Khan S/o Subhan Khan.
The present appellants suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprison
deposited ment in
details lieu of
fine
323/34 IPC 6 months R.I. ------- ----
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that jail sentence of the appellants has already been suspended till 31/01/2017 by the trial Court.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, the application is allowed. The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended. It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/-each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellants shall be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/04/2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.7/2017
30/01/2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer for State further prays for time to serve the notice on the complainant in respect of the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the learned trial Court since 10/04/2017.
List on 06/02/2017.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
Criminal Appeal No.1045/2016 30/01/2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the respondent / State.
Record of the lower court is available. Heard on I.A. No.634/2017, which is first application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the sole appellant-Dinesh S/o Nathulal Lavwansi.
The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :
CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprison
deposited ment in
details lieu of
fine
450 IPC 5 years R.I. Rs.500/- 6 months
R.I.
376(1) IPC 7 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 year
R.I.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the prosecutrix partly turned hostile in this matter and did not support the prosecution that she sustained injuries when she was raped by the appellant. He further points out that husband of the prosecutrix in his cross- examination stated that there was some dispute as he suspected the prosecutrix was having illicit relations with the present appellant. He further points out that incident took place by consent and prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and without commenting on merit of the case, the application is allowed. The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended. It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/04/2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.994/2017
30/01/2017
Ms. Jyoti Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicants were arrested by Police Station- Kshipra District-Indore in Crime No. 16/2017 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201/34 of the IPC.
It is alleged that after three years of marriage the deceased, who was married to son of the present applicants committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.
According to the prosecution story, before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for obtaining dowry from her family.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there was no demand of dowry made by the applicants and father of the elder daughter of the deceased filed an affidavit wherein he stated that no demand of dowry has been made by the present applicants from him.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
They are further directed that on being so released on bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 972/2017
30/01/2017
Shri Gaurav K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned Deputy Govt. for State is directed to call the criminal antecedents of the applicant positively by next date of hearing.
List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No. 963/2017
30/01/2017
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned Deputy Govt. for State is directed to call the criminal antecedents of the applicant from Police Station
-Ratlam as well as from Police Station- Pratapgarh and Mandsaur by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No. 955/2017
30/01/2017
Shri Sandeep Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned Deputy Govt. for State is directed to call the criminal antecedents of the applicant positively within 4 days.
List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.13230/2016
30/01/2017
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Excise Department- Dhar District Dhar in Crime No. 528/2016 under Sections 34(1)(A) & 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act for keeping in his possession 54 bulk liters of contraband country made liquor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was falsely implicated in this case.
Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for State opposed the application on the ground that applicant is having criminal antecedents and there are as many as 10 criminal cases were registered against the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that if the applicant is granted bail, he will not indulge himself in similar kind of activities for which he was charged in this case.
Taking into consideration the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicant which shall form the condition of this bail order , the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
Breach of any condition of this order, this order shall be deemed to have been cancelled without further reference of this court.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13183/2016
30/01/2017
Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Excise Circle- Chhavni District Indore in Crime No. 332/2016 under Sections 34(1)(A) & 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act .
As per the prosecution story, the contraband liquor was being transported by a Activa Scooterm which was intercepted by the Excise Inspector, however, the present applicant fled away from the spot, subsequently, when he was arrested in another case, then formal arrest was made in this case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was falsely implicated in this case, if according to the prosecution case he fled away from the spot then how his name mentioned in the FIR.
Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for State opposed the application on the ground that applicant is having criminal antecedents. One case of Excise and one case of IPC is pending against him since 2015.
Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that if the applicant is granted bail, he will not indulge himself in similar kind of activities for which he was charged in this case.
Taking into consideration the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicant which shall form the condition of this bail order , the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
Breach of any condition of this order, this order shall be deemed to have been cancelled without further reference of this court.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13072/2016
30/01/2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Bhagwanpura District Khargone in Crime No. 337/2016 under Sections 354(A) and 456 of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution story, incident took place around 2:00 p.m. in the noon. It is alleged that the prosecutrix was alone in the house and her brother and mother went out to water the fields and the house was locked from the outside. The lock was broken open by the applicant and he forcibly entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outraged her modesty.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that broken lock was not seized by the Police to show that the applicant forcibly entered into the house of the prosecutrix. There was no injury found on the body of the prosecutrix and she improved her version from FIR to her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.12936/2016
30/01/2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Argument heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- Silawad District Badwani in Crime No. 135/2016 under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 366 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 /4 , 5(l) /6 and 5(n)/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 3/181, 146/1996 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
According to the prosecution story, present applicant took away the prosecutrix, who was a real sister of his wife, to various places. It is also alleged that the applicant committed rape on the prosecutrix. As per the ossification report age of the prosecutrix is above 18 years.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix went with the applicant with her consent as she was not happy with her husband Jagdish.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during bail.
He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12928/2016
30/01/2017
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State seeks time to call the copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
It is apparent from the record that earlier also on many times State has granted time to call the same.
By way of indulgence one last opportunity is granted. List in the next week.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No. 12908/2016
30/01/2017
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this application with a liberty to file fresh application after removal of defects pointed out by the Registry.
Prayer is allowed.
With liberty as aforesaid this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No. 12862/2016 30/01/2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State seeks time to call the documents in respect of school where the prosecutrix was first admitted for education.
Prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing of 13th February, 2017.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
Criminal Revision No.1214/2015 15/12/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.6937/2014 15/12/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Revision No.1448/2014 15/12/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1783/2013 15/12/2016 Shri P.K. Vishwakarma on behalf of Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.D. Ramateke, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the respondents informed that respondent No.3 Smt. Savitri Bai has expired.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks time to take necessary steps in this regard.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12452/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for applicant/State.
Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time to file the affidavit in support of IA No. 10644/2016.
Record of the court below be called for. List alongwith record.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1725/2016 15/12/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, case is adjourned.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1651/2016 15/12/2016 Ms. Preeti Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry.
List after a week.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Appeal No.838/2014 15/12/2016 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by the learned counsel appellant list after ensuing summer vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.775/2012 15/12/2016 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Report regarding death of sole appellant Devisingh is awaited.
Office is directed to list the appeal alongwith report of death of sole appellant Devisingh.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12200/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that bail application of the co-accused Narayan S/o Ratan Bhil has been allowed vide order dated 05/12/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12202/2016 by the coordinate Bench .
Office is directed to verify and list the matter before appropriate Bench.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1733/2016 15/12/2016 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12622/2016 15/12/2016 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.11911/2016 15/12/2016 Shri A.S. Garg learned senior counsel with Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned senior counsel with Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Shri Ojha prays for time to file Vakalatnama and other documents.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner objected the prayer.
After due consideration one week's time is granted to the learned counsel for the complainant/objector to file vakalatnama.
List in the week commencing from 19/12/2016.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12066/2016 15/12/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1671/2016 15/12/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, case is adjourned.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1583/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Vinod Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to file the vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1560/2016 15/12/2016 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate is directed to file the compliance report of Section 15A(III) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
List the appeal on admission alongwith compliance report.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1527/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Record of the court below is not received. List the appeal on admission after receiving of the record.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Revision No.1507/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Revision No.1371/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.1346/2016 15/12/2016 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted a week's time to file the reply of IA No. 8685/2016, an application for suspension of sentence.
List in the next week.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12609/2016 15/12/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned.
List after ensuing winter vacation.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12436/2016 15/12/2016 Shri J.P. Kero, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.10673/2016 15/12/2016 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Appeal No.753/2007 15/12/2016 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for appellant/State.
None for the respondents.
A.S.I. Shri M.L. Kudapey and constables Pawan (1047), Virendra (840) and Balram (27) produced respondent No.1 Naushad Ali from Central Jail Behugarh District Ujjain on production warrant. His presence is taken on record.
He is remanded back to the Central Jail, Bherugarh District Ujjain with the direction that he be produced on 11/04/2017 before the Registry of this Court.
Jailor of Central Jail, Bherugarh District Ujjain be also informed that bail order has been passed on 04/05/2016 in favour of the accused Naushad Ali to the effect that on his furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Dewas, for his appearance before this Court. He be released from the custody in this case.
This is an admitted appeal against order of acquittal. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Cr.A. No.291/2011 15/12/2016 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
In view of the order dated 04/12/2015 passed in IA No. 5109/2015, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA No. 10307/2016 and submits that he will file application for final hearing at motion stage under caption of 30 minutes category.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 10307/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
WP No.8259/2016
15/12/2016
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2/State.
Heard on the question of admission. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court last date of admission in the MBBS course for the academic year 2016-2017 was 30/09/2016. Thereafter, vide order dated 03/10/2016 & 05/10/2016 Hon'ble Apex Court permitting the respondents to hold online and offline counseling till 07/10/2016. Thereafter, no admission was given to any student in MBBS course for the academic year 2016-2017.
In view of the aforesaid, present petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.11854/2016 14/12/2016 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1228/2016 registered under Sections 420, 467,468 and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Chimanganj Mandi District Ujjain.
No other bail application is filed, pending or decided by any other court, by this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application.
Bail application filed by the applicant before Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide order dated 08/11/2016 passed in B.A. No. 1082/2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was the owner of the disputed land and it was not the Govt. land. He sold the land through will of Kanchan Bai, who expired on 20/10/1995 and he executed the sale deed on 27/11/2015. False report has been filed against applicant alleging that he has sold the Govt. land. He is innocent and falsely implicated in this case, his detention is required for the investigation . Therefore, he be granted anticipatory bail.
Shri Jitendra Verma learned counsel for the complainant/objector with Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the States objected the bail application stating that applicant sold him a Govt. land by fraud and he took away his registered sale deed stating that he will get mutated the land on his name and that registered sale deed has yet to be recovered from the applicant. They have prayed for the rejection of the bail application.
According to the facts the objector has filed a complaint against applicant alleging that he sold a piece of land to him stating that he is owner of the land and Kanchan Bail sold him this land through a will after getting saledeed executed. When objector applied for mutation and also tried to fence the land then his neighbours inform him that this is a Govt. land. He contacted the Patwari, who also confirm the information and revealed that this is a Govt. land and has earmarked as residential colony of Govt. hospital.
Applicant also took away the registered saledeed from the complainant stating that he will get the land mutated in his name and has not returned the same. Alleging that applicant has obtained Rs.15 lacs from him by fraud. Objector has filed a FIR, which was registered as stated above.
Considering the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case so also the facts that matter is under investigation. I do not think it is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.9884/2014 14/12/2016 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation on any Wednesday.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.9195/2016 14/12/2016 Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Service report is awaited.
List after two weeks alongwith service report. IR to continue till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt FA No.630/2015 14/12/2016 None for the appellant.
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA Nos. 6457/2015, an application for dispensing with from filing certified copy of the order and also on IA No. 8178/2015, an application for appropriate directions.
On due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case six weeks time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to cure the defect pointed out by the Registry.
With the aforesaid directions IA Nos. 6457/2015 and 8178/2015 stands disposed of.
List after six weeks.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.573/2015
14/12/2016
Shri S.S. Tanwar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Iqbal Anwar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Heard on IA No. 4968/2015, an application for grant of temporary injunction .
Shri Anwar prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 4968/2015.
In the meanwhile no alienation shall be made till next date of hearing in respect of land bearing survey Nos. 357 &
358. List the appeal after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.391/2015
14/12/2016
Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the Mediation Report. This first appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court be requisitioned. Office is directed to list the matter for final hearing under the caption of "DB-Civil-Matrimonial-Dissolution".
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.1023/2014
14/12/2016
Shri R.K. Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 &2.
learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the copy of IA No. 9534/2016 to the learned counsel for the respondents so that he may seek instruction in the matter and file reply if necessary.
In number of cases, it has come to our notice that IAs are filed directly without supplying the copy of the same to the other side.
Office is directed to place the matter before the Principal Registrar for taking necessary steps in the matter.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.766/2009
14/12/2016
Parties through their counsel. Shri M. Manana, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is filing the reply of IA No. 7630/2016 during the course of the day.
If that be so, Office to accept and place the same on record.
List after winter vacation.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
WP No.5264/2016
14/12/2016
Shri K.C. Raikwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for and is granted 10 days time to file the reply.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Deepak Rawal in daily cause list so that he may mark his presence on behalf of respondent No.2 and argue the matter.
List after winter vacation.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.11995/2016 13/12/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
On earlier date 02/12/2016 also no one gave appearance on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it appears that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present petition. Accordingly petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.9233/2016 13/12/2016 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.11096/2016 13/12/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.11622/2016 13/12/2016 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.11810/2016 13/12/2016 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12487/2016 13/12/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.12514/2016 13/12/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Appeal No.1434/2016 13/12/2016 Shri Vivek Seth, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 6457/2016. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks alongwith service report.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Appeal No.2109/2016 13/12/2016 None for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Misc. Criminal Case No.9850/2015 13/12/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Revision No.725/2016 13/12/2016 Shri P.L. Dhakad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after two weeks.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Criminal Revision No.946/2016 13/12/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Issue bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- against petitioner Jitendra @ Titu for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks alongwith service report of bailable warrant.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE skt Cr.A. No.948/2012 06/12/2016 List alongwith Cr.A. No.824/2012.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Cr.A. No.824/2012
06/12/2016
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 9760/2016, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
At the very outset learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application in respect of appellant No.2 Rem Singh.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of appellant No.2 Rem Singh.
Appellant No.1 Bala alongwith other co-accused Rem Singh and Babu were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that statement of the prosecution witnesses Dhan Singh(PW/1), Panu Bai(PW/4) and Ramesh (PW/6) are unreliable as there is material contradictions and omissions in their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. She further submits that Dhan Singh(PW/1) in his statement submits that he has reached at the spot when he heard the cries of wife of the deceased i.e. Panu Bai(PW/4), however, in her statement she stated that she heard the noise of deceased Jhanjhad. Similarly Ramesh (PW/6) in his statement has stated that he heard the cries of Panu Bai (PW/4) but in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. he said that he heard the cries of Dhan Singh(PW/1).
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer. After going through the statement of these three prosecution witnesses, who are recorded as eye witness, we find there is no material contradiction in their statement and statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Their presence at the spot is natural as they lived near the spot, where the crime was committed. Present appellant and other co- accused were known to him and the night was of full moon so there is also a source of light and therefore, their statement cannot be disbelieved on the ground of such minor contradictions and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence also.
Considering the aforesaid we are of the view that no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence. IA No. 9760/2016 devoid of any force and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
CONC No.142/2016
06/12/2016
Shri S.M. Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to file an application for extension of time for two months to comply with order dated 18/02/2015 passed in WP No. 1057/2015.
Learned counsel for the applicant has raised objection. On due consideration prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to comply with order dated 18/02/2015 passed by this Court in WP No. 1057/2015 within two months. Failing which respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall remain present before this Court on next date of hearing.
Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to replace the name of respondent Nos. 2 from the person who is holding the post in place of respondent No.2.
List the petition after eight weeks.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.138/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to file an application for extension of time for two months to comply with order dated 31/07/2014 passed in WP No. 5483/2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant has raised objection. On due consideration prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to comply with order dated 31/07/2014 passed by this Court in WP No. 5483/2014 within two months. Failing which respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall remain present before this Court on next date of hearing.
Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to replace the name of respondent Nos. 2 from the person who is holding the post in place of respondent No.2.
List the petition after eight weeks.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.99/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further prays for four weeks time for filing the compliance report.
Learned counsel for the applicant raise objection. After due consideration four weeks time is granted to her for filing the compliance report.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.31/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Anil Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 4.
Smt. Meena Chapekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Respondent No.4 Shri O.L. Mandloi, Joint Director Public Education is present in person.
Heard on IA No. 7379/2016, an application for deleting the name of respondent No.3 from cause title of the petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 is not necessary party in this petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection in allowing the application.
After due consideration IA No. 7379/2016 is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the petition within a week.
Personal appearance of respondent No.4 is exempted till further orders.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 4 is directed to file a details of calculation of arrears by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.845/2015
06/12/2016
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
learned counsel for the applicants submits that order dated 08/01/2015 passed in WP No. 6569/2014 has not been complied with respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that State shall comply with impugned order however, due to heavy finance involved in this matter he prays for 2 months further time to comply with order dated 08/01/2015.
learned counsel for the applicants has raised serious objections and submits that in this matter Hon'ble Apex Court has already passed by the order in the year 2014. Therefore, petitioners who are 7 in numbers should be given financial benefits in compliance of order dated 08/01/2015 passed in WP No. 6569/2014.
learned counsel for the respondents is directed to complied with impugned order within a period of 2 months positively.
List after eight weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt CONC No.599/2015 06/12/2016 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.S. Anjana, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Shri S.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 to 5.
Shri G.P. Bhatt Tahsildar, Barwani is present in person before the Court. He submits that compliance of the order passed in WP No. 5292/2015 vide order dated 18/09/2015 has already been made. Way granted earlier have been closed and land has been handed over to the applicants.
He is directed to submit a detailed reply regarding action taken by him in compliance of Court's order dated 18/09/2015 passed in WP No. 5292/2015 with affidavit by next date of hearing positively.
For this purpose if original record which is reported to be sent to Board of Revenue, Gwalior may be recalled for.
List after three weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt CONC No.592/2015 06/12/2016 Shri Kartik Mandloi on behalf of Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 further prays for two weeks time to file the additional reply.
Learned counsel for the applicant raised serious objection and submits that several opportunities have already been given to her.
By way of last indulgence two weeks time is granted to her to file the additional reply.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt CONC No.146/2015 06/12/2016 Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the rejoinder.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.12338/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to take necessary steps to implead complainant as respondent No.2.
learned Panel Lawyer is also directed to call the case diary by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.12292/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the applicant Kamal Singh for quashment of order dated 24/11/2016 passed by learned Special Judge( SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)) Act, 1989, Ujjain in ST No. 302/2011, whereby learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the prosecution for recalling the medical witnesses Dr. Shyam Badliwal & Dr. Sharad Dubey , who treated Kamal Singh and for exhibiting the query report where he mention in bed had ticket of Pawan S/o Rameshwar grevious in nature and could be dangerous to life at the time of admission.
Application has been dismissed only on the ground that session has been pending since 2011 and ample opportunities have been granted to the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection in allowing the petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in case the query report given by Dr. Shyam Badliwal is not exhibited, the case of the prosecution would suffer enormously. According to him this would not amount to filling of lacuna because the document was already on record and due to inadvertance and lake of promptness on the part of the prosecution, document remained to be exhibited. Therefore, one last opportunity should be given to the applicant to examine Dr. Shyam Badliwal and exhibit the query report .
After due consideration this petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby set-aside. Accordingly, application filed by the prosecution is allowed.
Prosecution is at liberty to recall the witness Dr. Shyam Badliwal and to exhibit the query report filed by him.
With aforesaid observation and direction this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.9829/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Saransh Jain on behalf of Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent /State.
Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submits that matter has been referred to District Mining Officer for taking further action by the Police Station Manawar. Therefore, District Mining Officer should be arrayed as respondent No.2.
learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to examine and take appropriate steps for impleading District Mining Officer as respondent No.2.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.10157/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent No.1. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.11823/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent on IA No. 10161/2016 as well as on merit by regular and humdast mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Meanwhile, it is directed that trial in RT No. 2084/2012 pending before learned JMFC, Ratlam shall continue. However, no final order shall be passed till disposal of this application.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.11886/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Hitesh Sharma , learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Applicant and respondent No.2 are present in person before this Court and they are directed to remain present before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 19/12/2016 at about 11:00 a.m. The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to verify the factum of the compromise and submit his report.
List the matter alongwith report of the Principal Registrar.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No..11979/2016 06/12/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant list after a week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.12203/2016 06/12/2016 Shri D.S. Rathore on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant list after a week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.12207/2016 06/12/2016 Shri D.S. Rathore on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent on IA No. 10482/2016 as well as on merit. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.12225/2016 06/12/2016 Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.4094/2015 06/12/2016 Shri Tousif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that Investigating Officer is not present and he could not seek instructions from him. Therefore, he further seeks two weeks time to seeks instruction from the concerned Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the applicant opposes the prayer. By way of indulgence one last opportunity is granted to him . It is also made clear that on next date of hearing case shall be disposed of on the basis of the copy of the charge sheet filed by the applicant.
List in the month of January, 2017.
(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.10000/2014
06/12/2016
Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet .
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt MA No.2171/2016 06/12/2016 Ms. Vineeta Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondents . Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List the matter immediately after service of notice on respondents.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt MA No.2176/2016 06/12/2016 Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the point of admission. The appeal is admitted for final hearing. Requisition record of the lower court. Issue notice on IA No. 9392/2016 as well as the memorandum of appeal to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Meanwhile, it is directed that on payment of 50% of the amount which shall include the statutory deposit by the appellant and also interest on such 50% amount, the recovery proceedings for remaining portion of award shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
It is made clear that respondents shall not withdraw this amount without leave of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt MA No.2108/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the point of admission. The appeal is admitted for final hearing. Requisition record of the lower court. Issue notice on IA No. 9104/2016 as well as the memorandum of appeal to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Meanwhile, it is directed that on payment of 50% of the amount which shall include the statutory deposit by the appellant and also interest on such 50% amount, the recovery proceedings for remaining portion of award shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
It is made clear that respondents shall not withdraw this amount without leave of this Court.
List the appeal alongwith MA No. 807/2014. Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt CONC No.804/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondents by Humdast as well as by regular mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List the matter immediately after service of notice on respondents.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.A. No.2024/2014 06/12/2016 Shri S. Ashraf, learned counsel for the appellant. Service report is still awaited. Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks alongwith service report.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.12245/2016 06/12/2016 Shri Gaurav Laad on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press this application.
Accordingly this petition is dismissed as not pressed.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.11941/2016 06/12/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Status report is awaited.
List in the next week alongwith status report.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.11785/2016 06/12/2016 Shri P.L. Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after a week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.11301/2016 06/12/2016 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Status report is received. According to the status report so far as prosecution witnesses could not be examined.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this case may be disposed of with a direction to trial Court for concluding the trial within a period of six months.
After due consideration prayer is allowed. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with the direction to trial Court to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Applicant is at liberty to renew the prayer after six months.
Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State is also directed to issue necessary directions to the concerning police station to keep present all the witnesses before the trial Court for recording of their evidence.
With the aforesaid liberty and direction this petition stands disposed of.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.10569//2016 06/12/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Status report is received. According to the status report so far as prosecution witnesses could not be examined. After lapse of two years charges were framed on 12/08/2016 only.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this case may be disposed of with a direction to trial Court for concluding the trial within a period of six months.
After due consideration prayer is allowed. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with the direction to trial Court to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Applicant is at liberty to renew the prayer after six months.
Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State is also directed to issue necessary directions to the concerning police station to keep present all the witnesses before the trial Court for recording of their evidence.
With the aforesaid liberty and direction this petition stands disposed of.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE skt M.Cr.C. No.10360//2016 18.10.2016 Ms. Shradha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list next week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.Cr.C. No.7422//2016 18.10.2016 Shri Sanjay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed an application (I.A. No.9292/16) for impleading complainant as respondent No.2.
The application is not on record. Office is directed to trace the application and place it on record.
After due consideration, the application is allowed. Necessary amendment be incorporated within three days.
After incorporating the amendment on payment of PF within one week issue notice to complainant/respondent No.2, returnable within two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC No.133//2016 18.10.2016 Shri Vaibhav Asawa, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that compliance has been made.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the application as not pressed.
Prayer is allowed.
The application is dismissed as not pressed.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.657/2016 24.08.2016 Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Prakhar Khare, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on I.A. No.3262/2016.
Last opportunity is granted. List on 6th September 2016.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.706/2016 24.08.2016 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rounak Chaukse, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Sri Pankaj Wadhwani,learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks three weeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after three weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.864/2016 24.08.2016 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kailash Chandra Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list after one week on any Wednesday.
IR to continue.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.2020/2014 24.08.2016 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Zulfa Sultana, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that due to the interim order, passed by this Court, the final order is not being passed by the appellate Court.
It is directed that the appellate Court is free to pass the final order, Civil Appeal No.24/2014, pending before 5th Additional District Judge, Indore.
List under the similar category after two weeks. Meanwhile, IR to continue.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6514/2013 24.08.2016 Shri Shashank Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anil Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.870/2013 24.08.2016 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent though served and represented by the counsel.
Heard on I.A. No.5532/2016, this application is filed for refund of excess amount of Court's fee paid by the appellant.
According to report of Taxing Officer excess amount of Court's fee Rs.60030/- has been paid by the appellant.
After due consideration the application is allowed. Certificate may be issued to the appellant for refund of court fee amounting Rs.60030/-.
Heard on point of admission, appeal is admitted for final hearing. Verification record of the Court if adjourned.
Service of notice is dismissed. List for final hearing alongwith the record in due course. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant place the matter before fourth coming Lok Adalat for consideration, as liability of the insurance company is not disputed in this case.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.932/2013 24.08.2016 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent.
Respondent No.1 is served, none appear on his behalf. Respondent No.2 is unserved for want of correct address. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he would file an application for dispensing with service of notice on respondent No.2.
He is directed to file the application within one week. List after one week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.1910/2013 24.08.2016 Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
None appeared for respondent No.2, though served. Respondent No.1 has reported that learned counsel for the appellant seeks further time to bring legal representative of respondent No.1 on record.
Prayer is allowed.
He is further directed to take necessary steps within four weeks.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.2528/2013 24.08.2016 Shri Rishi Srivastava on behalf of Sri Sumit Samvatskar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of respondent No.1 is awaited. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served. List after two weeks alongwith service report of respondent No.1.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.1301/2014 24.08.2016 Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file copy of newspaper, in which notice was served.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.1799/2014 24.08.2016 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 7.
learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to take necessary steps for service of notice on respondent No.8 by substituted service.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.488/2015 24.08.2016 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 13 to 17.
Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Vijay Govindani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for applicant is directed to pay fresh PF within two working days.
Notice may be served to legal representative of respondent No.3 by Humdust mode.
List on 14 September 2016.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CRA No.1918/2014 24.08.2016 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Tanveer Ahmed on behalf of Shri Santosh Pathak, learned counsel for the surety.
Learned counsel seeks three weeks' time to file reply on behalf of surety.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.889/2014 23.08.2016 Shri Suresh Kr. Garg, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file rejoinder.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi M.A. No.1847/2014 23.08.2016 Shri Sudhir Dandvate, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
Service of respondent No.4 and 5 is dispensed with. Appeal is admitted for final hearing alongwith the record of the lower Court in due course.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.63/2016 23.08.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent submits that compliance has been made alongwith monitory benefits have already been given to applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant admitted his client received all the monitory benefits. Learned counsel prays that application may be dismissed as complied with.
Prayer is allowed.
The application is dismissed.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.59/2016 23.08.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC No.54/2016 23.08.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.53/2016 23.08.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.47/2016 23.08.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.46/2016 23.08.2016 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.153/2015 23.08.2016 Shri Abhishek Tugnavat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Ms. Chitralekaha Hardia, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC No.540/2015 23.08.2016 Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3-Smt. Lalita Mandloi is present-in- person before the court.
Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3. Copy of reply filed by respondent No.3 has been supplied to the counsel for applicant.
According to learned counsel for applicant order passed on 13.08.2016 has been complied with and applicant has received payment of Rs.16,533/-. He seeks permission to withdraw the application with liberty to file fresh application, if anything remains to be complied with.
Prayer is allowed.
With aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed. The personal appearance of respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.582/2015 23.08.2016 Shri Rahul Sethi, alongwith Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents alongwith Ms. Savita Jhaniya, Joint Collector, Incharge-Assistant Commissioner, District-Barwani.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a fund of Rs.5,28,00,000/- is required for making payment to the applicant and other persons. The Incharge Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Barwani, who is present-in-person before the court, submits that matter has been sent to the Government for allocation of money which is awaited.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are almost 81 cases pertaining to District-Barwani are pending. He further submits that respondent No.1-Shri B.R. Naidu has been transferred and in his place a new incumbent Ms. Alka Upadhyay has joined.
He is directed to suitably amend the cause of title of the application within two days and replace name of Ms. Alka Upadhyay immediately after amendment, on payment of necessary PF, notice be issued to respondent No.1 for her appearance in person before the Court on 3rd November 2016.
Meanwhile, personal appearance of respondent No.3 Ms. Savita Jhaniya, is dispensed with.
C.C., as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA)
Ravi JUDGE
Ravi
Ravi
CONC. No.583/2015
23.08.2016
Shri Rahul Sethi, alongwith Sri Rishabh Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for applicant seeks two weeks' time to argue the matter and also to file additional documents.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.608/2015 23.08.2016 Shri Akshay Kelapure, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant filed an application, I.A. No.7197/2016 for taking additional documents on record. He prays to argue the counsel, who is not available today. She is before the another bench List next week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.798/2015 23.08.2016 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, on behalf of Sri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State, seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.824/2015 23.08.2016 Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent, seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi CONC. No.827/2015 23.08.2016 Shri Pankaj Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for respondent, seeks time to file reply today, he is permitted.
The office is directed to receive the reply. List after one week.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Ravi