The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shyam Singh on 17 July, 2017

W.P. No.8478/2016
17.07.2017
Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by plaintiff is directed against the
order dated 18.10.2016. The trial court has allowed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the
respondent/applicant.
Facts

relevant and necessary for disposal of this
Writ Petition lies in narrow compass.

A suit for declaration and injunction is pending
consideration seeking relief of injunction against
defendants No.1 to 6 not to interfere with her possession in
the suit property and also for an entitlement seeking
mutation in revenue records and the municipal records to
the extent of her share i.e. suit property. Plaintiff has
pleaded that one Hansraj Wadhwa had five sons and one
daughter. During his life time he had partitioned his
property among six persons in the year 1994 and since then
each one is in possession of their respective share. Shri
Hansraj Wadhwa has died on 07.12.1996. The husband of
the plaintiff (one of the sons of late Hansraj Wadhwa) died
on 01.07.1999. After his death plaintiff continues to be in
possession of his share of property suit. As defendants No.1
to 5 interfered with the possession the instant suit has been
filed in the year 2013 seeking relief as referred above.

Inderdevi W/o Hansraj Wadhwa has died intestate
on 15.06.2003 and her 1/6th share was devolved upon five
sons and one daughter on the strength of the compromise
arrived at among them. She has further claimed not to
interfere with her possession to the extent of 1/6th share in
the property left behind by Inderdevi.

During pendency of the suit the
applicant/respondent filed an application under Order 1
Rule 10 to be added as defendants on the premise that she
being a daughter of late Hansraj Wadhwa and Inderdevi
Wadhwa she has a right to the property left behind by
Inderdevi Wadhwa and unless she added as a party no
effective relief can be granted to the plaintiff as her rights
to the property is seriously jeopardized. The trial court has
allowed the application. Taking exception to the impugned
order learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends
that the instant suit filed against defendants No.1 to 5 is
only seeking injunction against them not to interfere in their
possession over the property falling to her share left behind
by late Hansraj Wadhwa partitioned by him during his life
time. That apart there is no dispute among the brothers and
sisters of late Hansraj Wadhwa that property left behind by
late Inderdevi by way of compromise has been partitioned
among all the six respondents. The plaintiff does not
dispute or denial the 1/6th share of the respondent/applicant
in the property of late Inderdevi i.e. land falling in Khasra
No.2159/1. Moreover the plaintiff has not sought any relief
against the applicant. The plaintiff is the dominus litis and
is entitled to choose the persons against whom he intends to
maintain the suit. With the aforesaid submissions learned
counsel submits that respondent/applicant is neither a
necessary party nor a proper party.

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the suit
with the aforesaid submission, learned counsel submits that
the trial court committed illegality while allowing the
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

Per contra Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for
the respondent contends that undisputedly applicant is the
daughter of late Hansraj Wadhwa. She has a claim on the
land left behind by Inderdevi i.e. Khasra No.2159/1 to the
extent of 1/6th share.

Looking to the nature of the averments in the plaint
in fact her rights shall be serious jeopardize if she has not
permitted to join as a party to the suit and therefore, trial
court has not committed any illegality while allowing the
application.

Heard.

Law as regards in scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC
has been well settled by this court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The plaintiff is held to be dominus litis. He has to
choose the persons against whom he seeks to enforce the
relief in the suit. True it is, the trial court has discretionary
jurisdiction to add or delete parties to the suit to ensure fair
trial and award of effective relief.

In the instant case plaintiff has not sought any relief
against applicant/respondent. Plaintiff does not dispute and
deny the claim of 1/6th share of the applicant over the
property left behind by late Inderdevi and in terms of the
compromise amongst brothers and sister of the applicant.
The relief of injunction sought against the present
defendants in no way can be said to cause any prejudice to
the claim of the applicant. In any case if ultimately decree
is passed against the plaintiff the same shall not be binding
upon the applicant in any manner whatsoever and she is
always free to assail the same if aggrieved threby in any
manner whatsoever. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion
of this court the trial court was not right having allowed the
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the
respondent. The impugned order suffers from the patent
illegality and against principles of law under Order 1 Rule
10 of CPC. Consequently the impugned order is set aside.
However, as observed in the preceding paragraphs the
applicant shall not be affected by the decree passed by the
trial court if any. W.P. stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observations.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.1826/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Shri S.H.Moyal, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for analogous hearing with WP No.1741/17.

Prayer is allowed.

List this matter along with WP No.1741/17 after
three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.948/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for six
weeks’ time to file the reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after six weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.470/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for six
weeks’ time to file the reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after six weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.1732/2017
18.07.2017
None for the petitioner.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Counter affidavit is on record.
List after six weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.1741/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Shri S.H.Moyal, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for analogous hearing with WP No.1742/17, WP
No.1826/17, WP No.1831/17, WP No.7330/14 and WP
No.6249/15.

Prayer is allowed.

List this matter along with WP No.1742/17, WP
No.1826/17, WP No.1831/17, WP No.7330/14 and WP
No.6249/15 after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.1892/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for six
weeks’ time to file the reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after six weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7242/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant Akash Parihar.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is a First application under section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.354/2017
registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore, District
Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 of the
Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2017.

As per case diary, during search operation one
deshi katta 12 bore and 12 bore live cartridge were recovered
from the possession of the applicant. He has no license,
therefore, he has been arrested.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant is an innocent person. He has been falsely
implicated. He has no criminal antecedent. Similarly situated
person namely Sonu S/o Amar Singh Girewal against whom
same crime has been registered vide Crime No.355/2017 for
the offence punishable under Sections 25 27 of the Arms
Act has been enlarged on bail by the trial court on
14.07.2017. Copy of the order is placed before this court on
board. Applicant earns his livelihood by doing manual labour
work. He is a bona fide resident of Indore. With the aforesaid
submissions learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the
applicant.

Per contra Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that though as per record there is no
criminal antecedent of the applicant but since investigation is
in progress and challan is yet to be filed, it shall not be
desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail. Besides this the
order referred to is distinguishable as that is not in relation to
the same incident.

Heard.

In the facts and circumstances of the case there is
no allegation either of any overt act or of involvement in any
criminal activity of the applicant on the date of incidents.
Applicant has no criminal record. The offence under Section
25 and 27 of the Arms Act of having possession of the arms
without license triable by Magistrate First Class. For similar
offence one Sonu S/o Amar Singh Girewal has already been
enlarged on bail by the trial court. Applicant is in jail since
27.06.2017, therefore, this court is of the opinion that the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly the
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be
enlarged on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial
Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
trial Court during the pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to
compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by his;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial,
as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as
the case may be.

C.c. on payment of usual charges.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6983/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for one
week’s time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6927/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7024/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7046/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7063/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as
withdrawn.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7555/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7317/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7301/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7141/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7162/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7220/2017
18.07.2017
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7107/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7169/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7225/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7279/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7286/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7340/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7347/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7349/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7362/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7363/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7392/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7395/2017
18.07.2017
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7570/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7553/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7541/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7471/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7434/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7429/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7419/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7406/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7400/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.789/2017
18.07.2017
None for the appellant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of learned counsel for the appellant, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.640/2017
18.07.2017
None for the appellant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of learned counsel for the appellant, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.706/2017
18.07.2017
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.53/2016
18.07.2017
Shri M.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1113/2016
18.07.2017
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.292/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1000/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1219/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1280/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Anish Ashapure, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 3 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.475/2017
18.07.2017
Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.510/2017
18.07.2017
None for the parties.

In absence of learned counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.552/2017
18.07.2017
Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Let copy of Contempt Petition and Annexures be
supplied to Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondent. He is directed to seek instructions.

List after two weeks.

Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Rohit
Mangal as counsel for the respondent.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1055/2017
18.07.2017
None for the appellant.

In absence of learned counsel for the appellant, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.1761/2017
18.07.2017
None for the petitioner.

Shri R.C.Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.4068/2017
18.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Rakesh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the
respondent seeks time to file Vakalatnama and counter
affidavit.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P.No.4096/2017
18.07.2017
None for the petitioner.

In absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, case
is adjourned.

List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2509/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed seeking indulgence in the
matter of interim relief against transfer on the premises that
though reference has been made to the Labour Court, Indore
by the State Govt. but for want of Presiding Officer in the
Labour Court neither the reference case nor the application
for interim relief is being taken up.

This Court while entertaining Writ Petition has issued
notices and also granted interim relief on 08.05.2017. On
notice respondents have entered appearance through Shri
Girish Patwardhan, Advocate. Shri Patwardhan very fairly
submitted that as per the charge memo issued by the
Industrial Court, Indore matters falling within the territorial
jurisdiction of Labour Court, Indore are being made over to
Labour Court, Dewas for deciding urgent matters, therefore,
the aforesaid matter may be made over to the said court for
decision on interim relief.

Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners
does not oppose the suggestion. Accordingly, Writ Petition is
disposed of with a direction to the Industrial Court, Indore for
transfer of reference Case No.13/IDR/2016 Bhartiya Kamgar
Karmchari Mahasangh V/s. M/s. Abbott India Limited to
Labour Court, Dewas within a week. Both parties shall
appear before the Labour Court, Dewas on 28.07.2017. The
Labour Court shall shall endeavour to decide the interim
application within a period of 15 days. The interim order
passed by this court on 08.05.2017 shall remain operative for
the period of six weeks or till the decision on the application
pending before the Labour Court, Dewas, whichever is
earlier.

The Registrar is directed to dispatch the order passed
today to the Industrial Court, Indore immediately.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4263/2017
17.07.2017
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri
Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.3941/2017, which is an application
seeking amendment in the cause title of the petition.

After due consideration, application (IA No.3941/17)
is allowed.

Let amendment be carried out by tomorrow.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for time to seek
instructions.

Prayer is allowed.

List on Wednesday i.e. 19.07.2017, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
CONC. No.566/2015
17.07.2017
Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the
respondents.

In the light of the order passed by the respondents on
08.06.2016 nothing survives in the Contempt Petition
addressed upon, hence, Contempt Petition is dismissed as
infructuous. However, petitioner is set at liberty to assail the
aforesaid order in accordance with law before the appropriate
forum if he is still aggrieved thereby.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.694/2016
17.07.2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
temporary bail on medical ground.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to comply with the order passed on 28.06.2017 and
05.07.2017.

Prayer is opposed on the premise that appellant’s
mother is suffering from serious ailment LVF (Left
Venticulor Failure) and is on death bed. Deferrment of the
hearing of the application may cause irreparable loss to the
appellant.

Looking to the State Government’s prayer for last
indulgence, reluctantly time as prayed for is granted to
make available the report.

List on 24.07.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that if order is not complied with, the
bail application be considered on its own merit.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7482/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7469/2017
17.07.2017
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
two weeks’ time to place on record the FSL report.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7499/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Dilip Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
two weeks’ time to place on record the FSL report.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7513/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Kailash Kaushal, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as
withdrawn.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1266/2017
17.07.2017
Shri V.K.Bhavsar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 3 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.428/2015
17.07.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
appellant prays for three days’ time to make good default on
payment of deficit court fees.

Prayer is allowed.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.113/2016
17.07.2017
None for the appellant.

In absence of appellant, case is adjourned.
List after one week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.6243/2016
17.07.2017
Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Dipti Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

Counter affidavit affidavit filed on behalf of
respondents No.1, 3 and 4 is on record.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for
four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.8179/2016
17.07.2017
Mrs. Sushma Nahar wife of the petitioner present in
person.

Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents.
Mrs. Sushma Nahar wife of the petitioner present in
person and submits that the petitioner is indisposed, therefore,
unable to attend the hearing.

Prayer for adjournment is accepted.
List on 10th August, 2017, as prayed. In the
meanwhile, let reply to IA No.3284/2017 be filed by the
respondent No.2.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.8449/2016
17.07.2017
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

This Writ Petition under Article 227 is directed
against the order of the trial court dated 24.11.2016
dismissing application under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC filed
by the plaintiff. The suit for specific performance is pending
consideration. The plaintiff/petitioner filed the application
seeking summoning of documents from the defendants
related to utilization of the amount of consideration allegedly
paid by the plaintiff to defendants No.1 and 2 in the present
case to substantiate the assertion of factum of payment of
consideration.

Aforesaid application was replied with denials of the
averments made thereunder. The trial court has declined to
accede to the prayer with the reasoning that the dispute
between the parties relates to alleged agreement of sale and
the property described in agreement and not the properties
allegedly purchased by the defendants. Hence, the documents
related to purchase of other properties have no bearing on the
controversy involved in the instant suit.

Having perused the order passed by the trial court this
court is of the view that trial court has exercised its
discretionary jurisdiction within the four corners of law.
There is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the order
impugned. As such no interference is warranted under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition sans merit,
hereby dismissed. However, before parting with the case it is
considered apposite to observe that the petitioner/plaintiff is
always free to lead evidence on the strength of the pleadings
already on record.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.49/2017
17.07.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

This Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC is
directed against the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has rejected
the application seeking permission to withdraw the amount
of compensation settled in Lok Adalat and deposited in the
form of different Fixed Deposits as detailed in the
impugned order. The applicant had prayed for withdrawal
of the amount on the premises that the only bread earner of
the family i.e. her husband has passed away and she has to
look after her four minor children. She is reeling under
most frustrated financial conditions. She has no means of
livelihood. Hence, under these circumstances, she be
permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation.

The Tribunal has declined the prayer for the reason
the amount of compensation in terms of the High Court’s
order has been kept in Fixed Deposit of different
denominations. Learned counsel submits that petitioner
since is under pecuniary financial condition may be
permitted to withdraw the amount as claimed entitled to use
for the same after death of her husband.

Prayer appears to be reasonable. Accordingly the
Civil Revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The petitioner is held entitled to withdraw the amount of
compensation to meet out her immediate need to look after
her children and also for reinforcement of dwelling unit as
prayed for.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.8418/2016
17.07.2017
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
two weeks’ time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.108/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Kaushal Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.99/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 3 weeks,
failing which the revision shall stand dismissed without
reference to the court.

In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the
impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date.

Let the matter be listed on 26.08.2017.
C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2343/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file the petition
afresh based on subsequent cause of action.

Prayer is allowed.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2580/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Kapil Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw this Writ Petition in view of the fact that suit has
been dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 of CPC reserving his
right to raise all the grounds before the appropriate forum if
subsequent cause of action arises.

Prayer is allowed.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2914/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 2/State.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 2/State seeks four weeks’ time to file
counter affidavit.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.3594/2017
17.07.2017
Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2, 4 6.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents/State.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction/writ
of mandamus to respondent No.2 to construct hole as per
the proposed map over the alternative Govt. land available
and near the plots of the petitioner and near the Kanh river
on the premises that respondent No.2 has unauthorizedly
dug hole over the land of the ownership and possession of
the petitioner without authority of law. Petitioner has also
placed on record copy of a sale deed to bolster his
submissions.

Shri Amol Shrivastava, Advocate has entered
appearance for respondents No.2 and contends that
aforesaid contention of the petitioner is based on
misconception of facts, as without ascertaining boundaries
of his own plot he has rushed to this court seeking writ of
mandamus of the nature claimed in the Writ Petition. No
direction can be issued to the Corporation in obtaining facts
and circumstances of the case. However, learned counsel
fairly submits that in case the petitioner approaches the
respondent No.2 by way of representation or otherwise, he
shall be given audience for resolution of the dispute as
attempted to raise in the Writ Petition.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in the fitness of things this Writ Petition is
disposed of with the following directions :-
(1) Petitioner may approach respondent No.2 by way of
representation along with relevant documents within 15
days.

(2) In turn respondent No.2 or any other competent
authority to decide the representation shall be well advised
to address upon the said representation and pass a reasoned
order within a reasonable time preferably within six weeks.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7372/2017
14.07.2017
Shri S.R.Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process
fee within three days returnable within four weeks.

Heard on I.A.No.6438/2017.
This is an application for suspension of the custodial
sentence passed against applicant. The applicant has been
convicted under Section 325 (two counts) of IPC and
sentenced to six-six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.200-200/- vide judgment dated 25.06.2015 passed by
J.M.F.C., Garoth in Criminal Case No.458/2013. Against the
said judgment of conviction and sentence, applicant has
preferred an appeal and vide judgment dated 16.06.2017
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, Distt. Mandsaur
in Criminal Appeal No.12/2017, the appellate Court has
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed against the applicant and ordered to
deposit fine amount Rs.5,000/-.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that
applicant has already deposited the amount of fine of
Rs.5,000/- on 01.03.2017 and the petitioner is in jail for last
15 days, hence prayed for suspension of the sentence and
release of the applicant on bail.

Looking to the sentence awarded by the appellate
court i.e. on depositing of fine only and was released under
the provisions of probation of offenders Act the case is made
out for grant of bail, therefore, the application is allowed and
it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone
passed against the applicant shall remain suspended during
the pendency of this petition and he be released on bail upon
his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 23.08.2017 and on such
further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry
during the pendency of this petition.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6410/2017
14.07.2017
Shri Raju Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6180/2017
14.07.2017
Shri M.V.Mandloi, learned counsel for the
applicant Mukesh.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is a First application under section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.132/2017
registered at Police Station Azad Nagar, Indore, District
Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 of the
Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2017.

As per prosecution story, on information received
the police force reached Teen Imli Chouraha, Indore and
found the applicant in possession of one country made pistol,
one deshi katta and a live cartridge.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that
applicant was arrested on 24.04.2017 and since then he he is
in jail. He is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that
sufficient evidence is available to connect the applicant with
the offence in question.

Investigation is complete and challan has been
filed. As per case diary there is no criminal antecedents of the
applicant. The alleged possession of the aforesaid arms is
sought to be corroborated with the statement of one Jitendra
Mehra, who happens to be son of the employer of the
applicant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant
he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Jitendra
Mehra. There is no other incriminating material available on
record.

Under these circumstances, this court is of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled for enlarging on bail
upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court
for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as
may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the
pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to
compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by his;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial,
as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as
the case may be.

C.c. on payment of usual charges.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.670/2017
14.07.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State on advance notice.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Heard on I.A.No.4459/2017.
This is First application for suspension of the
custodial sentence passed against applicant. The applicant
has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to
one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with
further default stipulation vide judgment dated 14.12.2016
passed by J.M.F.C. in R.T.No.5678/2015. Against the said
judgment of conviction and sentence, applicant has preferred
an appeal and vide judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed by
Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.2/2017, the
appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
trial Court as well as appellate Court without appreciating the
evidence properly wrongly convicted the applicant for the
aforesaid offences. There are several omissions and
contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
He further submits that the hearing of this revision would
likely to take long time, hence prayed for suspension of the
sentence and release of the applicant on bail.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposed
the prayer and submitted that the guilt of the applicant was
proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial
Court as well as appellate Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the applicant.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
fact that applicant is in jail since 19.05.2017 and he was on
bail during trial, the application is allowed and it is directed
that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the
applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
revision and he be released on bail upon his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 23.08.2017 and on such further
dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the
pendency of this revision.

Let the revision be listed for final hearing in due
course.

C.c on payment of usual charges today.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6932/2017
14.07.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Heard on IA No.6546/2017, an application for
seeking leave of the Court to correct cause title.

On due consideration, application is allowed.
Let the amendment be carried out within three days.
List in the next week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.1533/2017
14.07.2017
Shri Arihant Kumar Nahar, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.6083/2016
13.07.2017
Shri Rahul Laad, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents/State.

Challenging legality, validity and propriety of the
order dated 31st August, 2016 petitioners have approached
this Court invoking extra ordinary constitutional
jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India with the complaint of violation of their
fundamental rights under Article 14 16 of the
Constitution of India in the matter of discontinuance of
appointment at mid-session of the academic session
01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 purportedly for the reason
petitioners failed to achieve desired targets of ensuring
result of 60% of girls students appeared in the examination
with “A” Grade.

Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this
Writ Petition lies in narrow compass.

Initially, petitioner No.1 was appointed on contract
basis for 6 months with fix honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per
month on 09.07.2007, likewise petitioners No.2 and 3 were
appointed on 22.02.2013. The petitioners have all along
been continued in employment with successive extension of
appointment and last extension of the appointment was
issued on 08.06.2015. The competent authority has also
issued experience and character certificates to petitioners
expressing full satisfaction since the time of appointment of
petitioners on 30.05.2016 Annexure P/4. Petitioners have
also undergone training programme sponsored by M.P.
State Tourism Department Corporation, Bhopal and have
also been issued a Certificate in that behalf Annexure P/5
(Colly.)
As such for last more than 8 years petitioners are
continuing in the services of respondents.

Respondents have issued show cause notices to the
petitioners calling upon them as to why their services be
not discontinued as they have failed to ensure that 60% of
the girls students appeared in the exams for the academic
session 2015-16 are able to obtain “A” Grade in the light of
condition No.7 of the last extension letter Annexure P/2
vide show cause notice dated 21st June, 2016 (Annexure
P-6). Petitioner filed reply and submitted that the girls
students admitted to the classes since are from backward
communities and dropouts but despite best efforts by the
petitioners desired number of girls students could not
achieve “A” Grade but in any case there was an increase of
percentage of girls pertaining “A” Grade in preceding years
as is fairly indicated in the show cause notice itself.
However, respondents terminated the appointments of
petitioners by impugned order dated 31.08.2016.

On notice respondents have entered appearance and
filed counter affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder
and additional return has also been filed. In counter
affidavit respondents have relied upon condition No.7 of
the last renewal letter Annexure P/2 to justify the action as
detailed above.

In the rejoinder the petitioner has placed on record
the comparative result of girls students for the academic
year 2015-16 of the institution at Rajgarh where one
Rashmi Pancholi was working on contract basis as
Assistant Warden. Learned counsel points out that in her
case out of 143 candidates 85 candidates (60%) ought to
have obtained “A” Grade whereas only 29 girls students
had obtained “A” Grade but she has been further continued
in the services. It is submitted that in case of petitioner
No.1 out of 96 students 58 (60%) were required to obtain
“A” Grade where 35 students obtained “A” Grade. Learned
counsel submits that if it is compared with the result
referred above the percentage of girls students in the school
where petitioner is working as Assistant Warden obtained
“A” Grade is higher.

Learned counsel submits that this court while
issuing notice has granted interim relief on 07.09.2016 and,
therefore, petitioners continued in service for the academic
session 2016-17. More than 60% girl admitted in the
examination have secured “A” Grade and this shows that
there have been sustained improvement in the performance
of the petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that in any case
respondents have adopted discriminatory approach in the
matter of further extension of appointment of Assistant
Warden. Such recourse offends Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

Referring to additional reply learned Govt.
Advocate tried to contend that overall performance of
Rashmi Pancholi over a period of 4 years preceding
academic session 2015-16 was better than the petitioners,
therefore, they are not similarly situated, hence plea of
discrimination is not available to petitioners. With the
aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays for dismissal
of Writ Petition. Learned counsel also submits that scope of
interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India in the matter of contractual appointments is limited
in nature and this court cannot sit as an appellate authority
or substitute its views for that of the competent authority
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR 2012 SC 729.

Heard.

Petitioner No.1 undisputedly have been working for
more than 8 years since the date of her appointment on
09.07.2007 and likewise petitioners No.2 and 3 have also
continued since the date of their appointments in 2013 by
way of successive extension of their appointment.

In service jurisprudence concept of contractual
appointment has received strict interpretation to ascertain
the nature of appointment. Appointments though initially
issued on contract basis but continued for years together
have been held to be regular appointments with perennial
nature of work, in catena of decisions by this court and
Hon’ble Apex Court lifting the veil to assess the actual
nature of the appointment. Use of phrase of contractual
appointment in successive extension orders of the
appointment has been held to be a mere camouflage and in
a way fraud on power to make appointment.

Such recourse adopted by the employer to continue
employees in the employment for years together subject to
periodical extension has also been held to be instance of
exploitation and in labour jurisprudence as unfair labour
practice.

In the instant case petitioners’ continuance in
employment for years together therefore under such
circumstances cannot be construed to be on mere contract
basis. The fact of their sustained efforts is well reflected
from the show cause notices issued wherein the increase of
15% of girls students obtained “A” Grade has been
mentioned. That apart the condition No.7 of the
appointment letter which has been insisted by the
respondents justifying termination of employment by the
impugned orders cannot partake the character of law in the
matter of extension of the appointment of petitioners
because of the constant good performance of the petitioners
for last so many years. Moreover, respondents have not
been fair in the matter of insistence on condition No.7
uniformly in relation to other similarly situated Assistant
Wardens like Rashmi Pancholi etc. as pleaded in the
rejoinder. In fact respondents have acted fast and loose with
their authority tantamounting to colourable exercise of
powers in the matter of selective extension/non-extension
of so called contractual appointment of Assistant Wardens
including petitioners.

Under these circumstances the impugned action of
respondents discontinuing appointment of the petitioners by
the impugned order cannot be sustained on the touch stone
of concept of equality before law and equal protection of
laws as contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.

The contention of the learned counsel for the State
as regard maintainability of the petition relying on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by it in the
matter of Gridco Ltd. and another V/s. Sadananda Doloi
and others reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 729
cannot be countenanced as the instant case is that of an
artificial brake in service where petitioners have been
continued years together in contrast to the facts of the case
relied upon wherein the delinquent was appointed on a fix
tenure of 3 years as Senior General Manager (HRD) on
contract basis by Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited and
the said appointment was not further continued. As such the
aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on facts and is of no
assistance to the respondent/State in support of the plea
against maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Consequently the impugned order Annexure P/7
dated 31.08.2016 is quashed. Respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7364/2017
12.07.2017
Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission to withdraw this application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as
withdrawn.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4199/2017
12.07.2017
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner
case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.1090/2017
12.07.2017
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 3 weeks,
failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without
reference to the court.

In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the
impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date.

Let the matter be listed on 21.08.2017.
C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.3597/2017
12.07.2017
Shri N.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Rani Pal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner has approached this court through this Writ
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a
grievance that though the partition suit has been filed as far
back as in 2011 and though the written statement has been
filed but the trial is going on at snail’s pace. As such the very
purpose of filing the partition suit is frustrated. He submitted
that though on 02.05.2017, the court had taken serious view
of the matter giving last opportunity to the defendant to file
reply to the pending applications but even subsequent thereto
reply has not been filed.

Under such circumstances learned counsel prays that
the direction be issued for early disposal of the suit.

Without commenting upon the contention on merits,
it is considered apposite to dispose of Writ Petition with
direction that the trial court shall make endeavour to decide
the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of 18
months.

Petition stands disposed of.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.3987/2017
12.07.2017
Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
H.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

By this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India petitioner has approached this court
taking exception to the order passed by the appellate authority
of the Housing Board dated 16.06.2017 regretting the prayer
of the petitioner for conversion of rental accommodation
allotted to him during the currency of his service into sale on
one time payment of the premises, on the ground that the
petitioner since occupied the premises while was in service
but now having been dismissed from service the said recourse
cannot be permitted.

Learned Senior Counsel by referring to
correspondences between the petitioner and the Housing
Board on an earlier occasion in the year 2006 Annexure P/6
as well as on 26.02.2015 Annexure P/14 contends that earlier
the Board had acceded his prayer and also called upon him to
submit an affidavit. The petitioner had also submitted an
affidavit in compliance thereof, but no further progress was
communicated to him. Learned counsel contends that once
respondents have acceded to such prayer though after
termination of the employment, the appellate authority has
fallen in error of law and fact while rejecting the appeal only
for the reason that petitioner has been terminated. Learned
counsel contends that permission for outright purchase of
allotted quarter to the petitioner by no stretch of imagination
can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of the Housing
Board. The Circular No.1/2017 dated 07.01.2017 relied upon
by the appellate authority to justify the impugned order does
not have any statutory force and at the most is for guidance
which have to be interpreted/applied looking to the facts and
circumstances of each case.

Petitioner in fact has not asked for any favour instead
seeks to purchase the house so allotted on a fair market price.
As on date he is deprived of means of livelihood. If he is
forced to evict the house he with his family at this stage of
life shall be at cross-road, therefore, seeks a direction to the
respondents to consider his representation on humanitarian
ground with compassion.

Heard.

Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and the limited prayer of the petitioner seeking
direction for consideration simplicitor this court without
commenting upon the impugned order dispose of Writ
Petition with following directions :-

(1) Petitioner may submit a
comprehensive representation in the
context of the contentions advanced
before this court within 10 days addressed
to respondents No.1 and 3.

(2) Respondents No.1 and 3 in turn
shall bestow conscious consideration on
such representation with compassion
provided there is no legal bar but without
laying much insistence on the order
impugned in this Writ Petition
No.3987/2017.

It is apposite to observe that the order passed today
shall not be treated as precedence.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4162/2017
12.07.2017
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by plaintiff is directed against the
confirming order of the appellate court dated 17.05.2017
dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 2 of
CPC.

Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of Writ
Petition are that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and
injunction pending consideration inter-alia contending that he
holds the title of the suit land and is in possession. However,
defendants belonging to the upper caste of society since
threatened to dispossess him, he has filed the instant suit.
Courts below while rejecting the application for injunction
have taken note of the fact that plaintiff has entered into an
agreement to sell with defendants on 27.07.2009 for sale on a
consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-, out of which Rs.3,20,000/-
was received by the plaintiff and possession of the suit
property was handed over to the defendant No.1, thereafter in
the Revenue Case No.13/a-6-a/2015-16 Tehsildar vide its
order dated 14.10.2016 in the presence of the plaintiff passed
an order of mutation in favour of defendants. Plaintiff has so
far not chosen to assail the aforesaid order of the Tehsildar
before higher forum under M.P. Land Revenue Code.

With the aforesaid prima facie satisfaction, courts
below have declined the prayer for injunction.

This court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India finds no reason to interfere with the confirming order of
the appellate court while rejecting the prayer for injunction
orders so passed, as are found to be in accordance with law.
Consequently Writ Petition sans merit, hereby dismissed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4016/2017
12.07.2017
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner
case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4108/2017
12.07.2017
Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4157/2017
12.07.2017
Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner
case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.4185/2017
12.07.2017
Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4962/2016
12.07.2017
Shri M.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.163/2014
12.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the
matter is likely to be compromised, therefore, prays for a
short adjournment.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.1375/2015
12.07.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to withdraw this petition.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.235/2016
12.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner
case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed on 19.07.2017, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.1613/2016
12.07.2017
Shri H.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent No.5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after three weeks’, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.5646/2016
12.07.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for a week’s
time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.6706/2016
12.07.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for four
weeks’ time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.7351/2016
12.07.2017
Shri Mangesh Bhachawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the respondents.
This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by plaintiff is directed against the order
dated 15.10.2016 passed by the trial court.

Petitioner’s application under Order XVIII Rule 3 of
CPC has been rejected seeking leave of the court to lead
evidence after completion of the evidence of the defendants
in the light of the liberty reserved to the plaintiff by the trial
court on 03.03.2015 allowing its application under Order
XVIII Rule 3 of CPC.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents
submits that as a matter of fact the liberty granted to the
petitioner on 03.03.2015 was conditional in nature and only
in the event new facts are brought on record through evidence
petitioner plaintiff was at liberty to lead evidence to convert
the same. As the trial court has made a categorical
observation that no such new fact/evidence is placed on
record by the defendants, hence no question of granting leave
to lead further evidence did arise. Learned counsel also
contends that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the
trial court under circumstances neither suffered from any
illegality or jurisdictional error for interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid
submission, learned counsel prays for dismissal of Writ
Petition.

Heard.

The suit for declaration, injunction is pending
consideration. The trial court though had extended the liberty
to the petitioner in the context of leading evidence after
completion of the evidence by the defendants provided some
new evidence is placed on record but as trial court has found
no such situation occurred to grant liberty to the petitioner, it
has declined the prayer for re-examination of plaintiff. This
court finds that the trial court has not committed any illegality
in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, no
interference is warranted. Writ Petition sans merit dismissed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2176/2017
11.07.2017
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
for the respondent/State.

Pleadings are complete.

Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
prays for final disposal of the Writ Petition as the interim
order passed by this court on 04.04.2017 is staring at
respondents.

Prayer accepted.

Post for final disposal on 20th July, 2017.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.24/2017
11.07.2017
Smt. Archna Kher, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Service on respondents awaited.
List after service on respondents.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.8478/2016
11.07.2017
Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

At the request of learned counsel for the respondent,
case is adjourned.

List in the next week, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.8598/2016
11.07.2017
Shri K.Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for two
weeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2128/2017
11.07.2017
Ms. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for two
weeks time to seek instructions.

List after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.1843/2017
11.07.2017
Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
In compliance of the order dated 03.07.2017
respondent/M.P. Public Service Commission has placed
before this Court the result of the petitioner in a sealed
envelope.

The envelope is opened during proceedings. It is
found that petitioner has not been selected. Accordingly this
Writ Petition is rendered infructuous, therefore, it is
dismissed as infructuous.

Copy of the result is returned back to the counsel for
the M.P. Public Service Commission.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.1778/2017
11.07.2017
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 3.

Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 3 seeks four weeks’ time to file reply.

Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4 submits that no counter affidavit is required
to be submitted by respondent No.4.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2842/2017
11.07.2017
Shri Deepak Kasliwal – Petitioner present in person.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee within 3 days, returnable within four weeks.

Record of MJC No.63055/2017; wherein the District
Judge, Indore passed an order on 03.03.2017 under Section
24 of CPC transferring MJC No.154/2014 at the instance of
the present applicant from the court of 14th Additional District
Judge, Indore to 15th Additional District Judge, Indore.

List immediately after four weeks. Petitioner is at
liberty to bring in the notice of the concerned court the order
passed today.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.2515/2017
11.07.2017
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2/State.

Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2/State states that no counter affidavit
shall be filed by the respondents No.1 and 2.

Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 prays for six weeks’ time to file counter
affidavit.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after six weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.3829/2017
11.07.2017
Shri Vinay Jhelawat, learned Senior Counsel
with Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents/State.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India have been preferred raising
grievance of high handedness, arbitrariness and hostility
on the part of respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 6 in the matter
of forcible possession of petitioners’ property and resort
to destruction activity without authority of law.
Aforesaid respondents have in fact and in effect
resorted to colourable exercise of power depriving the
petitioner of his right to hold property tantamounting
onslaught on their fundamental rights under Article 14
and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel further contends despite having
made detailed repetitive representations P-6, P-7
P-17 addressed to respondents No.2 and 3 but to no
avail. Petitioners under circumstances are left with no
other alternative than to seek redressal of their
grievance as marshalled in the Writ Petition invoking
extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Upon perusal of the averments made in the Writ
Petition and contentions advanced at Bar in the opinion
of this Court the ends of justice shall be subserved if
comprehensive directions are issued to the respondents
No.2 and 3 to ensure proper consideration of pending
representations and decide the same in accordance with
law, as no one much less public authority can be
permitted to take the law in their hands and subject
citizens of this country to their acts of arbitrariness or
vindictiveness. Accordingly WP No.3829/2017 stands
disposed of with following directions :-

(1) Petitioner shall submit a detailed
representation along with copy of
the representations already pending
consideration addressed to
respondents No.2 and 3 within 15
days.

(2) Respondents No.2 and 3 are hereby
directed to bestow conscious
consideration on representation so
filed with due advertence to official
record and the documents placed on
record by the petitioner and if
sought for, after affording
audience to the petitioner and
thereafter shall pass a self-contend
reasoned order bearing in mind
that public authorities owe a
public duty towards public in a
welfare state to act fairly and
reasonably as this country is run by
rule of law and no one is above the
law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions
WP No.3829/2017 stands disposed of. It is made clear
that this court has not expressions any opinion on the
merits of the case.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7166/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant
Rakesh.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is a First application under section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.211/2017
registered at Police Station Sendhwa (Gramin), District
Barwani for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2),
376(n), 376(f), 323 and 506 of IPC. The applicant is in jail
since 20.04.2017.

As per prosecution story, while the prosecutrix
Shanubai was working on field on 09.04.2017 at about 12.00
in the noon accused Rakesh brother-in-law of the prosecutrix
came to the field and caught hold of her and while she tried to
raise alarm he pressed her mouth with his palm and thereafter
allegedly had an intercourse with her. Thereafter 2-4 days
when she had gone to the field to respond to the nature’s call
again the accused came to her and did the intercourse.
Thereafter on 17.04.2017, at about 4.00 p.m., while she was
standing near her house, accused came there, caught her by
her hair and threatened her with dire consequence if she had
informed to any person about his acts and only thereafter she
told to her husband about the incident and then the FIR was
lodged.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that
though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 09.04.2017
and that of 2-3 days thereafter but no FIR was lodged
immediately, instead it took more than 5 days to lodge the
FIR. He is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that
sufficient evidence is available to connect the applicant with
the offence in question.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
opinion of this court, prima facie case has been made out for
grant of bail, though the learned Govt. Advocate tried to
support the order impugned referring to the statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
consequently the application is allowed and the applicant is
directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial
Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
trial Court during the pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to
compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by his;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial,
as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as
the case may be.

C.c. on payment of usual charges.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2262/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent /
CBN.

This M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed taking exception to the order passed by the trial court on
11.01.2017. The Trial Court in compliance of the order
passed by the Hon’ble Court in SLP No.6935/2015 dated
22.07.2016 had sent sample out of the case property for
chemical analysis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner questions chemical
analysis report so submitted before the trial court on various
grounds. However, looking to the fact that only report has
been submitted and the trial court has yet to apply minds,
therefore, as prayed for permission is granted to withdraw
this petition with liberty to raise such contentions as available
to the petitioner in the context of the report at the appropriate
stage of the trial.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.673/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Balendu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the
respondent.

List this matter along with Cr.R.No.672/17 on
17.07.2017, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.846/2017
10.07.2017
Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2695/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Subhash Dheriya, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for a week’s
time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4327/2017
10.07.2017
Shri S.C.Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Manish Nair, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for a
week’s time to make available the case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 18.07.2017, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4679/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.

Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 3 weeks.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.5092/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.3649/2015
10.07.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has
filed the Vakalatnama recently, therefore, prays for time to
seek instructions.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.1180/2016
10.07.2017
None for the petitioner.

Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the
respondents.

In absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, case
is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after a week.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.3584/2016
10.07.2017
Shri Y.S.Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for six
weeks’ time to file rejoinder.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after six weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.5372/2016
10.07.2017
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for four
weeks’ time to file rejoinder.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.5997/2016
10.07.2017
Shri P.V.Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State prays
for six weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after six weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
W.P. No.6759/2016
10.07.2017
Shri A.P.Polikar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent prays for three
weeks’ time to seek instructions.

Prayer is allowed.

List thereafter.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6534/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the
application after three months.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6605/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for a week’s
time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6707/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for a week’s
time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6742/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for a week’s
time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6847/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6875/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7182/2017
10.07.2017
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case diary is not available.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State
seeks time to produce case diary.

Prayer is allowed.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State is
directed to produce case diary on the next date of hearing
positively.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4471/2017
23.06.2017
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.1/State.

Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
ns

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *