Madhya Pradesh High Court
Patiram Katroliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2015
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1
Contempt case No.93/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. V.P.Bhagwat, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Vinita Phaye, counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
This contempt petition has been filed by the
petitioners alleging non-compliance of the order dated
30.09.2013 passed in W.P.No.11205/13.
This court by order dated 30.09.2013 had disposed
of the writ petition by issuing the following directions :-
"The prayer in this petition is to direct the
respondent No.2 to comply with the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court and mutate the
name of the petitioners in the revenue record and
comply with the order passed by Additional
Commissioner and Board of Revenue.
Since the matter is pending with
respondent No.2, therefore, petition filed by the
petitioners is disposed of with a short direction that
upon production of copy of the order passed by this
court, respondent No.2 shall do the needful within a
period of six weeks positively without fail."
It is pointed out by the counsel for the parties that
2
the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration of title in the
year 1991 which was decreed by the trial court in the year
1993, against which the First Appeal and Second Appeal
filed by the State were dismissed. The petitioners in the
meanwhile had filed an application for mutation before the
Tahsildar and said mutation application was allowed by the
Tahsildar, against which the appeal was preferred by one
Moolchand. The said appeal was dismissed by the SDO,
but Additional Commissioner in the Second Appeal had
remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar. The said order
of the Addl.Commissioner was challenged before the Board
of Revenue and Board of Revenue had allowed the revision
petition and had remanded the matter back to the
Additional Commissioner. The Additional commissioner
dismissed the Second Appeal. Thereafter a Review
application was filed by the State Govt. and the Addl.
Commissioner by order dated 24.7.2013 had sought the
permission of the Board of Revenue u/s 51 of the Code
seeking the review.
At this stage, undisputedly the proceedings are
pending before the Board of Revenue in respect of grant of
permission for review. In these circumstances, it cannot be
held that there is any willful non-compliance of the order of
this court by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner
3
has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of
this court in the matter of Ambika Prasad Bakshi and
another Vs. Onkar Prasad Saini, AIR 2005 MP 60. The
petitioners are appearing before the Board of Revenue,
therefore it would be open to the petitioners to point out the
said judgment to the Board of Revenue. But since it is the
contempt proceedings and there is no willful noncompliance
of the said order, therefore benefit of said judgment cannot
be given to the petitioners. The contempt petition is
accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava)
Judge
mk
4
W.P.No.5336/2014
9.9.2015
Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Mahesh Choudhary, counsel for the
respondent submits that provisions of section 17(b) of the
ID Act have not been complied with.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to obtain
instructions in the matter.
List on 23.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.6023/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let rejoinder be filed within 4 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.6124/2014
5
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let copy of the reply be supplied to the counsel for
the petitioner by the counsel for the respondent within 3
days.
Let rejoinder, if any, be filed within 4 weeks
thereafter.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.6230/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned for 23.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.6905/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. V.K.Gangwal, counsel for the petitioner.
6
None for the respondent.
As per office report, service of notice on the
respondent is awaited.
List along with fresh service report on 2.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.7646/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let reply be filed within 4 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.7716/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. Kailash Sajonia, counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents though served.
Since counsel for the respondents is not present,
therefore case is adjourned for 30.09.2015.
7
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.7958/2014
9.9.2015
None for the petitioner.
Respondent through counsel.
Since counsel for the petitioner is not preent,
therefore case is adjourned for 2.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.8081/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Mr. Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for
respondent No.4 prays for and is granted 2 weeks time to
file the reply.
List on 6.10.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
8
W.P.No.8158/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for
respondent/State submits that reply is ready and same will
be filed during course of the day.
Office to accept the same and place it on record.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.8744/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
The case is adjourned for 16.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
S.A.No.456/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. Satish Jain, counsel for the appellant.
9
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
10 days time to go through the record and argue on the
question of admission.
List on 2.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Contempt case No.779/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. L.C.Patne, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. M.Sharma, counsel for respondents prays for
short adjournment.
List on 30.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Contempt case No.797/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. Shalabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
10
Mr. Shaktisingh Bais, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Mukesh
Parwal, counsel for respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw the contempt petition.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as
withdrawn.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.3036/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. S.M.Dagaonkar, counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
Since counsel for the respondents is not present,
therefore case is adjourned for 15.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.4682/2014
9.9.2015
11
Parties through their counsel.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let reply be filed within 4 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.3801/2014
9.9.2015
12
Parties through their counsel.
Counsel for the respondent/State prays for is
granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 2.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.9065/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let reply be filed within 4 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.9246/2014
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
13
Let reply be filed within 4 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.9378/2014
9.9.2015
Mr. Rahul Sethi, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that issue
involved in this matter is covered by the order passed in the
matter of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR
(2009) MP 1326 as also the order of this court dated
13.2.2014 passed in W.P.No.6341/12 (Dhannalal Gadge
Vs. State of M.P.).
Counsel for the State prays for time to examine
the same.
List on 9.10.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
14
W.P.No.41/2015
9.9.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is
granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 2.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Ekkuuh; iz'kklfud U;k;ewfrZ Jh ih-ds- tk;loky lkgc]
Jh Vh-ds- dkS'ky lkgc ,oa leLr ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZx.k
15
vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk Jh lquhy tSu th]
vflLVsaV lksfyflVj tujy Jh nhid jkoy th]
,oa mifLFkr leLr vfHkHkk"kdx.k ,oa egkuqHkkoksa
eSa vR;Ur [kq'ku'khc gWw D;ksafd ekuuh; Jh r:.k dqekj dkS'ky th us
tc flfoy tt Dykl &2 dh ijh{kk nh Fkh vkSj vkt tc muds
lsokfuo`Rr gksus dk volj gS nksuksa gh voljksa ij eSa eksStwn jgk gWwaA vkidk
tks eqLdqjkgV dk LoHkko Fkk mlds lHkh vf/koDrkx.k dk;y FksA vkids
thou ds cgqewY; 36 o"kZ U;kf;d lsokvksa ds fy, lefiZr FksA vkt vkids
lsokfuo`Rr gksus ij eSa bZ'oj ls vkidh yEch vk;q vkSj vPNs LokLF; dh
izkFkZuk djrk gWwA eSa ;gh dguk pkgrk gWwa& mtkys viuh ;knksa ds gekjs lkFk
jgus nks] u tkus fdl xyh esa ftUnxh dh 'kke gks tk;sA
iznhi xqIrk
v/;{k
bUnkSj mPp U;k;ky;
ckj ,lksfl,'ku
W.P. No.9231/2014
7.09.2015
16
Parties through their counsel.
Writ Petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let reply be filed within 4 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.9299/2014
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted 4
weeks time to file the rejoinder.
List on 30.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.9479/2014
7.9.2015
Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent No.1 is unserved.
Counsel for the petitioner is granted 10 days time to
take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved
respondents.
17
List on 30.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P. No.222/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted 4
weeks time to file the rejoinder.
Writ Petition is admitted for final hearing.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.352/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent/State prays
for further time to obtain instructions and file the report in
terms of earlier order of this court.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 30.11.2015.
18
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.393/2015
7.09.2015
Ms. Sonali Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent/State submits
that reply will be filed within 4 weeks.
List on 8.10.2015.
19
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.731/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Rahul Sethi, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent/State
submits that case of the petitioner is not covered by the
order dated 8.5.2014 passed in W.P.No.3595/14
(Ramkrishna Chouhan Vs. State of M.P.) and prays for time
to argue the matter.
List on 30.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.795/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. H.Jain, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
20
None for respondent Nos.3 to 5 though served.
Writ petition is admitted for final hearing.
I.R. to continue until further orders.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.895/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is
granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 30.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.899/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is
granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
21
List on 30.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.1127/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Mr. D.Chelawat, counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5
submits that reply is ready and same will be filed within 3 days.
Office to accept the same and place it on record.
List on 6.10.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.1130/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel submit that pleadings
are complete in the matter and pray for time to ague the
matter.
List tomorrow i.e. 8.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
22
mk
23
W.P. No.1308/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Umesh Gajankush, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent NO.1.
Mr. A.Tugnawat, counsel for respondent No.2.
Mr. Himanshu Joshi, counsel for respondent No.3.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the
District Magistrate, Rajgarh u/s 14 of the SARFAESAI Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that after passing of the impugned order, the respondent
24
No.3 had given offer for the repayment which has been
accepted by the petitioner and payment has been made.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also fairly
stated before this court that the entire debt has been repaid
by the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the impugned order dated
13.10.2014 does not survive and is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.1388/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. P.N.Saxena, counsel for the petitioner submits that on
account of subsequent development, nothing survives in the
present writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.4684/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
25
The prayer for grant of time for filing the rejoinder made by
the petitioner is vehementally opposed by the counsel for the
respondent submitting that petitioner is enjoying the stay.
In the interest of justice, a week's time as last opportunity
is granted to the petitioner to file the rejoinder.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 15.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.4851/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is
adjourned for 23.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.4854/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Romesh Dave, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and
I.A.No.3634/15 which is an application for stay.
Issue notice on admission and I.A. to the respondents
on payment of P.F. within a week.
26
Till next date of hearing, further proceedings in
pursuance to the impugned order dated 7.2.2015 shall
remain stayed.
List on 30.11.2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P. No.5064/2015
7.09.2015
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharan, counsel for the respondents on
advance notice.
Heard on I.A.No.4262/15 which is an application for
correction of typographical error in the writ petition.
On due consideration, I.A. is allowed.
Let necessary correction be done within a week.
Learned counsel for respondents prays for and is granted
4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 30.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.5078/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Vinay Gandhi, counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent though served.
27
Awaiting appearance on behalf of the respondent, the
case is adjourned for 5.10.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.5115/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is
adjourned for 14.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.5293/2015
7.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is
adjourned for 14.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.5415/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Piyush Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State
prays for further time to obtain instructions in the matter.
28
List on 15.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.No.5543/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. A.Choudhary, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Romesh Dave, counsel for respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners
apprehending the danger at Ratlam could not appear
before the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam.
Learned counsel for respondents/State submits that
S.P., Ratlam has already issued instructions to the
concerned SHO of Police Station, Revati directing him to
extend police protection to the petitioners. He further
submits that offence has been registered against the uncle
of the petitioner No.2 and Istgasha has been filed.
In view of aforesaid, the case is adjourned with liberty
to the petitioners to do the needful.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 30.11.2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
29
W.P.No.5577/2015
7.09.2015
Petitioner through counsel.
None for the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that humdust notice
has been served upon the respondents.
Report in the sealed envelope has been filed.
Office to open the report and list the matter along with
office report disclosing position of service of notice on the
respondents.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 13.10.2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.No.5699/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. H.Jain, counsel for the petitioner submits that
other writ petition involving the same issue is pending.
List along with W.P.No.5700/15 on 30.11.2015.
30
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.No.5877/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Romil Malpani, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and
I.A.No.4333/15 which is an application for stay.
Issue notice on admission and I.A. to the respondent
on payment of P.F. within a week.
Till next date of hearing, subject to deposit further
sum of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 2 weeks from today,
the direction contained in the impugned order relating to
sending the petitioner to civil imprisonment shall remain
stayed.
List on 30.11.2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.No.5872/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. Romil Malpani, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and
31
I.A.No.4332/15 which is an application for stay.
Issue notice on admission and I.A. to the respondent
on payment of P.F. within a week.
Till next date of hearing, subject to deposit further
sum of Rs.15,000/- within a period of 2 weeks from today,
the direction contained in the impugned order relating to
sending the petitioner to civil imprisonment shall remain
stayed.
List on 30.11.2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.No.5967/2015
7.09.2015
Mr. R.S.Raghuvanshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent/State
submits that impugned order dated 15.1.2015 passed in
Disciplinary Enquiry No.3/13 imposing the punishment of
withholding of increment for a period of one year has now
been withdrawn and the fresh chargesheet has been issued
to the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid submission, nothing survives in
the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed as
infructuous.
32
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
S.A. No.362/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. Vivek Phadke, counsel for the appellants.
Heard on I.A.No.6447/15 which is an application
under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC.
Issue notice of the I.A. to the respondent on payment
of P.F. within a week.
Till next date of hearing, parties are directed to
maintain status quo in respect of construction on the suit
premises.
Let record of the courts below be requisitioned in the
meanwhile.
List on 27.11.2015.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
33
W.P. No.8182/2014
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is
granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 27.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Contempt case No.508/2015
4.9.2015
Mr. Chetan Jain, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on payment
of P.F. within a week.
If the petitioner has already paid the P.F., then he
may not be required to pay fresh P.F..
List on 27.11.2015.
34
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
M.A.No.1550/2015
4.9.2015
Mr. Kailash Kaushal, counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.
within a week.
Let record of the Claims Tribunal be requisitioned in
the meanwhile.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.No.4367/2015
4.9.2015
Mr. S.K.Meena, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.
35
within a week.
List on 27.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
W.P.5834/2015
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Counsel for the petitioner has supplied the copy of
I.A.No.4556/15 to the counsel for the respondents in the
court today.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted
2 weeks time to examine the same and file the reply, if
required.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 28.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
M.A. No.1218/2011
4.09.2015
Appellant through counsel.
36
None for the respondents.
The Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
M.A. No.1254/2012
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Let record of the Labour Court be requisitioned and matter
be listed along with record on 27.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
S.A. No.59/2013
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of counsel for the respondent, the case is
adjourned for 27.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
37
W.P. No.4045/2013
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is
granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 27.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.8731/2013
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
The petition is admitted for final hearing.
Let reply be filed by the respondent/State within 4
weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
38
Contempt case No.93/2014
4.09.2015
At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is
adjourned for 9.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P. No.2854/2014
4.09.2015
Mr. S.Jain, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent Nos.3 and
4 prays for and is granted 2 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
List on 5.10.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
39
W.P. No.4256/2014
4.09.2015
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on I.A.No.2334/15 which is an application
seeking further time to carry out the amendment in terms of
the order of this court dated 29.04.2015.
On due consideration, I.A. is allowed and petitioner is
granted 2 weeks time to do the needful, failing which the
writ petition will be dismissed without further reference to
the court.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
MCC No.329/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. S.Patwa, counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Anil Goyal, counsel for respondent
No.3/insurance company.
None for respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served.
This MCC is for restoration of M.A.No.2125/11 which
has been dismissed in default for non-compliance of the
peremptory order dated 1.08.2013.
I.A.No.3641/15 has been filed for condonation of
delay. There is a delay of 598 days in filing the MCC.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that
40
peremptory order was in respect of the deficit payment of
court fee and that the applicants had filed an application for
reducing the valuation but said application was not listed.
He has further submitted that said default was
unintentional and applicants may not be made to suffer on
that account, and as soon as the applicants came to know
about dismissal of the Misc. Appeal, the application for
restoration was immediately filed but meanwhile, delay of
263 days had taken place.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant
and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay,
it is found that the delay in filing the MCC has properly been
explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of
delay is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is
condoned.
The explanation which has been furnished by the
learned counsel for applicants and reason which has been
disclosed in the MCC reveals that the non compliance of
the peremptory order was unintentional and for the
bonafide reason. Accordingly, MCC is allowed and
M.A.No.2125/2011 is restored to its original position subject
to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- in the bar library of the High
Court within 2 weeks and submission of the
acknowledgment of payment before the registry of this
41
court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Contempt case No.342/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. S.R.Porwal, counsel for the petitioner.
Office has listed the matter in default of delay in
payment of P.F.. Delay is of 42 days.
On due consideration, delay in payment of P.F. is
condoned.
Office to take appropriate steps in the matter.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Contempt case No.395/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. M.M.Bohra, counsel for appellant.
Mr. V.Varangaonkar, counsel for the respondent
42
prays for and is granted 10 days time to file the reply.
List on 18.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
Contempt case No.575/2015
4.09.2015
At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case
is adjourned for 18.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
M.A.No.1170/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. Pankaj Ajmera, counsel for appellant.
Mr. I.Ansari, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2/claimants.
Heard on I.A.No.5986/15 which is an application filed
by the claimants seeking permission to withdraw the
amount.
On due consideration, I.A.No.5986/15 is allowed and
respondents-claimants are permitted to withdraw the
43
amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company in
terms of the award.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
I.R. to continue until further orders.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
M.A.No.1221/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. J.M.Poonegar, counsel for appellants.
Issue notice of I.A.No.5168/15 which is an application
for condonation of delay to the respondents on payment of
P.F. within a week.
Let record of the Claims Tribunal be requisitioned in
the meanwhile.
List on 27.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
M.A.No.1222/2015
4.09.2015
Mr. J.M.Poonegar, counsel for appellant.
Office to examine if the proper court fee has been
paid in the matter and list along with report on 27.11.2015.
44
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.)
mk
W.P.No.4700/2015
3.9.2015
Petitioner through counsel.
As per office report, service of notice on respondents
is awaited.
List along with fresh service report on the next date
of hearing.
Mr. R.R.Bhatnagar, counsel submits that he has also
filed an application for intervention being I.A.No.4534/15.
Let I.A. be also listed for consideration on the next
date.
List on 28.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)
mk
45
W.P. No. 3860/2015
3/09/2015
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent/State.
Since counsel for the petitioner is not present,
therefore case is adjourned for 10.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava)
Judge
mk
W.P. No. 6085/2015 (S)
3/09/2015
Shri Shashank Patwari learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mangal learned counsel for the respondents on
advance notice.
This writ petition is heard and disposed of finally with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
ORDER
1/ The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in the light of the earlier orders passed by this 46 Court.
2/ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2745/2009 (Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.). The S.L.P. No. 6092/93 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. He also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.
3/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time bound period.
4/ Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.
5/ In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the non grant of regular pay- scale/increments from the date of initial appointment. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent would extend such benefit to him without any delay. Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order.
476/ The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) JUDGE mk W.P. No. 5979/2015 (S) 03/9/2015 Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Preetha Moitra, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice.
This writ petition is heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
ORDER 48 1/ The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court.
2/ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2745/2009 (Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.). The S.L.P. No. 6092/93 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. He also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.
3/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time bound period.
4/ Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.
5/ In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the non grant of regular pay- scale/increments from the date of initial appointment. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is found 49 to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent would extend such benefit to him without any delay. Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order. 6/ The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) JUDGE mk W.P.No.6087/2015 3.9.2015 Mr. S.Patwari, counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk W.P.No.2883/2012 3.9.2015 Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition.
50The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk S.A.No.329/2014 3.9.2015 Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for appellant/State. Mr. Umesh Gajankush, counsel for respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The Appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :
"(i) whether the finding of the first appellate court that respondent was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit and is continuing in possession thereof, is a perverse finding ?
(ii) whether the first appellate court is justified in holding that respondent was earlier dispossessed without adopting the due process of law ?"
Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the 51 copy of memo of Appeal along with annexures and questions of law formulated by the court to the counsel for respondent within one week.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk W.P.No.5166/2015 3.9.2015 Mr. O.P.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.5.2015 passed by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society on the plea that Co- operative Tribunal is not working.
On the direction of this court, Ms. Preetha Moitra has obtained instructions and informed that though the Presiding Officer is not there in the Cooperative Tribunal but the Member Judge is there and he is considering the interim applications.
In view of the above submission, counsel for the 52 petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the Co-operative Tribunal.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
Let certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the counsel for the petitioner on placing on record the photocopy of the same.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk W.P.No.5313/2015 3.9.2015 Ms. Mudita Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 53 Company Petition No.7/1972 & 8/1981 3.09.2015 I.A.Nos.5553/15, 5577/15, 5754/15 At the request of counsel for the parties, hearing on I.As. is adjourned.
List on 21.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk A.C. No.5/2015 3.9.2015 Mr. H.Y.Mehta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for the respondent. List on 14.09.2015, as prayed.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 54 Company Petition No.4/2015 3.9.2015 Mr. V.Asudani, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.Y.Mehta, counsel for the O.L.. At the request of counsel for the O.L., the case is adjourned for 10.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk S.A.No.172/2007 3.9.2015 Mr. Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted 2 weeks time to obtain instructions in the matter.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.2109/2007 3.9.2015 Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is 55 granted 4 weeks time to file the reply of application for vacating stay.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk S.A.No.299/2008 3.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Issue notice of I.A.No.8229/14, 8230/14 and 8231/14 to the proposed L.Rs. of deceased respondent No.1 on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 56 S.A.No.537/2009 3.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent No.1 is unserved. Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.2877/2011 3.9.2015 Mr. Umesh Gajankush, counsel for the appellant. As per office report, all the respondents are served, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice is required.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 57 W.P.No.3962/2011 3.9.2015 Mr. Aviral Vikas, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. R.P.Joshi, counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.3392/15 which is an application for vacating the stay order dated 12.5.2015.
Learned counsel for respondent submits that since the respondent has been classified as permanent employee, therefore he is entitled to the regular payscale and this aspect has not been considered.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that Labour court in para 5 of the award has mentioned that the relief of classification of respondent as permanent employee cannot be granted.
In view of this, submission of counsel for the respondent at this stage cannot be accepted that the respondent has been classified as permanent employee.
In these circumstances, the application for vacating stay being I.A.NO.3392/15 is found be devoid of any merits which is accordingly rejected.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) 58 mk S.A.No.437/2012 3.9.2015 Mr. P.V.Bhagwat, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.Shrivastava, counsel for the respondents. Since all the respondents are represented, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice is required.
Let the Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk W.P.No.11404/2012 3.9.2015 Mr. L.C.Patne, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.4070/15 which is an application for stay.
After restoration of the writ petition, in the order dated 14.08.2015 this court has considered the stand of the State that the interim relief that was granted on 5.12.2012 was only in respect of the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter the petitioner was relieved and was directed to 59 be joined at Chhattisgarh by order dated 18.07.2015. This court at that stage in order dated 14.08.2015 had accepted the prayer of the State that the matter at the most can be heard and disposed of early. The circumstances which have been noted by this court in the order dated 14.08.2015 do not warrant grant of any interim relief, hence I.A.No.4070/15 is rejected.
Office to list the matter in terms of the previous order of this court.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.2126/2013 3.9.2015 Appellant and respondent No.1 through counsel. Counsel for the appellant submits that liability of the insurance company is not in dispute, therefore prays for time to file an appropriate application for dispensing with service of notice on respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 60 W.P.No.12391/2013 3.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk F.A.No.940/2014 3.9.2015 Ms. Rashmi Pandit, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Patidar, counsel for respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.6616/15 which is an application for stay.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in identical Appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded, stay has been granted.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6616/15 is allowed and execution of the award under challenge is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of 2 months from today.
61List along with F.A.No.249/14. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk F.A.No.936/2014 3.9.2015 Ms. Rashmi Pandit, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Patidar, counsel for respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.6628/15 which is an application for stay.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in identical Appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded, stay has been granted.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6628/15 is allowed and execution of the award under challenge is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of 2 months from today.
List along with F.A.No.249/14. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 62 F.A.No.934/2014 3.9.2015 Ms. Rashmi Pandit, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Patidar, counsel for respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.6621/15 which is an application for stay.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in identical Appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded, stay has been granted.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6621/15 is allowed and execution of the award under challenge is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of 2 months from today.
List along with F.A.No.249/14. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 63 F.A.No.916/2014 3.9.2015 Ms. Rashmi Pandit, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Patidar, counsel for respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.6625/15 which is an application for stay.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in identical Appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded, stay has been granted.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6625/15 is allowed and execution of the award under challenge is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of 2 months from today.
List along with F.A.No.249/14. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 64 F.A.No.347/2014 3.9.2015 Ms. Rashmi Pandit, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Patidar, counsel for respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.6615/15 which is an application for stay.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in identical Appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded, stay has been granted.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6615/15 is allowed and execution of the award under challenge is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of 2 months from today.
List along with F.A.No.249/14. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 65 S.A.No.571/2014 3.9.2015 Mr. M.S.Dwivedi, counsel for appellants. Issue notice of I.A.No.6650/15 to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
Let record of the courts below be requisitioned in the meanwhile.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 66 F.A.No.978/2014 3.9.2015 Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents though served. Heard on I.A.No.11305/14 which is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC for bringing on record the L.Rs. of deceased respondent No.2-Gabba.
Also heard on I.A.No.11306/14 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution as also I.A.No.11307/14 which is an application for setting aside the abatement.
Though the L.Rs. of deceased respondent No.2 are served but they have not chosen to remain present and oppose the I.A..
On due consideration, the I.As. are allowed, delay is condoned and abatement is set aside and L.Rs. of deceased respondent No.2 are brought on record.
Let necessary correction in the cause title be done within 10 days.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 67 M.A.No.1152/2014 3.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, service of notice on respondent Nos.1 and 2 is awaited.
List along with fresh service report on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.1360/2014 3.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent No.3 is unserved. Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List along with M.A.No.1042/14 on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) 68 mk W.P.No.5957/2015 2.9.2015 Ms. Vinita Phaye, counsel for petitioner. Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondents/State. Heard finally with consent.
ORDER The petitioner who is working as "Varisth Adhyapak"
and posted at Govt. H.S.School, Berchhamandi, District Shajapur has filed the present petition seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representation in respect of his transfer.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is handicapped by 40% and the petitioner's wife is working as UDC and is posted at Bhopal, therefore in terms of clause 8.12 of the transfer policy, petitioner has submitted the representation dated 1.6.2015 (Annx.P/8) to the respondent No.2 for transferring him to Bhopal or at some nearby place but the said representation has not been decided till now. Learned counsel has also submitted that post is vacant at Patan, District Sehore.
Counsel for the respondent/State fairly submits that representation will be decided within a time bound period.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, without adverting to the 69 merits of the matter, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's pending representation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk WP No.6045/2015 02.09.2015 Shri A.S.Bahrawat, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for State on advance notice.
The order of Principal Seat dated 25/8/15 directing analogous hearing of the writ petition at Principal Seat is brought to the notice of the counsel for petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner submits that allotment is to be made in near future and that the Principal Seat has also directed maintaining of status quo with regard to supply permitting the State to resort to other mechanism and dispensation as may be permissible having regard to the 70 fact that the State Government has decided to continue the scheme till 30/9/2015.He has also submitted that in WP Nos.5862/15 & 5934/15 listed before the Coordinate Bench, interim order of status quo has been passed.
In view of the order dated 25/8/15 passed by Principal Seat, office is directed to take appropriate steps expeditiously.
Meanwhile keeping in view the issue of parity parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the supply to the petitioner's shop till the next date of hearing.
Counsel for State is directed to obtain instructions in the matter within two weeks.
List on 15/9/2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge mk 71 WP No.6043/2015 02.09.2015 Shri A.S.Bahrawat, learned counsel for petitioners. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for State on advance notice.
The order of Principal Seat dated 25/8/15 directing analogous hearing of the writ petition at Principal Seat is brought to the notice of the counsel for petitioners.
Counsel for petitioners submits that allotment is to be made in near future and that the Principal Seat has also directed maintaining of status quo with regard to supply permitting the State to resort to other mechanism and dispensation as may be permissible having regard to the fact that the State Government has decided to continue the scheme till 30/9/2015.He has also submitted that in WP Nos.5862/15 & 5934/15 listed before the Coordinate Bench, interim order of status quo has been passed.
In view of the order dated 25/8/15 passed by Principal Seat, office is directed to take appropriate steps expeditiously.
Meanwhile keeping in view the issue of parity parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the supply to the petitioners' shop till the next date of hearing.
Counsel for State is directed to obtain instructions in 72 the matter within two weeks.
List on 15/9/2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge mk 73 WP No.5863/2015 02.09.2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for petitioners. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for State on advance notice.
The order of Principal Seat dated 25/8/15 directing analogous hearing of the writ petition at Principal Seat is brought to the notice of the counsel for petitioners.
Counsel for petitioners submits that allotment is to be made in near future and that the Principal Seat has also directed maintaining of status quo with regard to supply permitting the State to resort to other mechanism and dispensation as may be permissible having regard to the fact that the State Government has decided to continue the scheme till 30/9/2015.He has also submitted that in WP Nos.5862/15 & 5934/15 listed before the Coordinate Bench, interim order of status quo has been passed.
In view of the order dated 25/8/15 passed by Principal Seat, office is directed to take appropriate steps expeditiously.
Meanwhile keeping in view the issue of parity parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the supply to the petitioners' shop till the next date of hearing.
Counsel for State is directed to obtain instructions in 74 the matter within two weeks.
List on 15/9/2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge mk 75 W.P.No.3661/2014 2.09.2015 Parties through their counsel. Writ petition has already been admitted. I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. It be listed for final hearing in due course. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastva, J.) mk W.P.No.5794/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. Kuldeep Pathak, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent/State. With the consent of parties, heard finally.
ORDER The petitioner by way of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 4.8.2015 whereby the petitioner's representation against the transfer order dated 10.6.2015 has been rejected.
The petitioner was transferred by the order dated 10.6.2015 from Primary School, Somvariya, Khilchipur to 76 Girls Primary School, Barnabad,Narsinghgarh. The said transfer order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.4724/15 raising the ground that he is office bearer of M.P.State Employees Association which is a recognized employees association and is protected in terms of the transfer policy. The other grounds relating to personal difficulty were also raised. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.7.2015 by directing the respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's representation within a time bound period and interim protection was granted to the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 4.8.2015 the petitioner's representation has been rejected. Though in the second para of the impugned order the ground raised by the petitioner in respect of the petitioner being the office bearer of the Employees Association at block level is noted but said ground has not been examined and representation has been rejected in the mechanical manner stating that transfer is as per rules and on administrative ground.
Learned counsel for State has fairly submitted that there is no objection in reconsidering the petitioner's representation in the light of the grounds which are raised in the representation.
In these circumstances and taking note of the fact that ground raised by the petitioner has not been decided in 77 the impugned order, the order dated 4.8.2015 is set aside and respondent No.4 is directed to decide the petitioner's representation afresh keeping in view the grounds which are raised in the representation specially the ground that petitioner is office bearer of the Employees Association. The interim protection granted by this court by order dated 16.7.2015 in W.P.No.4724/15 will continue to operate till the representation is decided by the respondent No.4.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) 78 W.P. No.5811/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. K.L.Hardia, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P. No.5814/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. K.L.Hardia, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.5832/2015 2.9.2015 79 Mr. Ajay Bagadia, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.A.Bohra, counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and prays for time to file the reply.
Let notice be issued to respondent No.2 on payment of P.F. within 3 days.
List on 28.9.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.5949/2015 2.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for 10.9.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.5981/2015 2.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for 23.9.2015.80
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.6007/2015 2.9.2015 Ms. V.Sumanlata, counsel for the petitioners prays for time to argue as to how the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable.
List on 7.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.4251/2015 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 81 W.P.No.4099/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. M.R.Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. B.Sugandhi, counsel for respondent No.5. Ms. Preetha Moitra, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.4197/2015 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted 2 weeks time to file reply of the application for vacating stay.
Meanwhile, reply be also filed by the State. I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List on 29.09.2015.82
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.4225/2015 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.4251/2015 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) 83 mk W.P.No.4329/2015 2.9.2015 At the request of Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for the respondent/State, the case is adjourned for 8.9.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.4577/2015 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent/State prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P. No.4748/2015 2.9.2015 84 Parties through their counsel. Mr. H.Jain, counsel for respondent No.2 prays for adjournment.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk MCC No.699/2015 2.9.2015 Applicant through counsel.
Counsel for the applicant has prayed for listing the matter tomorrow.
As prayed, list tomorrow i.e. 3.09.2015 .
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk S.A. No.375/2015 85 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let record of the courts below be requisitioned and matter be listed along with record on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk Contempt case No.602/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. Anand Bhatt, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1633/2015 2.9.2015 86 Mr. S.Neema, counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
Meanwhile, record of the Claims Tribunal be requisitioned.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk S.A.No.485/2013 2.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned for 3.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk MCC No.290/2014 2.9.2015 87 Mr. S.D.Lalwani, counsel for the applicant. This MCC is for restoration of S.A. No.30/14 which has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution by order dated 29.04.2014.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that he is an outsider counsel and had failed to appear on 29.4.2014 since he was not aware about the date fixed in the matter and had not come to Indore to attend the proceedings.
The explanation which has been furnished by the learned counsel for applicant and reason which has been disclosed in the MCC reveals that the non appearance of counsel for applicant was unintentional and for the bonafide reason. Accordingly, MCC is allowed and S.A.No.30/2014 is restored to its original position subject to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- in the bar library of the High Court within 2 weeks and submission of the acknowledgment of payment before the registry of this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 88 W.P. No.3371/2007 1.9.2015 Mr. A.K.Sethi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Chetan Jain, counsel for the petitioner.
He submits that notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is necessary since respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the auction purchaser and respondent No.2 is the executing authority. He submits that in the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the recovery certificate as also the consequential action of execution of sale certificate and delivery of possession which was in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they will be affected by any order passed in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that on account of improper instructions, on 3.12.2007 statement was made that only respondent No.1 is a necessary party.
Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on payment of P.F. within a week.
I.R. to continue until further orders. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 89 S.A.No.516/2014 2.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned for 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.C.C.No.93/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. Mukesh Tare, counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nishad Kazi, counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the applicant submits that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore applicant does not wish to press this MCC.
The MCC is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 90 M.A.No.1976/2013 2.9.2015 Mr. Akshat Pahadia, counsel for the appellants. Mr. M.R.Singh, counsel for respondents. Heard on I.A.No.7191/13 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
There is delay of 291 days in filing the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the I.A., it is found that the appellants were prevented from filing the Appeal within time on account of the bonafide reason. The delay is unintentional and it has not taken place on account of any deliberate lapse on the part of the appellants.
On due consideration, it is found that a good ground is made out for condoning the delay.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7191/13 is allowed and delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned and matter be listed along with record on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 91 S.A.No.44/2014 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, service of notice on respondent No.2 is awaited.
Office to take appropriate steps for completion of service of notice on respondent No.2.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk MCC No.216/2014 2.9.2015 Applicant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent No.1 is unserved. Counsel for the applicant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 3.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) 92 mk S.A.No.250/2014 2.9.2015 Mr. V.K.Verma, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent No.7/State. Heard on I.A.NO.6367/15 which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.4-Kuntibai on the ground that she has died and her L.Rs. are already on record.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6367/15 is allowed and appellant is permitted to delete the name of respondent No.4 at his own risk.
Let necessary correction in the cause title be done within 10 days.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.278/2014 2.9.2015 93 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, all the respondents are served, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice on respondents is required.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk MCC No.764/2014 2.9.2015 Mr. Brajesh Pandya, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rounak Choukse, counsel for respondent No.1(c).
Heard on I.A.No.6249/15 which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1(a) and (b), namely Smt. Shantidevi and Dilip Nagori on the ground that they have died and other L.Rs. are already on record.
On due consideration, I.A.No.6249/15 is allowed. Let necessary correction in the cause-title be done within a week.
List on 21.09.2015.94
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk F.A.No.890/2014 2.9.2015 Ms. Rashmi Pandit, counsel for the appellant submits that other identical Appeal is pending and has prayed for listing the matter along with that Appeal.
List along with F.A.No.245/14 on 28.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk W.P.No.1217/2014 2.9.2015 Parties through counsel.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that reply is in the process of being prepared and same will be filed positively filed within 10 days. Meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.5.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List on 6.10.2015.95
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.1242/2014 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are unserved.
Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 96 M.A.No.1678/2014 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are unserved.
Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk W.P.No.2672/2014 2.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for 26.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk S.A.No.175/2015 2.9.2015 97 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, service of notice on respondent No.1 is awaited.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List along with fresh service report on 26.11.2015. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.223/2015 2.9.2015 Mr. Prashant Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Issue notice of I.A.No.3984/15 which is an application for condonation of delay to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
Let record of the Claims Tribunal be requisitioned in the meanwhile.
List on 3.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.554/2015 98 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, all the parties are served, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice is required.
List on 3.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.839/2015 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, all the parties are served, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice is required.
List on 3.12.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk 99 M.Cr.C.No.5442/2015 2.9.2015 None for the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant is granted 10 days time to cure the default pointed out by the office.
List on 16.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk S.A.No.87/2008 2.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent submits that reply to the pending application will be filed within 2 weeks.
List on 23.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A.No.505/2015 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.100
Office has listed the matter for orders on service report but no service report is on record.
Office to take appropriate steps for completing the service of notice on respondents if they are not already served.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk Contempt case No.154/2015 1.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr. S.Joshi, counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to file the reply.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.1450/2015 1.9.2015 None for the petitioner.
Ms. Preetha Moitra, learned counsel for respondents has pointed out that writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension dated 24.12.2014 but in the meanwhile vide order dated 18.5.2015 Annx.R/1 the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and he has 101 been reinstated, therefore nothing survives in the present writ petition.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as infructuous.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.5464/2015 1.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk S.A. No.317/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. Yashpal Rathore, counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.Kale, counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the appellant prays for short adjournment to argue on the question of admission.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. List on 3.09.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 102 W.P. No.3371/2007 1.9.2015 Mr. A.K.Sethi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Chetan Jain, counsel for the petitioner.
He submits that notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is necessary since respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the auction purchaser and respondent No.2 is the executing authority. He submits that in the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the recovery certificate as also the consequential action of execution of sale certificate and delivery of possession which was in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they will be affected by any order passed in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that on account of improper instructions, on 3.12.2007 his statement was made that only respondent No.1 is a necessary party.
Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on payment of P.F. within a week.
I.R. to continue until further orders. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 103 M.C.C. No.153/2014 1.9.2015 Applicant through counsel.
As per office report, all the respondents are unserved. Counsel for the applicant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 104 M.A.No.505/2015 2.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
Office has listed the matter for orders on service report but no service report is on record.
Office to take appropriate steps for completing the service of notice on respondents if they are not already served.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk M.A. No.273/2014 1.9.2015 Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.Kansal, counsel for respondent No.2. List on 24.11.2015, as prayed.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 105 MCC No.694/2014 1.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondents are unserved and no fresh P.F. in terms of the previous order has been paid by the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant is granted further 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1107/2014 1.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, all the respondents are served, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice on respondents is required.
Let record of the Labour Court be requisitioned and matter be listed along with record on 24.11.2015.106
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.C.C. No.225/2015 1.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, all the respondents are unserved. Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk S.A. No.308/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. A.K.Sethi, Sr.counsel with Mr. Nitin Phadke, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Rishi Shrivastava, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2. Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent No.3. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 prays for and is granted a week's time to file reply of the application for condonation of delay.
List on 10.09.2015.107
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.Cr.C.No.7534/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. Ajay Bagadia, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Sudhanshu Vyas, counsel for respondent/State. Heard on the question of grant of bail. This is first application moved by the applicant (accused) u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.
Notice of this application was served on the State counsel. Case diary as per the direction of this court has been produced and it has been perused.
The applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC registered with Police Station Khilchipur, District Rajgarh at Crime No.122/15.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that as per the allegation, the money was allegely given in the year 2010 for arranging the government job for the son of the complainant whereas FIR has been lodged in the year 2015. He submits that there is no documentary proof of transaction of money and that present applicant has been implicated since he had made a complaint against the forge marksheet of the complainant's son and on enquiry the complaint was found to be correct. He has further submitted that there is no material to connect the present 108 applicant with the alleged offence and that applicant is in custody since 30.7.2015. The investigation is complete and challan has been filed.
In reply, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail.
On perusal of the case diary and considering the circumstances of the case, I find prima facie force in the submissions made by the counsel for applicant. Hence I am of the considered view that the application for grant of bail deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial court for his appearance as and when directed.
The applicant will attend each hearing of trial before the trial court out of which this bail arises. Any default in attendance in court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk S.A. No.775/2005 109 1.9.2015 Mr. S.Kochatta, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for respondent has submitted that since it is not a case of remand by the first appellate court, therefore the application for converting the Second Appeal into Misc. Appeal has not been properly filed.
Counsel for the appellant prays for time to examine the same.
List after 2 weeks.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.2649/2008 1.9.2015 Mr. Asif Warsi, counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted 2 weeks time to cure the default pointed out by the office.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.3033/2010 1.9.2015 Mr. Romil Malpani, counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.V.Dandwate, counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company.110
Heard on I.A.No.5633/15 which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 on the ground that respondent No.1 has died and his L.R. is already on record.
On due consideration, I.A.No.5633/15 is allowed. Let necessary correction in the cause-title be done within a period of one week.
As per office report, respondent No.2 is unserved. Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk R.P. No.425/2013 1.9.2015 Ms. Nidhi Bohra, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A.No.1355/14.
Mr. Sudhanshu Vyas, counsel accepts notice of the I.A. and prays for time to file the reply.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1194/2013 111 1.9.2015 Mr. A.S.Parihar, counsel for the appellant. Office has listed the matter for orders on the point of service of notice on respondent No.3.
As per office report, respondent No.3 is served, therefore no further orders in respect of service of notice on respondent No.3 is required.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1593/2013 1.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are unserved.
Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps for service of notice on unserved respondents.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk 112 M.A. No.2629/2013 1.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, respondent No.1 is unserved. Counsel for the appellant is granted 10 days time to take fresh steps.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1459/2014 1.9.2015 Ms. Nisha Tanwar, counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
Meanwhile, record of the Claims Tribunal be requisitioned in the meanwhile.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P. No.6967/2014 113 1.9.2015 Mr. Shyam Patidar, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A.No.1857/15 which is an application for amending the writ petition.
On due consideration, I.A. is allowed. Let amendment be carried out within 2 weeks. List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1139/2015 1.9.2015 Appellant through counsel.
As per office report, service of notice on respondents is awaited.
List along with fresh service report on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk M.A. No.1652/2015 114 1.9.2015 Mr. H.S.Rajpal, counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P. No.3925/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. Himanshu Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F. within a week.
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk W.P.No.4161/2015 1.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for 24.11.2015.115
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk MCC No.682/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. R.S.Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.6657/15 which is an application for dispensing with from filing the Affidavit.
After due consideration, I.A.No.6657/15 is allowed. This MCC is for restoration of F.A.No.841/14 which has been dismissed in default for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.10.2014.
I.A.No.6656/15 has been filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 263 days in filing the MCC.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that peremptory order could not be complied with within time on account of the fact that new counsel was appointed and file was in the process of transfer to the new counsel. He further submits that said default was unintentional and applicant may not be made to suffer on that account, and as soon as the applicant came to know about dismissal of the First Appeal, the application for restoration was 116 immediately filed but meanwhile, delay of 263 days had taken place.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is found that the delay in filing the MCC has properly been explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is condoned.
The explanation which has been furnished by the learned counsel for applicant and reason which has been disclosed in the MCC reveals that the non compliance of the peremptory order was unintentional and for the bonafide reason. Accordingly, MCC is allowed and F.A.No.841/2014 is restored to its original position subject to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- in the bar library of the High Court within 2 weeks and submission of the acknowledgment of payment before the registry of this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk MCC No.680/2015 1.9.2015 117 Mr. R.S.Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.6659/15 which is an application for dispensing with from filing the Affidavit.
After due consideration, I.A.No.6659/15 is allowed. This MCC is for restoration of F.A.No.585/14 which has been dismissed in default for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.9.2014.
I.A.No.6658/15 has been filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 298 days in filing the MCC.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that default could not cured and peremptory order could not be complied with within time on account of the fact that new counsel was appointed and file was in the process of transfer to the new counsel. He further submits that said default was unintentional and applicant may not be made to suffer on that account, and as soon as the applicant came to know about dismissal of the First Appeal, the application for restoration was immediately filed but meanwhile, delay of 298 days had taken place.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is found that the delay in filing the MCC has properly been explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is 118 condoned.
The explanation which has been furnished by the learned counsel for applicant and reason which has been disclosed in the MCC reveals that the non compliance of the peremptory order was unintentional and for the bonafide reason. Accordingly, MCC is allowed and F.A.No.585/2014 is restored to its original position subject to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- in the bar library of the High Court within 2 weeks and submission of the acknowledgment of payment before the registry of this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk MCC No.677/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. R.S.Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.6641/15 which is an application for 119 dispensing with from filing the Affidavit.
After due consideration, I.A.No.6641/15 is allowed. This MCC is for restoration of F.A.No.249/14 which has been dismissed in default for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 4.2.2015.
I.A.No.6640/15 has been filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 145 days in filing the MCC.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that since the Appeal was listed along with bunch of other connected First Appeals, therefore the peremptory order could not be noticed by the counsel for the applicant and could not complied with within time. He further submits that said default was unintentional and applicant may not be made to suffer on that account, and as soon as the applicant came to know about dismissal of the First Appeal, the application for restoration was immediately filed but meanwhile, delay of 145 days had taken place.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is found that the delay in filing the MCC has properly been explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is condoned.
The explanation which has been furnished by the 120 learned counsel for applicant and reason which has been disclosed in the MCC reveals that the non compliance of the peremptory order was unintentional and for the bonafide reason. Accordingly, MCC is allowed and F.A.No.249/2014 is restored to its original position subject to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- in the bar library of the High Court within 2 weeks and submission of the acknowledgment of payment before the registry of this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk MCC No.677/2015 1.9.2015 Mr. R.S.Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.6641/15 which is an application for dispensing with from filing the Affidavit.121
After due consideration, I.A.No.6641/15 is allowed. This MCC is for restoration of F.A.No.249/14 which has been dismissed in default for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 4.2.2015.
I.A.No.6640/14 has been filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 145 days in filing the MCC.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that since the Appeal was listed along with bunch of other connected First Appeals, therefore the peremptory order could not be noticed by the counsel for the applicant and could not complied with within time. He further submits that said default was unintentional and applicant may not be made to suffer on that account, and as soon as the applicant came to know about dismissal of the First Appeal, the application for restoration was immediately filed but meanwhile, delay of 145 days had taken place.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is found that the delay in filing the MCC has properly been explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the MCC is condoned.
The explanation which has been furnished by the learned counsel for applicant and reason which has been 122 disclosed in the MCC reveals that the non compliance of the peremptory order was unintentional and for the bonafide reason. Accordingly, MCC is allowed and F.A.No.249/2014 is restored to its original position subject to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- in the bar library of the High Court within 2 weeks and submission of the acknowledgment of payment before the registry of this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk S.A.No.408/2009 1.9.2015 Parties through their counsel. Issue notice of I.A.No.6969/12 to the proposed L.Rs. of the deceased respondent No.1 on payment of P.F. within a week.123
List on 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk S.A.No.41/2011 1.9.2015 At the request of counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned for 24.11.2015.
(Prakash Shrivastava,J.) mk