SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ganpat vs Deced. Gangabai Thru. Lrs. Deced. … on 14 March, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.5388/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, list on 09.04.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK
Date: 2018.03.14 18:29:42 +05’30’
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.1256/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed learned counsel for the appellant, list after
two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A.No.542/2007
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed learned counsel for the appellant, list after
two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.19900/2017
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned Government Advocate prays for, list the
matter on 28.03.2018.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.2378/2015
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Counsel for appellant is directed to pay fresh P.F. to
respondent No.2 on his present and correct address within 7

days.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.75/2001
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant
prays time to argue this appeal on admission.

List on 28.03.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Conc. No.812/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Petitioner through counsel.
Issue notice to respondent No.3 and 4 on payment of
P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.324/2005
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Shri T.K. Modi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the Alok Ku-
mar Dabar.

Heard on I.A. No.6795/2007.
Alok Kumar Dabar has filed an application under
order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment as
a respondent in this appeal in place of respondent No.2,
who has expired during pendency of this appeal.
Alok Kumar Dabar is son of respondent No.2, who is
claiming possession by virtue of sub tenancy. Gulshan
brother of Alok Singh Dabar was already on record as
respondent No. 8. ( now he has expired represented through
his legal heirs) , therefore, Alok Kumar Dabar is a
necessary party in this appeal, hence, I.A. No.6795/2007 is
allowed.

Let necessary amendment be incorporated in the
cause title of appeal.

List for final hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No. 1184/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
case is adjourned.

List after a week.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No.1390/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F.
within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.

In the meanwhile, record of Tribunal be called for.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.652/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Record of court below be called for.
List after receipt of record.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. 5679/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Petitioner through counsel.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

Also heard on the question of admission.
Since that written examination has already held and
in which petitioner could not appear, hence, any
appointment made in the respective category and post shall
be subject to outcome of this petition.

C.C. as per rules.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.5871/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Petitioner through counsel.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
F.A. No.971/2016
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Shri Saheed Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Admit.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

In the meanwhile, record of the court below be called
for.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No. 1940/2017
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
adjournment to go through the record.

List after two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.5879/2017
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.108/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Record is awaited.

List after receipt of record.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
C.R. No.110/2013
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner
undertakes to argue the matter on 28.03.2018.

List on 28.03.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
C.R. No.142/2014
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner
undertakes to argue the matter on 28.03.2018.

List on 28.03.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
C.R. No.172/2013
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner
undertakes to argue the matter on 28.03.2018.

List on 28.03.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.2815/2014
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No.310/2018
Indore; dated 14.03.2018
Shri Sachin Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present petition
being aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2017 by which
learned trial Court has rejected the application filed under
Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C.. The plaintiffs have filed the suit
for permanent injunction and removal of illegal
construction raised by the defendant / plaintiff .

After receipt of summon, the defendant filed
written statement contending that he has not raised any
illegal construction but he purchased the constructed house
and there is no illegal construction. On the basis of
pleadings the learned trial court has framed the issues. The
issue No.1 and 2 are in respect of the illegal construction
raised by the defendant. The defendant has already filed an
affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and the case
is fixed for cross examination his witnesses. At this stage
the defendant has filed an application under Order 26 Rule
9 of C.P.C. The learned trial has rejected the aforesaid
application by observing that the provision of under Order
26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. cannot use for collection of evidence.
The Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. provides that :- “In any suit in
which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite
or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in
dispute, or of ascertaining the market value, may issue a
commission. The language of Order 26 Rule 9 is very plain
and simple, according to which, if any court deems it
proper to appoint a commission for the purpose of
clarification of any issue in dispute, may appoint a
commission. That any clarification requires only after the
evidences are produced by both the parties. The parties in
suit must prove their case by way of evidence and if the
court wants that any issue or matter in dispute requires any
clarification or elucidation it may appoint a commission. In
the present case the plaintiff as well as defendants have not
given their evidences so far. They have to stand on their
lags as they have to prove their case by way of evidence
and if thereafter any issue is required to be clarified then
they may file an application or court suo moto may appoint
a commission”. The important is that at which stage
application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. is filed in the
suit.

In view of the above, the application filed by the
respondent is premature and petition is disposed of with liberty
to the petitioner to revive his application after cross
examination of his witnesses. The learned trial Court has rightly
dismissed the application at this stage.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of with above
liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.19711/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent, list
in the 1st week of April.

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

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.18965/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent, list
in the 1st week of April.

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

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. No.313/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
None for the petitioner, even in second round.
Case is adjourned.

List after three weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No.1373/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Record of the Tribunal be called for.
List immediately after receipt of record.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No.1373/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Record of the Tribunal be called for.
List immediately after receipt of record.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.5800/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Shri L.C. Patne learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
P.F.within 7 days notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.5895/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Shri Abhishek Malviya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that they are bonafide purchaser and they
purchased the property before same was put to mortgage to
respondent No.5. They came to know about the order
passed by Additional District Magistrate Indore, only when
the notice dated 07.03.2018 was affixed in the premises.

At this stage, the petitioner is permitted to serve the
respondent No.5 by way of humdust so that they can
explain correct facts before this court.

P.F. be paid tomorrow, returnable within 1 week.
List on 21.03.2018, till then status quo in respect of
possession be maintained.

C.C. today.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.1448/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Shri Abhishek Tungawat, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial
question of law:-

(I). Whether the learned court below has
committed error of law while dismissing the suit on the
ground of limitation when the plaintiff has specifically
pleaded that he has requested for execution of sale deed
and the defendant did not appear in the witness box to deny
the said averments.

(II). Whether the court has erred in law in counting
the period of limitation from the date of Ex.P-4 in which
there is no period prescribed for execution of registered
sale deed.

Also heard on I.A. No.15481.
Till the next date of hearing the respondent is
restrained to alienate the suit property.

List for final hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.3954/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file reply.

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

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 5199/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Petitioner is present in person.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the
respondent.

By way of last indulgence 10 days time is granted to
the petitioner and if the counsel of the petitioner is not
present to argue the matter on the next date of hearing, then
petitioner is free to change the counsel, but no further
adjournment will be given to the petitioner.

List on 02.04.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.19227/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted two weeks time to file rejoinder.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.21626/2017
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri L.C. Patne learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he will file the rejoinder during course of the
day.

Office is directed to trace the same and place it on
record.

List after three weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No.233/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Petitioner through counsel.
Service of respondent is awaited.
List after three weeks.

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

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3474/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 and 2 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file
reply.

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

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.5622/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Shri Chandrakant Verma, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the
respondents.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by the letter dated 17.01.2018 by which forms
were invited for 1st M.P. State Big Bore Shooting
Championship at Rewati Range B.S.F., Indore scheduled
on 23.02.2018 and 24.02.2018 which was further extended
on 09.03.2018. The date has already been expired. With the
efflux of time, present petition is rendered infractuous.

It is accordingly dismissed having been rendered
infructuous.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.5797/2018
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.
within 3 days, notice be made returnable within four weeks.

Also heard on the question of interim relief.
The operation and effect of the order dated
05.03.2018 (Annexure P-4), shall remain stayed till the
next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No.2169/2015
Indore; dated 13.03.2018
Shri Anuj Bhargawa, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial
question of law:-

(I). Whether ” Washing Allowances” are included
in the definition of “Wages” as defined under Section 2(22)
of “the Act” ?

(II) Whether order of recovery dated 17.11.2006
was barred by limitation, and whether the Employees’
Insurance Court was right in not giving any finding on the
issues ?

Since, the respondent mark his presence, therefore,
no further notice is required.

List for final hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.7655/2015
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
None for the petitioner, even in second round.
In the last date of hearing on 09.11.2018, no one has
appeared on behalf of petitioner. The suit is pending since
2008, therefore stay order granted on 06.11.2015 is
vacated.

The case is adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 5706/2018
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Shri Sayyed Israr Hussain, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2017 by which the
Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Ujjain has
terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner is
having alternative remedy of appeal to challenge the said
order.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for withdrawal of this writ petition to approach the
competent authority by way of appeal.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No.1932/2017
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Shri A.K. Sethi, senior counsel with shri Rishabh Sethi,
learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial
question of law:-

(i). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justi-
fied in reversing the findings of the Trial Court without
properly considering the provisions of Section 69 of the
Evidence Act, particularly when the death of the attest-
ing witnesses was an undisputed fact and their signa-
tures were duly proved from the evidence of PW/3,
PW/4 and PW/5 ?

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

Issue notice to the respondent No.2 and 3 on payment
of P.F. within 7 days.

IA. No. 520/2018 shall be considered at the time of
final hearing.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 prays time to file reply on I.A. No.520/2018.

Time granted.

Till the next date of hearing status quo in respect of
possession be maintained.

List after four weeks.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No. 353/2018
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Petitioner through counsel.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
P.F.within 7 days, notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.260/2016
(Vinod Kumar Nakda Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the
respondents/ State.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by order dated 04.11.2015 by which services of
the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner was
appointed as Pharmacist on contract basis vide order dated
05.09.2013. The period of contract of the petitioner was
extended time to time. That, alongwith the petitioner other
candidates were also appointed as Pharmacist. After the
appointment the CMO, Mandsour (M.P.) has considered
the eligibility of the petitioner and found that the
appointment of the petitioner was against the rules and he
was not eligible for the post of Pharmacist and his
appointment is forged also.

The similar case came up for hearing before this
Court in W.P. Nos. 749/2016, 1479/2016 1500/2016. By
order dated 07.02.2018 all the writ petitions have been
dismissed. The operative part of order is reproduced
below:-

” The original record reflects that advertisement
was issued for appointment on the post of Pharmacist
and after scrutiny of the applications, initially the merit
list dated 7/3/13 was prepared. Thereafter a complaint
was received alleging irregularities in preparing the
merit list. Hence the selection process was stayed and
appointment orders dated 20/3/13 were kept in
abeyance. After the enquiry and considering the
objections, the fresh select list was prepared and
forwarded by the Incharge Officer to CMHO Mandsaur
on 3/5/13. The said select list was displayed in the
notice board of CMHO Mandsaur on 3/5/13 and
objections were invited. The petitioner in WP No.
749/16 had submitted the objection which was
rejected.

The appointment of petitioner in WP No. 749/16
was under OBC category and order of appointment of
petitioner dated 31/8/2013 states that petitioner was
appointed in pursuance to the revised merit list dated
3/5/13 but a perusal of the revised merit list dated
3/5/13 reveals that under the OBC male category, the
last selected candidate had obtained 63.55% marks and
last candidate in the waiting list had obtained 53.28%
marks, whereas the chart containing the details of
marks obtained by all candidates namely “all forms of
pharmacist” reveals that petitioner’s name figures in
that chart at Sr.No. 595 and he had obtained only
36.12% marks. Since petitioner had obtained less than
the cut-off marks in the main merit list and waiting list
of OBC male candidate, therefore, he was not entitled
for appointment on the post of Pharmacist.

So far as the petitioner in WP No. 1479/16 is
concerned, he belongs to General Category and he was
issued the notice dated 9/10/15 for cancellation of his
appointment on the ground that neither his name
figures in the select list nor he had submitted any
application for appointment.

It has been pointed out by learned counsel for
respondents that the name of petitioner does not figure
in the table of all forms of pharmacist which contains
the details and marks of all applicants who had made
the application for appointment nor does his name
figure in the merit list or waiting list of selected
candidates which means that the petitioner was
appointed even without applying for the post.

In WP No. 1500/16 the petitioner was a candidate
under Female General Category and she had obtained
36.15% marks whereas the cut-off marks in the merit list
of the Female General Category was 55.13% and the
cut-off marks in the waiting list of Female General
Category was 39.27%. Since the petitioner had obtained
less than the marks of last candidate of waiting list
unreserved women candidate, therefore, she could not
have been appointed.

The record further reflects that petitioners were
issued the show cause notice and after giving an
opportunity of hearing the impugned orders have been
passed terminating their services on the ground that
they had obtained less than the cutoff marks of the final
select list and waiting list or had not even submitted the
application for appointment. That apart it is also noticed
that appointment of petitioners was on contract basis
which as per terms of the appointment could be
terminated after giving one month’s notice or the
contract amount in lieu thereof and in compliance of
said condition, the petitioners have been paid the
contract amount of one month.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the
opinion that no error has been committed by
respondents in passing the impugned orders and
terminating the services of petitioners. The writ
petitions are found to be devoid of any merit which are
accordingly dismissed. The signed order be placed in
the record of WP No.749/16 and copy whereof be placed
in the record of connected writ petitions.

In view of the above, the petition filed by petitioner
is hereby dismissed.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No. 570/2016
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial
question of law:-

“(a). Whether the learned court below has wrongly
held that the plaintiff is not owner/landlord of the suit
premises by virtue of sale deed Ex. P-1.

(b). Whether the both the courts below has wrongly
held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant
beween the plaintiff and defendant?

(c) Whether the court below has denied under
Section 12 (1) (A) and 12 (1) (c) of M.P. Accommodation
Control Act, mainly on the ground that there is no
relationship between landlord and tenant between the
plaintiff and defendant ?”

List for final hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 513/2016
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file rejoinder.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 6494/2016
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file rejoinder.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2481/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
return has been filed but the same is not available on
record.

Office is directed to place the return on record.
List in the week commencing 12.02.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CONC No. 2570/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted three weeks’ time to file compliance report.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2931/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Return has been filed.

List after two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3259/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Counsel for the respondent/ State submits that after
filing return some new facts has been discovered, therefore,
additional return is required. Four weeks time is granted to
file additional return.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3445/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Return from the respondent is awaited.
Let return be filed within four weeks.
List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3481/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted four weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3975/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted four weeks’ time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 4852/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of the learned counsel for the petition-
er, the case is adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 5373/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted four weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 17252/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted six weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

I.R.if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 20239/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted six weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 20692/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted six weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 21078/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the peti-
tioner prays for time to file rejoinder.

Time granted.

List in the next week.

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

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCC No. 165/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice on IA No. 415/2018 as well as MCC on
payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable
within 4 weeks.

In the meantime, record of the court below be called
for.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No. 212/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 633/2018 as well as MA on
payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable
within 4 weeks.

In the meantime, record of the court below be called
for.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No. 283/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 317/2018 as well as MCC on
payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable
within 4 weeks.

In the meantime, record of the court below be called
for.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCC No. 284/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Applicant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 689/2018 as well as MCC on
payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable
within 4 weeks.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.A. No. 376/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Appellant through counsel.
Issue notice on IA No. 451/2018 as well as MA on
payment of P.F. within 7 days, notice be made returnable
within 4 weeks.

In the meantime, record of the court below be called
for.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2152/2018
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.
within 7 days. Notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No. 1076/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
As prayed by local counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, list the matter on any Wednesday.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No. 1286/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Record of both the courts below be requisitioned.
List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. No. 1381/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri P.V. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. ………….. for the respondent/ State.
Learned Government seeks permission to file reply to
the Review Petition.

Permission granted.

List after a week.

Copy of reply be supplied to Shri Bhagwat, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. No. 1380/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri P.V. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. ………….. for the respondent/ State.
Learned Government seeks permission to file reply to
the Review Petition.

Permission granted.

List after a week.

Copy of reply be supplied to Shri Bhagwat, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No. 1504/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
As prayed by Shri J.B. Dave, learned counsel for the
appellant, the case is adjourned.

List on 20.02.2018.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.A. No. 1680/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Counsel for the appellant prays time to examine the
record.

Time is granted.

List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 5533/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri…………. prays for time to file Vakalatnama on
behalf of petitioner.

Time is granted.

List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 6075/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays and is
granted four weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 16947/2017
Indore; dated 29.01.2018
Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for the peti-
tioner.

Shri …………… learned GA for respondent/ State.
Petitioner has applied for changing of timings of Per-
mit No. S.C.P.05/03/Badwani for route Anjad to Balwada
extended up to Badwani.

According to the petitioner, he has submitted an ap-
plication in the month of July 2017 but the same has not
been decided so far.

The petition is disposed of with a direction to RTO,
Indore to consider and decide the application in the next
meeting in respect of the said permit. If no appeal or revi-
sion is pending against the said application.

Petition is disposed of.

Certified Copy as per rules.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3619/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is grant-
ed four weeks time to file rejoinder.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3477/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State prays for
and is granted four weeks time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3301/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Counsel for respondent/ state prays for and is granted
four weeks’ time to file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3161/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted four weeks’ time to file reply by way of last oppor-
tunity.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3030/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is grant-
ed four weeks time to file rejoinder.

List thereafter.

IR, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2761/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, list
after two weeks.

IR, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2432/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned GA prays for and is granted six week time to
file reply.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2206/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted two weeks’ time to file rejoinder.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2000/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
None for petitioner.

Shri V.K Jain, senior advocate with Shri Anubhav
Raj Pandey for respondent.

Adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 1869/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the peti-
tioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted four weeks’ time to file appropriate application for
amendment.

List thereafter.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 1420/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 1747/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 1420/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No. 1365/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
None for the petitioner.

Adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No. 1301/2017
Indore; dated 09.01.2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Lilesh Sharma, learned counsel for re-
spondent No.1 prays for and is granted time to file Vakalat-
nama.

List after two weeks.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge

Alok
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Second Appeal No. 228/2016
Indore; dated 09.02.2018
Shri M.A. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Damodar Swarnkar, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and 2.

None for respondent No.3 and 4.
The appellant (hereinafter referred as ” Plaintiff”) has
filed present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated
08.07.2005 by District Judge…. in Civil suit NJHo. 2/2010
by which the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1996 passed
in Civil Suit No 20-A/1999 passed by Civil Judge Class-
I,…… decreeing the suit, has been set aside.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for delcaration,
partition possession and mense profit against the defendant.
According to plaintiff she is being a daugther of Ahmad
Khan and the defendant No.1,2 and 3 son of Nannu Khan.
Ahmad Khan, Nannu Khan and three others namely Chand,
Munir… are son of Bahadur Khan. Chand, Munir… have
died issueless, therefore, after the death of Bahadur Khan
the defendants became jointly owner of the agricultural
land, house mentioned in para 1, 2 and 4 of the plaint. As
per description in the para 1 of the plaint the Ahmad Khan
and defendant No.2 and 3 joinlty owned the agricultural
land of difference servey Nos title area 8.904 hect. And
house, mentioned in para 2 of the plaint.

Ahmad Khan died on………… and has left certain
jewelly, Baffollo utnisil, bed etc as mentioned in para 4 of
their valuation. Plaintiff being a dughter having ½ share of
suit property mentioned in para 1, 2 and 4 of the plaint.

According to the plaintiff, Ahmad Khan was not keep
good heath before his death and the defendant No.1 and 2
has got executed sale deed dated 12.09.1983 without
informing the plaintiff. When she came to know about the
sale deed dated 08.02.1984 after the death of Ahmad Khan
is wife Jainabai is also expired within 3 months and the
defendant did not informed about her death to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed dated 12.09. 1983
filed mainly on the ground that it does not contain the
thumb impression of Ahmad Khan no sale consideration
passed on to Ahmad Khan. At the time of execution of
death so called sale deed he was not keep good health and
was no in position to even travel office of Sub Registrar.
The village Sharanpur is also having office of Sub
Registrar which is 6 Km away from the house of Ahmad.
Then why the sale deed has excusted office of Sub
Registrar Shajgarh which is 60 km away.

The plaintiff has filed suit a proper personal claiming
the relief ½ share in the agricultural land and house and
other immovable properties from the defendant No.1 and 2.

After notice the defendant No.1 and 3 filed written
satement refuting the allegations made in the plaint. By
way of special pleading it was submitted that Ahmad Khan
sold the sahre in the property by way of registered sale
deed dated 12.09.1983 after sale consideration of Rs.
20,000/- at the time of execution deed he was healty and
hardly and in presence of witnesses the sale consideration
and he put the Thumb- Impression bin the sale deed. He
has also executed Bakshinama dated …………. in favour of
the defendant No.1 and 2. Ahmad Khan and his wife
Jainabai were looked after by the defendant No.1 and 2 and
they performed the other cermonies. Hence, prays for
dismisal of the suit.

On the basis of pleading the Trial Court has framed 9
issues for adjudication. The plaintiff has examined hereself
as PW-1, Motilal S/o Peeru Lal, PW/4 and plaintiff has got
exibited Copy of certificate in respect of income Ex.P/1,
Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.09.1983 as Ex. P/2,
Kisthbandi Khatoni 1992-93 in which name of Ahmad and
defendant No.1 and 2 were jointly recorded as owner as Ex.
P/3, Kisthbandi Khatoni 1983-84 in which the name of
defendant No.1 and 2 are recorded as Ex. P/4, Khasra
Panchshala from the year of 1979 to 1983 as Ex. P/5,
document in relation to the treatment of Ahmad Khan as
Ex. P/7 to P/9.

The defendant has examined Nurkhan as DW-1,
Girja Shankar as DW-2, …….. DW-3, Heeralal as DW-4.
The defendant has got exibited Bakshinama as D/1 and
D/3, Registered sale dated 12.09.1983 as D/2. The learned
Civil Judge vide judgement and decree dated 15.10.1996
has recorded the finding that the sale deed and Bakshinama
has not been proved by the defendant therefore

The petitioners have filed present petition being
aggrieved by the order dated 11/07/2016 by which
application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been
rejected.

The plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance
of contract against the present petitioners. The petitioners
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 5362/2016
Indore; dated 03.02.2018
Shri …………………, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri ……………….., learned GA for respondent.

The petitioners have filed present petition being
aggrieved by the order dated 11/07/2016 by which
application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been
rejected.

The plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance
of contract against the present petitioners. The petitioners
have filed written statement in which specifically denied
the execution of agreement to sale and pleaded that
agreement is forged and was not exeucted by them. On the
basic of pleadings, the Trial Court has framed 5 issues
under Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC. Thereafter, the petitioners
have moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 and 151
of CPC for framing three additional issues in respect of the
validity of the agreement. Learned trial court has rejected
the said application, hence present petition.

After hearing both the parties.
I perused the written statement filed by the present
petitioners in which they had stated that agreement is forge
and issues are liable to be framed on the basis of pleadings.
On the basis of written statement impugned order is set
aside and trial court is directed to frame issue No.6 whether
the agreement of sale dated 07/04/2011 is forged or not ?

Petition is allowed.

C.C. as per rule.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CONC No. 371/2017
Indore; dated 03.02.2018
Shri C.M. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri ……………….., learned GA for respondent.

The petitioner has filed present contempt petition
alleging non compliance of order dated 19/08/2016 passed
in Writ Petition No. 5854/2015 by which respondents were
directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to pay the
salary as per the pay-scale provided under the Rules.

The respondents has filed an affidavit on 19/12/2017
by stating that he was given joining on 31.08.2017 and
getting salary as per pay scale. He has also been paid the
arrears on 08/12/2017, there is compliance of order dated
19/08/2016 passed in W.P. No. 5854/2015, by this court.

Shri Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there is delay in part of the respondent to join him,
therefore, he is entitlted for wages for entervening period.

It is disputed question of fact, the petitioner has
liberty to approch the labour court to claim the benefit of
that period.

Contempt petition disposed of.
C.C. as per rule.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3718/2017
Indore; dated 02.02.2018
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri R.K. Sharma, learned GA for respondent No.1,2
and 3.

Shri N.Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent No.4
and 5.

Petitioner has filed present petition seeking follwing
reliefs:

“a. A writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for
quashment of the order Annexure P/14 as also for directing
the respondents to decide the application submitted by the
petitioner for allotment of the land in question.

b. Costs of the petitioin be awarded to the petitioner
from the respondents.

c. Any other relief, as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted to
the petitioner.”

Petitioner is proprietorship firm having bussiness
within the District Ratlam. The Madhya Pradesh
Government came with a policy to faciliated the Industrial
Groath in the State to provide the land for setting up
Industrial Unit. The said policy was framed under M.P.
State Industrial Land and Industrial Building Management
Rules, 2005 and came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2015.

The petitioner has submitted an application to
respondent No.5 on 05.07.2016 for allotment of
undeveloped plot of land admeasuring 4.348 hectare
comrpised in servey No. 22/1/min-1 situated at Village
Kumhari, Tahsil Jaora, District Ratlam.

The application of the petitioner forwarded to the
Joint Director Industries, with recommendation, thereafter,
the various communications were exchanged but no final
order be passed. The petitioner was awaited the decision of
the respondent in respect of allotment of the land on his
application and meanwhile the respondent No.1 issued a
order dated 28.02.2017 whereby the land in question has
directed to be hand over by the respondent No.4 to the
respondent No.5. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present
petition assailing the order dated 28.02.2017 on the ground
that before considering his application for allotment the
land in question oguht to have been transferred to
respondent No.5.

After notice, respondent No.2 and 4 filed reply by
submmitting that that after the order dated 28.02.2017 the
land in question has already been handed over to
respondent No.5, therefore, respondent No.4 has returned
the application of the petitioner vide letter dated
03.05.2017, therefore, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner and the respondent No.2 and 4 are not competent
to allote the land.

The respondent No.1, 3 and 5 also filed the return by
submitting that the petitioner has applied with the project
report of investment of approximately ….. and employment
to about 80%, therefore, he is not eligible for allotment of
the land against proposed unit. The petitioner comes within
the purview of the larg scale industries which comes under
the Commerce and Industrial Department. The respondent
No.5 empowered to allote the land to micro, small and
medium interprises. The land in question was … of the land
Jagra Sugar Mill and after .. of the mill the said land vested
Joint Director AKVN vide letter dated 08.12.2015 therefore
the the matter was transferred AKVN vide letter dated
27.07.2015 and thereafter out of 112 hectare land
possession of land having area 42.7 hectare of survey No
2/21-Min has been handed over to respondent No.5 vide
impugned letter dated 28.02.2017.

The grievance of the petitioner is that when he has
submitted for allotment of the land that the respondent
ought to have been considered.

In view of the policy envoke at the relevant time
therfore the present petition is disposed of with direction
respondent No. 1, 3 and 5 to consider the application of the
petitinoer for allotment of the land as per law.
Petitioner has filed present petition being aggrieved by the
order dated 17/11/2017 by which he has been transferred
from Indore to Dewas in place of respondent No.2 has been
transferred Dewas to Indore. The petitioner has assailed the
transfer mainly on the ground that his son studying in Class
12th and taking coaching for IIT entrance examination and
his transfer would adversly effect in study of his son.

Vide order dated 21/11/2017 this court has stayed the
transfer order.

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by action of
the respondent by which they had issued NIT for
production and sell of fish for Mahi Dam by terminating
the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2017
the respondent was also directed to deposite the amount of
Rs.10,69,921/-.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 20039/2017
Indore; dated 02.02.2018
Shri LC Mehta Patne, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned GA for
respondent/State.

Shri Valmiki, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

Petitioner has filed present petition being aggrieved
by the order dated 17/11/2017 by which he has been
transferred from Indore to Dewas in place of respondent
No.2 has been transferred Dewas to Indore. The petitioner
has assailed the transfer mainly on the ground that his son
studying in Class 12th and taking coaching for IIT entrance
examination and his transfer would adversly effect in study
of his son.

Vide order dated 21/11/2017 this court has stayed the
transfer order.

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by action of
the respondent by which they had issued NIT for
production and sell of fish for Mahi Dam by terminating
the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2017
the respondent was also directed to deposite the amount of
Rs.10,69,921/-.

Shri…. on behalf of respondent… raised the
maintaibility of the petition for want of arbitration clause in
the agreement with the petitioner. Clause 45 is reproduced
¼vkfcVsª’ku½
45- vuqca/[email protected] fufonk ds fu;e ,oa ‘krksZa esa vuqca/k ds igys]
vuqca/k vof/k esa ,oa okn esa fdlh izdkj dk fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks ml
fLFkfr esa ,d i{k nwljs i{k dks uksfVl nsdj fokkn ds fu.kZ;@vokMZ
gsrq ,deso e/;LFk ¼vkfcVsªVj½ dks lkSaisxk A ;g e/;LFk izca/k lapkyd]
eRL; egkla?k] Hkksiky gksaxsA e/;LFkrk ¼vkfcVsª’ku½ dk fu.kZ;@ vokMZ
nksuks i{kksa dks ekU; ,oa ca/kudkjh gksxkA vkfcVsª’ku dh dk;Zokgh
¼vkfcVsª’ku½ ,.M dkmfUlys’ku ,DV 1996 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr leiUu
gksxhA vkfcVsª’ku ds fu.kZ; ds ckn gh vuqca/kxzghrk l{ke U;k;ky; esa tk
ldsxkA blls lacaf/kr okn dk {kskf/kdkj ftyk Hkksiky jgsxkA
bl vuqca/k i dks mHk; i{kdkjksa us i+dj ledj vkt fnukad
11-01-2017 dks eRL; egkla?k] miiath;d dk;kZy; /kkj] ftyk /kkj
mifLFkr gksdj esa gLrk{kj fd;k x;k] rkfd izek.k Lo:i miyC/k jgs vkSj
le; ij dke vk;sA
Shri Mehta submits that petitioner filed an
application for appointment of Arbitrator which is filed as
Annexure P-3. In similar facts and circumstances Principal
Bench of this court in WP No 18445/2016 has disposed of
the writ petition by reffering the dispute to arbitrator by
religating the petitioner to resort the clause of arbitration.

In view of the above the present petition disposed of
to the direction of the respondent No.2 to appointment the
arbitrator on the request of the petitioner within a period of
30 days.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 18298/2017
Indore; dated 02.02.2018
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned GA for
respondent/State.

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by
action of the respondent by which they had issued NIT for
production and sell of fish for Mahi Dam by terminating
the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2017
the respondent was also directed to deposite the amount of
Rs.10,69,921/-.

Shri…. on behalf of respondent… raised the
maintaibility of the petition for want of arbitration clause in
the agreement with the petitioner. Clause 45 is reproduced
below……………………………………………

Shri Mehta submits that petitioner filed an
application for appointment of Arbitrator which is filed as
Annexure P-3. In similar facts and circumstances Principal
Bench of this court in WP No 18445/2016 has disposed of
the writ petition by reffering the dispute to arbitrator by
religating the petitioner to resort the clause of arbitration.

In view of the above the present petition disposed of
to the direction of the respondent No.2 to appointment the
arbitrator on the request of the petitioner within a period of
30 days.

(Vivek Rusia)
Judge
M.Cr.C. No.19950/2017
Indore, dated 03.11.2017
Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Arguments heard.

This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Jawad, District-Neemuch, in Crime No.342/2016, under
Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act.

As per prosecution story, the co-accused Banti was
arrested for having in his possession 196 kg of poppy straw
and so far as the present applicant is concerned, he was
having 60 kg of poppy straw, which was seized from joint
possession of the present applicant and the co-accused Banti.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there
is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant and the
quantity of contraband seized from his possession, is slightly
above the commercial quantity prescribed by the Schedule
appended to the Act. He further submits that co-accused
Banti was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.
No.19950/2017 dated 04.09.2017.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the application
on the ground that quantity falls within the limits of
commercial quantity prescribed by the Schedule appended to
the Act.

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case
into consideration and without commenting on merits of the
case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) and one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of
hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.

By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that
the applicant shall also mark his presence in the concerned
police station on first Sunday of every month between 10
a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default
in attendance in Court and marking his presence in the
concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail
granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the
applicant in custody immediately.

He is further directed that on being so released on
bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
Judge
Note-Sheet
06.11.2017

As directed, the record kept with the Principal
Registrar of this Court for safe custody relating to
M.C.C. No.974/2015 may be kept in the record of
aforesaid M.C.C. till final order of appeal, if filed
against the order passed by this Court in Election
Petition No.15/2014 dated 03.11.2017 before Hon’ble
Apex Court.

The record of the aforesaid M.C.C. may also be
preserved till disposal of appeal, if any, by the
Hon’ble Apex Court.

(Kafeel Ahmed Ansari)
Personal Assitant to
Hon’ble Shri Justice Alok Verma

Principal Registrar
Note-Sheet
30.10.2017

As directed, C.D. as well as Pen Drive, which
was sent towards you for safe custody in respect of
E.P. No.15/2014, may kindly be returned back for
perusal to his Lordship.

(Kafeel Ahmed Ansari)
Personal Assitant to
Hon’ble Shri Justice Alok Verma

Principal Registrar
Cr.A.No.101/2017
21.02.2017
Due to paucity of time, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.

Cr.A.No.101/2017
21.02.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.

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

Shri Deepak Jaat, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits
that he is filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the
complainant during the course of the day and he has
no objection if bail is granted to the appellant.

Case diary is available. Counsel for the State
submits that complainant has been served with an
intimation regarding pendency of this appeal before
this Court.

This criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed
against the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act), district Ratlam in
Special S.T. No.137/2016 dated 10/01/2017 whereby
the learned Special Judge dismissed the application
filed by the present appellant under Section 439
Cr.P.C.

The accused/appellant is facing trial in Special
S.T. No. 137/2016, registered at Police Station AJAK
district Ratlam for offences under Sections 363,
366(A) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5/6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

According to the prosecution story, present
appellant took the prosecutrix, who was aged about
16 years with him under a false promise of marriage
and had physical relationship with her.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court
and she completely turned hostile and did not submit
before the Court that present appellant had physical
relationship with her.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits
that he has no objection if appeal is allowed and bail
is granted to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application.

After taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the order
passed by the learned Special Judge deserves to be
set aside and accordingly this appeal is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside.

It is directed that the appellant shall be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and
one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his
appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
directed in this regard during trial.

He is further directed that on being so released
on bail, he would comply with the conditions
enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
meticulously.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.

( ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt
M.Cr.C. No.11150/2016
21/02/2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for respondent/CBN.
Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicants under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
CBN District Mandsaur in Crime No. 4/2006 under Sections
8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution story, co-accused Iqbal Baig was
arrested for keeping in his possession 150 gms of Heroine. In
his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, he informed that he obtained the alleged contraband from
the present applicant, however, the present applicant could not
be arrested earlier. The applicant was absconded for a long
period and when the co-accused was acquitted by the trial
Court, the present applicant surrendered and was arrested.
Presently the trial is pending against him.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if the
test of purity is applied then quantity of the smack becomes
4.7 gms which is small than 5gms the small quantity of the
smack and in the light of the amendment in the schedule
even if the whole quantity smack is taken into consideration
i.e. 150 gms which is slightly less than commercial quantity
as prescribed in the schedule appended to the Act. He further
submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the present
applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the application, however, he admitted that as per report
received from concerning police station, no criminal case is
registered against the present applicant.

After taking all the facts and circumstances of the
case into consideration and without commenting on merit,
this application is allowed.

It is directed that the present applicant shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) and one
local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of
hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.

By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that
the applicant shall also mark his presence in the concerned
police station on first Sunday of every month between 10
a.m. to 12 noon during the pendency of the trial. Any default
in attendance in Court and marking their presence in the
concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail
granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the
applicant in custody immediately.

He is further directed that on being so released on
bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1761/2017
21/02/2017

Shri Ravindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicants under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
Hatpeeplya District Dewas in Crime No. 410/2016 under
Sections 307,294,325 and 506/34 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution story, the present petitioners
inflicted injuries by sword on head of the injured person, due to
which he sustained muscle deep incised wound on his head.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after
completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed and
there is no X-ray report on record to show that there was
corresponding fracture in the skull bone of the injured. There
was a fracture on left humerus bone caused by lathi blow by
co-accused. It is further submitted that injured was never
admitted in the hospital and now he has recovered.

Learned Govt. Advocate for State opposed the
application .

After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit

of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only)each and one solvent surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their
appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this
regard during bail.

They are further directed that on being so released on
bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under
Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.235/2017
21/02/2017

Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available, however, CT-Scan report which
was referred by the trial Court is not available on record.

Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted a
week’s time to call case-diary as well as CT-Scan report.

List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
Cr.A. No.161/2017
21/02/2017
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted a
week’s time to call case-diary as well as acknowledgment of
service of notice on complainant.

List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
Cr.A. No.224/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted a
week’s time to call case-diary as well as acknowledgment of
service of notice on complainant.

List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.1320/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
a week’s time to call the case diary .

List on 28/02/2017.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
Cr.R. No.158/2017
21/02/2017
Shri Gagan Parashar on behalf of Shri T.C. Jain, learned
counsel for the applicant.

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

Heard on the point of admission.
Let record of the courts’ below be called for.
Be listed for the admission immediately after receiving
of the record.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.160/2017
21/02/2017

Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the point of admission.
Be listed alongwith record for admission in the next
week.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.200/2017
21/02/2017

Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the point of admission.
Let record of the courts' below be called for.
Be listed in the week commencing 06/03/2017
alongwith record for admission.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.44/2012
21/02/2017

Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
two weeks' time to argue the matter.

Be listed after two weeks .

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.421/2012
21/02/2017
None for the appellant.

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

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

Be listed after two weeks .

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1234/2014
21/02/2017

Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Be listed after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No.
1095/2014.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1096/2014
21/02/2017

Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Be listed after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No.
1095/2014.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1095/2014
21/02/2017

Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to argue the matter on IA No. 1187/2017.

Be listed after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1573/2017
21/02/2017

Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted a week's
time to call the criminal antecedents of the applicant by next
date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1554/2017
21/02/2017

Shri Avinash Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted time to argue the matter.

Be listed in the next week.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1523/2017
21/02/2017

Shri Rahul Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted time to
call the status report of the trial.

Be listed in the week commencing 06/03/2017.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1334/1998
02/02/2017

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Matter is heard finally.

Reserved for orders.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt

......./....../2017
Judgment delivered separately, signed and dated.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
Cr.A. No.1134/1997
02/02/2017
Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Matter is heard finally.

Reserved for orders.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt

......./....../2017
Judgment delivered separately, signed and dated.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.10561/2016
02/02/2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhijit C. Thakur, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Matter is heard finally.

Reserved for orders.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt

......./....../2017
Order passed separately, signed and dated.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.8743/2016
02/02/2017
Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior counsel with Shri
Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.

Matter is heard finally.

Reserved for orders.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt

......./....../2017
Order passed separately, signed and dated.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
Cr.R. No.1352/2016
02/02/2017
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Matter is heard finally.

Reserved for orders.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt

......./....../2017
Order passed separately, signed and dated.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
Criminal Appeal No.1327/2016
02/02/2017
Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent / State.

Record of the lower court is available.
Heard on the point of Admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.8648/2016, which is first
application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.2-Ramesh S/o Thawariya Hatia
The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail
sentence as follows :

 CONVICTION                        SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprison
deposited ment in
details lieu of
fine
366 IPC 5 years R.I. Rs.3,000/- 3 months
S.I.
506(II) IPC 3 years R.I. Rs. 1,000/- 1 month
S.I.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
is only allegation against the present appellant is that he took
the prosecutrix with him to Morvi (Gujrat) and compelled
her to live there with appellant No.1 Dinesh as his wife. He
further submits that the prosecutrix did not support the
prosecution case and in her cross-examination she stated that
she herself went to Morvi (Gujrat) with the appellant No.1
Dinesh and she lived there with appellant No.1 Dinesh as
his wife.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the
application.

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case
into consideration and without commenting on merit of the
case, the application is allowed. The remaining portion of the
jail sentence is suspended. It is directed that on production of
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and one solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on
payment of fine, the appellant No.2-Ramesh S/o Thawariya
Hatia shall be released on bail for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 24/04/2017, and thereafter, on each
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this
Court in this behalf.

C.C. as per rules.

                                      (Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.362/2016
02/02/2017

Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list
after two weeks.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.760/2017
02/02/2017

Shri Suresh Chandav on behalf of Shri Sudhanshu Vyas,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for three days
time to cured the defects pointed out by the Office.

Prayer is granted.

Subject to removal of the default, matter may be listed in
the next week.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.511/2017
02/02/2017

Shri Ram Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Excise Department Circle- Sanwer District Indore in Crime
No. 523/2016 under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act for
keeping in his possession 54 bulk liters of contraband country
made liquor.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was
falsely implicated in this case and applicant is not having any
criminal antecedents.

Learned Govt. Advocate for State opposed the
application .

After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty
Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
during bail.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.385/2017
02/02/2017

Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Dahi District-Dhar in Crime No. 120/2016 under Sections
307,341,294,323,324 and 506/34 of the IPC.

According to the prosecution story, in the night of
08/08/2016 when complainant coming back to his residence
from the house of his mother Baytibai, it is alleged that present
applicant met him and demanded money for purchasing liquor
and when complainant refused to give the money, then he gave
a blow from axe due to which complainant suffered one incise
wound on his frontal bone and he was also sustained fracture in
his skull bone.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant that injured has already been discharged from
the hospital and after completion of investigation charge-sheet
has been filed. It is further submitted that his personal presence
is not required for the trial and trial will take time.

Learned Panel Lawyer for State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail .

After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
during bail.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.756/2009
02/02/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

From the cause-list it appears that appellant is
represented by none of the counsel.

Office is directed to verify and take necessary steps for
appointment of lawyer for the appellant from the Panel of
lawyers of M.P. High Court Legal Service Committee, Indore.

(ALOK VERMA) ( VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Cr.A. No.1426/2013
02/02/2017

Shri Santosh Khoware, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Matter is heard finally.

Reserved for orders.

(ALOK VERMA) ( VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt

......./....../2017
Judgment delivered separately, signed and dated.

(ALOK VERMA) ( VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.11512/2016
25/01/2017

Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

In view of the common order passed in M.Cr.C. No.
11509/2016, this M.Cr.C. No. 11512/2016 stands disposed of.

A copy of the order be placed in the record of this
M.Cr.C. No. 11512/2016.

(Ved Prakash Sharma)
Judge

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12646/2016
30/01/2017
Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Industrial Area, Jaora District-Ratlam in Crime No. 416/2016
under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of the IPC.

According to the prosecution story, dead-body of an
unknown woman was found in a well belonging to
Dharmendra Singh S/o Ishwar Singh. Subsequently, the dead-
body was identified as deceased -Sugan Bai, who was said to
be the wife of Ganeshilal and mother of Bharat. So far as the
present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he agreed to
give Rs.15,000/- to co-accused Sheru and Ramlal to commit
murder of deceased- Sugan Bai.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant that apart from the seizure of one mobile
phone, belonging to the deceased-Sagun Bai there is no other
evidence on record to connect the applicant with the murder of
deceased-Sugan Bai. There is no material to show any motive
for the present applicant to commit murder of the deceased.

Learned Panel Lawyer for State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail on the ground that one mobile phone belonging
to the deceased-Sagun Bai was recovered from the possession
of the present applicant, however, he fairly admits that there is
no evidence to show any motive for the present applicant to
commit murder of the deceased.

After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
during bail.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.10425/2016
30/01/2017

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicants under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Nahargarh District-Mandsaur in Crime No. 345/2016 under
Section 304-B of the IPC.

According to the prosecution story, the deceased Pappu
Bai was married to applicant about 4 years prior to her death
on 20/07/2016. It is alleged that prior to one month of the
incident, father of the deceased gave a motorcycle to applicant,
thereafter, applicant demanded a tractor from the father of the
deceased, due to which she has committed suicide by jumping
into a well.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was
no demand of dowry made by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
during bail.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge

Criminal Appeal No.148/2017
30/01/2017
Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
respondent / State.

Heard on the point of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Requisition the record of the lower Court.
Heard on I.A. No.702/2017, which is first application
under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants-
Subhan Khan S/o Nathu Khan, Aazad Khan S/o Subhan
Khan and Shahrukh Khan S/o Subhan Khan.

The present appellants suffered conviction and the
jail sentence as follows :

 CONVICTION                        SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprison
deposited ment in
details lieu of
fine
323/34 IPC 6 months R.I. ------- ----

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that jail sentence of the appellants has
already been suspended till 31/01/2017 by the trial Court.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case and without commenting on merit of the case, the
application is allowed. The remaining portion of the jail
sentence is suspended. It is directed that on production of
personal bond for Rs.50,000/-each and one solvent surety
each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
and also on payment of fine, the appellants shall be released
on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court
on 19/04/2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.

C.C. as per rules.

                                            (Alok Verma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.7/2017
30/01/2017

Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer for State further prays for time to
serve the notice on the complainant in respect of the present
appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that jail
sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the
learned trial Court since 10/04/2017.

List on 06/02/2017.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE

Criminal Appeal No.1045/2016
30/01/2017
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
respondent / State.

Record of the lower court is available.
Heard on I.A. No.634/2017, which is first application
under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the sole
appellant-Dinesh S/o Nathulal Lavwansi.

The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail
sentence as follows :

 CONVICTION                      SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprison
deposited ment in
details lieu of
fine
450 IPC 5 years R.I. Rs.500/- 6 months
R.I.
376(1) IPC 7 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 year
R.I.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the prosecutrix partly turned hostile in this
matter and did not support the prosecution that she sustained
injuries when she was raped by the appellant. He further
points out that husband of the prosecutrix in his cross-
examination stated that there was some dispute as he
suspected the prosecutrix was having illicit relations with the
present appellant. He further points out that incident took
place by consent and prays for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the
application.

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case
into consideration and without commenting on merit of the
case, the application is allowed. The remaining portion of the
jail sentence is suspended. It is directed that on production of
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and one solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on
payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
18/04/2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may
be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.

C.C. as per rules.

                                              (Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.994/2017
30/01/2017

Ms. Jyoti Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicants under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
Kshipra District-Indore in Crime No. 16/2017 under Sections
498-A, 304-B and 201/34 of the IPC.

It is alleged that after three years of marriage the
deceased, who was married to son of the present applicants
committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.

According to the prosecution story, before her death
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for obtaining
dowry from her family.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there was
no demand of dowry made by the applicants and father of the
elder daughter of the deceased filed an affidavit wherein he
stated that no demand of dowry has been made by the present
applicants from him.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) each and one solvent surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their
appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this
regard during bail.

They are further directed that on being so released on
bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under
Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 972/2017
30/01/2017

Shri Gaurav K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate
for respondent/State.

Learned Deputy Govt. for State is directed to call the
criminal antecedents of the applicant positively by next date of
hearing.

List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No. 963/2017
30/01/2017

Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate
for respondent/State.

Learned Deputy Govt. for State is directed to call the
criminal antecedents of the applicant from Police Station

-Ratlam as well as from Police Station- Pratapgarh and
Mandsaur by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No. 955/2017
30/01/2017

Shri Sandeep Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate
for respondent/State.

Learned Deputy Govt. for State is directed to call the
criminal antecedents of the applicant positively within 4 days.

List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.13230/2016
30/01/2017

Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate
for respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Excise Department- Dhar District Dhar in Crime No. 528/2016
under Sections 34(1)(A) 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act for
keeping in his possession 54 bulk liters of contraband country
made liquor.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was
falsely implicated in this case.

Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for State opposed the
application on the ground that applicant is having criminal
antecedents and there are as many as 10 criminal cases were
registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that if the
applicant is granted bail, he will not indulge himself in similar
kind of activities for which he was charged in this case.

Taking into consideration the undertaking given by the
learned counsel for the applicant which shall form the condition
of this bail order , the application filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand
Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on
all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during
bail.

Breach of any condition of this order, this order shall be
deemed to have been cancelled without further reference of this
court.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13183/2016
30/01/2017

Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate
for respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Excise Circle- Chhavni District Indore in Crime No. 332/2016
under Sections 34(1)(A) 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act .

As per the prosecution story, the contraband liquor was
being transported by a Activa Scooterm which was intercepted
by the Excise Inspector, however, the present applicant fled
away from the spot, subsequently, when he was arrested in
another case, then formal arrest was made in this case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was
falsely implicated in this case, if according to the prosecution
case he fled away from the spot then how his name mentioned
in the FIR.

Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for State opposed the
application on the ground that applicant is having criminal
antecedents. One case of Excise and one case of IPC is pending
against him since 2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that if the
applicant is granted bail, he will not indulge himself in similar
kind of activities for which he was charged in this case.

Taking into consideration the undertaking given by the
learned counsel for the applicant which shall form the condition
of this bail order , the application filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand
Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on
all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during
bail.

Breach of any condition of this order, this order shall be
deemed to have been cancelled without further reference of this
court.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13072/2016
30/01/2017

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Bhagwanpura District Khargone in Crime No. 337/2016 under
Sections 354(A) and 456 of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the
Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution story, incident took place
around 2:00 p.m. in the noon. It is alleged that the prosecutrix
was alone in the house and her brother and mother went out to
water the fields and the house was locked from the outside. The
lock was broken open by the applicant and he forcibly entered
into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outraged her
modesty.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that broken
lock was not seized by the Police to show that the applicant
forcibly entered into the house of the prosecutrix. There was no
injury found on the body of the prosecutrix and she improved
her version from FIR to her statement recorded under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.

After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand
Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on
all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during
bail.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.12936/2016
30/01/2017

Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Argument heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
Silawad District Badwani in Crime No. 135/2016 under
Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 366 and 506 of the IPC and
Sections 3 /4 , 5(l) /6 and 5(n)/6 of the Prevention of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 3/181, 146/1996
of the Motor Vehicle Act.

According to the prosecution story, present applicant
took away the prosecutrix, who was a real sister of his wife, to
various places. It is also alleged that the applicant committed
rape on the prosecutrix. As per the ossification report age of
the prosecutrix is above 18 years.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
prosecutrix went with the applicant with her consent as she was
not happy with her husband Jagdish.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
After taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case and without commenting on merit of
the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand
Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on
all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during
bail.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of the Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Verma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12928/2016
30/01/2017

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State seeks time to
call the copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

It is apparent from the record that earlier also on many
times State has granted time to call the same.

By way of indulgence one last opportunity is granted.
List in the next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No. 12908/2016
30/01/2017

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this
application with a liberty to file fresh application after removal
of defects pointed out by the Registry.

Prayer is allowed.

With liberty as aforesaid this application is dismissed as
withdrawn.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt
M.Cr.C. No. 12862/2016
30/01/2017
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State seeks time to
call the documents in respect of school where the prosecutrix
was first admitted for education.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the week commencing of 13th February, 2017.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE

Criminal Revision No.1214/2015
15/12/2016
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.6937/2014
15/12/2016
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

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

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Revision No.1448/2014
15/12/2016
None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, case
is adjourned.

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1783/2013
15/12/2016
Shri P.K. Vishwakarma on behalf of Shri A.S. Rathore,
learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri V.D. Ramateke, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.4/State.

Learned counsel for the respondents informed that
respondent No.3 Smt. Savitri Bai has expired.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to take necessary steps in this regard.

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12452/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
applicant/State.

Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted
a week's time to file the affidavit in support of IA No.
10644/2016.

Record of the court below be called for.
List alongwith record.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1725/2016
15/12/2016
None for the appellant.

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

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

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1651/2016
15/12/2016
Ms. Preeti Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
a week's time to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry.

List after a week.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Appeal No.838/2014
15/12/2016
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by the learned counsel appellant list after
ensuing summer vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.775/2012
15/12/2016
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Report regarding death of sole appellant Devisingh is
awaited.

Office is directed to list the appeal alongwith report of
death of sole appellant Devisingh.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12200/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that bail
application of the co-accused Narayan S/o Ratan Bhil has been
allowed vide order dated 05/12/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
12202/2016 by the coordinate Bench .

Office is directed to verify and list the matter before
appropriate Bench.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1733/2016
15/12/2016
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
a week's time to argue the matter.

List after a week.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12622/2016
15/12/2016
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
a week's time to argue the matter.

List after a week.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.11911/2016
15/12/2016
Shri A.S. Garg learned senior counsel with Shri Ritesh
Inani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned senior counsel with Shri
Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.

Shri Ojha prays for time to file Vakalatnama and other
documents.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner objected the
prayer.

After due consideration one week's time is granted to the
learned counsel for the complainant/objector to file
vakalatnama.

List in the week commencing from 19/12/2016.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12066/2016
15/12/2016
None for the petitioner.

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

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

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1671/2016
15/12/2016
None for the appellant.

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

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

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1583/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Vinod Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted
a week's time to file the vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant.

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1560/2016
15/12/2016
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate is directed to file the
compliance report of Section 15A(III) of SC/ST(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.

List the appeal on admission alongwith compliance
report.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1527/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant.

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

Record of the court below is not received.
List the appeal on admission after receiving of the
record.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Revision No.1507/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Revision No.1371/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to argue the matter.

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.1346/2016
15/12/2016
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is
granted a week's time to file the reply of IA No. 8685/2016, an
application for suspension of sentence.

List in the next week.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12609/2016
15/12/2016
None for the petitioner.

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

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

List after ensuing winter vacation.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12436/2016
15/12/2016
Shri J.P. Kero, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is
granted two weeks time to argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.10673/2016
15/12/2016
Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted two weeks time to argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Appeal No.753/2007
15/12/2016
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
appellant/State.

None for the respondents.

A.S.I. Shri M.L. Kudapey and constables Pawan (1047),
Virendra (840) and Balram (27) produced respondent No.1
Naushad Ali from Central Jail Behugarh District Ujjain on
production warrant. His presence is taken on record.

He is remanded back to the Central Jail, Bherugarh
District Ujjain with the direction that he be produced on
11/04/2017 before the Registry of this Court.

Jailor of Central Jail, Bherugarh District Ujjain be also
informed that bail order has been passed on 04/05/2016 in
favour of the accused Naushad Ali to the effect that on his
furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Dewas, for his
appearance before this Court. He be released from the custody
in this case.

This is an admitted appeal against order of acquittal.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Cr.A. No.291/2011
15/12/2016
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

In view of the order dated 04/12/2015 passed in IA No.
5109/2015, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission
to withdraw IA No. 10307/2016 and submits that he will file
application for final hearing at motion stage under caption of
30 minutes category.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 10307/2016 is dismissed as
withdrawn.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
WP No.8259/2016
15/12/2016

Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 2/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court last
date of admission in the MBBS course for the academic year
2016-2017 was 30/09/2016. Thereafter, vide order dated
03/10/2016 05/10/2016 Hon'ble Apex Court permitting the
respondents to hold online and offline counseling till
07/10/2016. Thereafter, no admission was given to any student
in MBBS course for the academic year 2016-2017.

In view of the aforesaid, present petition is hereby
dismissed in limine.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt

Misc. Criminal Case No.11854/2016
14/12/2016
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.

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

This is first application filed by the applicant under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Crime No. 1228/2016 registered
under Sections 420, 467,468 and 471 of the IPC at Police
Station Chimanganj Mandi District Ujjain.

No other bail application is filed, pending or decided by
any other court, by this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the
application.

Bail application filed by the applicant before Additional
Sessions Judge, Ujjain has been dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide order dated 08/11/2016 passed in
B.A. No. 1082/2016.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant
was the owner of the disputed land and it was not the Govt.
land. He sold the land through will of Kanchan Bai, who
expired on 20/10/1995 and he executed the sale deed on
27/11/2015. False report has been filed against applicant
alleging that he has sold the Govt. land. He is innocent and
falsely implicated in this case, his detention is required for the
investigation . Therefore, he be granted anticipatory bail.

Shri Jitendra Verma learned counsel for the
complainant/objector with Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Deputy
Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the States objected the
bail application stating that applicant sold him a Govt. land by
fraud and he took away his registered sale deed stating that he
will get mutated the land on his name and that registered sale
deed has yet to be recovered from the applicant. They have
prayed for the rejection of the bail application.

According to the facts the objector has filed a complaint
against applicant alleging that he sold a piece of land to him
stating that he is owner of the land and Kanchan Bail sold him
this land through a will after getting saledeed executed. When
objector applied for mutation and also tried to fence the land
then his neighbours inform him that this is a Govt. land. He
contacted the Patwari, who also confirm the information and
revealed that this is a Govt. land and has earmarked as
residential colony of Govt. hospital.

Applicant also took away the registered saledeed from
the complainant stating that he will get the land mutated in his
name and has not returned the same. Alleging that applicant
has obtained Rs.15 lacs from him by fraud. Objector has filed a
FIR, which was registered as stated above.

Considering the aforesaid and other facts and
circumstances of the case so also the facts that matter is under
investigation. I do not think it is fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is
hereby dismissed.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE
skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.9884/2014
14/12/2016
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list
after ensuing winter vacation on any Wednesday.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.9195/2016
14/12/2016
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report is awaited.

List after two weeks alongwith service report.
IR to continue till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
FA No.630/2015
14/12/2016
None for the appellant.

Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA Nos. 6457/2015, an application for
dispensing with from filing certified copy of the order and also
on IA No. 8178/2015, an application for appropriate directions.

On due consideration of facts and circumstances of the
case six weeks time is granted to the learned counsel for the
appellant to cure the defect pointed out by the Registry.

With the aforesaid directions IA Nos. 6457/2015 and
8178/2015 stands disposed of.

List after six weeks.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.573/2015
14/12/2016

Shri S.S. Tanwar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Iqbal Anwar, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 1 2.

Heard on IA No. 4968/2015, an application for grant of
temporary injunction .

Shri Anwar prays for and is granted three weeks time to
file the reply of IA No. 4968/2015.

In the meanwhile no alienation shall be made till next
date of hearing in respect of land bearing survey Nos. 357

358.
List the appeal after six weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.391/2015
14/12/2016

Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Perused the Mediation Report.
This first appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
Office is directed to list the matter for final hearing under
the caption of "DB-Civil-Matrimonial-Dissolution".

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.1023/2014
14/12/2016

Shri R.K. Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 2.

learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply
the copy of IA No. 9534/2016 to the learned counsel for the
respondents so that he may seek instruction in the matter and
file reply if necessary.

In number of cases, it has come to our notice that IAs are
filed directly without supplying the copy of the same to the
other side.

Office is directed to place the matter before the Principal
Registrar for taking necessary steps in the matter.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
FA No.766/2009
14/12/2016

Parties through their counsel.
Shri M. Manana, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that he is filing the reply of IA No. 7630/2016 during
the course of the day.

If that be so, Office to accept and place the same on
record.

List after winter vacation.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
WP No.5264/2016
14/12/2016

Shri K.C. Raikwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.

Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.3/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for and is
granted 10 days time to file the reply.

Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Deepak
Rawal in daily cause list so that he may mark his presence on
behalf of respondent No.2 and argue the matter.

List after winter vacation.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt

Misc. Criminal Case No.11995/2016
13/12/2016
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

On earlier date 02/12/2016 also no one gave appearance
on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it appears that applicant
is not interested in prosecuting the present petition.
Accordingly petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.9233/2016
13/12/2016
Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.11096/2016
13/12/2016
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.11622/2016
13/12/2016
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is
granted a week's time to argue the matter.

List in the next week.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.11810/2016
13/12/2016
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
a week's time to argue the matter.

List in the next week.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12487/2016
13/12/2016
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

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

List after three weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.12514/2016
13/12/2016
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

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

List after three weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Appeal No.1434/2016
13/12/2016
Shri Vivek Seth, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be
issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No.
6457/2016. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks alongwith service report.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Appeal No.2109/2016
13/12/2016
None for the appellants.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
No.2/State.

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

List after three weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Misc. Criminal Case No.9850/2015
13/12/2016
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
No.1/State.

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

List after three weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Revision No.725/2016
13/12/2016
Shri P.L. Dhakad, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list
after two weeks.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Criminal Revision No.946/2016
13/12/2016
None for the petitioner.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Issue bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- against petitioner
Jitendra @ Titu for securing his presence before the Registry of
this Court, returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks alongwith service report of
bailable warrant.

(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE

skt
Cr.A. No.948/2012
06/12/2016
List alongwith Cr.A. No.824/2012.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Cr.A. No.824/2012
06/12/2016
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 9760/2016, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail.

At the very outset learned counsel for the appellants
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application in
respect of appellant No.2 Rem Singh.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn
in respect of appellant No.2 Rem Singh.

Appellant No.1 Bala alongwith other co-accused Rem
Singh and Babu were convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default
stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that statement
of the prosecution witnesses Dhan Singh(PW/1), Panu
Bai(PW/4) and Ramesh (PW/6) are unreliable as there is
material contradictions and omissions in their statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. She further submits
that Dhan Singh(PW/1) in his statement submits that he has
reached at the spot when he heard the cries of wife of the
deceased i.e. Panu Bai(PW/4), however, in her statement she
stated that she heard the noise of deceased Jhanjhad. Similarly
Ramesh (PW/6) in his statement has stated that he heard the
cries of Panu Bai (PW/4) but in his statement recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. he said that he heard the cries of
Dhan Singh(PW/1).

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer.
After going through the statement of these three
prosecution witnesses, who are recorded as eye witness, we
find there is no material contradiction in their statement and
statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Their
presence at the spot is natural as they lived near the spot, where
the crime was committed. Present appellant and other co-
accused were known to him and the night was of full moon so
there is also a source of light and therefore, their statement
cannot be disbelieved on the ground of such minor
contradictions and their evidence is corroborated by the
medical evidence also.

Considering the aforesaid we are of the view that no
case is made out for suspension of jail sentence. IA No.
9760/2016 devoid of any force and liable to be dismissed and
dismissed accordingly.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
CONC No.142/2016
06/12/2016

Shri S.M. Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 3.

learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to
file an application for extension of time for two months to
comply with order dated 18/02/2015 passed in WP No.
1057/2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant has raised objection.
On due consideration prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to
comply with order dated 18/02/2015 passed by this Court in
WP No. 1057/2015 within two months. Failing which
respondent Nos. 2 3 shall remain present before this Court
on next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant is directed
to replace the name of respondent Nos. 2 from the person who
is holding the post in place of respondent No.2.

List the petition after eight weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.138/2016
06/12/2016

Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 3.

learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to
file an application for extension of time for two months to
comply with order dated 31/07/2014 passed in WP No.
5483/2014.

Learned counsel for the applicant has raised objection.
On due consideration prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to
comply with order dated 31/07/2014 passed by this Court in
WP No. 5483/2014 within two months. Failing which
respondent Nos. 2 3 shall remain present before this Court
on next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant is directed
to replace the name of respondent Nos. 2 from the person who
is holding the post in place of respondent No.2.

List the petition after eight weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.99/2016
06/12/2016

Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents further prays for
four weeks time for filing the compliance report.

Learned counsel for the applicant raise objection.
After due consideration four weeks time is granted to her
for filing the compliance report.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.31/2016
06/12/2016

Shri Anil Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 4.

Smt. Meena Chapekar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

Respondent No.4 Shri O.L. Mandloi, Joint Director
Public Education is present in person.

Heard on IA No. 7379/2016, an application for deleting
the name of respondent No.3 from cause title of the petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that
respondent No.3 is not necessary party in this petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection in
allowing the application.

After due consideration IA No. 7379/2016 is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to carry out
necessary amendments in the petition within a week.

Personal appearance of respondent No.4 is exempted till
further orders.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 4 is
directed to file a details of calculation of arrears by next date
of hearing positively.

List after two weeks.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                         (ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
CONC No.845/2015
06/12/2016

Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 3 4.

learned counsel for the applicants submits that order
dated 08/01/2015 passed in WP No. 6569/2014 has not been
complied with respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that State
shall comply with impugned order however, due to heavy
finance involved in this matter he prays for 2 months further
time to comply with order dated 08/01/2015.

learned counsel for the applicants has raised serious
objections and submits that in this matter Hon'ble Apex Court
has already passed by the order in the year 2014. Therefore,
petitioners who are 7 in numbers should be given financial
benefits in compliance of order dated 08/01/2015 passed in WP
No. 6569/2014.

learned counsel for the respondents is directed to
complied with impugned order within a period of 2 months
positively.

List after eight weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
CONC No.599/2015
06/12/2016
Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.S.
Anjana, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.

Shri S.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 to 5.

Shri G.P. Bhatt Tahsildar, Barwani is present in person
before the Court. He submits that compliance of the order
passed in WP No. 5292/2015 vide order dated 18/09/2015 has
already been made. Way granted earlier have been closed and
land has been handed over to the applicants.

He is directed to submit a detailed reply regarding action
taken by him in compliance of Court's order dated 18/09/2015
passed in WP No. 5292/2015 with affidavit by next date of
hearing positively.

For this purpose if original record which is reported to be
sent to Board of Revenue, Gwalior may be recalled for.

List after three weeks.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
CONC No.592/2015
06/12/2016
Shri Kartik Mandloi on behalf of Shri Rahul Sethi,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

learned counsel for the respondent No.3 further prays for
two weeks time to file the additional reply.

Learned counsel for the applicant raised serious objection
and submits that several opportunities have already been given
to her.

By way of last indulgence two weeks time is granted to
her to file the additional reply.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
CONC No.146/2015
06/12/2016
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to file the rejoinder.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12338/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to take necessary steps to implead complainant
as respondent No.2.

learned Panel Lawyer is also directed to call the case
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12292/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
preferred by the applicant Kamal Singh for quashment of order
dated 24/11/2016 passed by learned Special
Judge( SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)) Act, 1989, Ujjain in
ST No. 302/2011, whereby learned Special Judge dismissed the
application filed by the prosecution for recalling the medical
witnesses Dr. Shyam Badliwal Dr. Sharad Dubey , who
treated Kamal Singh and for exhibiting the query report where
he mention in bed had ticket of Pawan S/o Rameshwar
grevious in nature and could be dangerous to life at the time of
admission.

Application has been dismissed only on the ground that
session has been pending since 2011 and ample opportunities
have been granted to the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection in
allowing the petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in
case the query report given by Dr. Shyam Badliwal is not
exhibited, the case of the prosecution would suffer enormously.
According to him this would not amount to filling of lacuna
because the document was already on record and due to
inadvertance and lake of promptness on the part of the
prosecution, document remained to be exhibited. Therefore,
one last opportunity should be given to the applicant to
examine Dr. Shyam Badliwal and exhibit the query report .

After due consideration this petition is allowed and
impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby
set-aside. Accordingly, application filed by the prosecution is
allowed.

Prosecution is at liberty to recall the witness Dr. Shyam
Badliwal and to exhibit the query report filed by him.

With aforesaid observation and direction this petition
stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.9829/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Saransh Jain on behalf of Shri Akash Rathi, learned
counsel for the applicant.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent /State.

Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submits that matter has
been referred to District Mining Officer for taking further
action by the Police Station Manawar. Therefore, District
Mining Officer should be arrayed as respondent No.2.

learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to examine and take appropriate steps for
impleading District Mining Officer as respondent No.2.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.10157/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.2/State.

On payment of process fee within a week notice be
issued to respondent No.1. Notice be made returnable within
four weeks.

List thereafter.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.11823/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the
applicant.

On payment of process fee within a week notice be
issued to respondent on IA No. 10161/2016 as well as on merit
by regular and humdast mode. Notice be made returnable
within four weeks.

Meanwhile, it is directed that trial in RT No. 2084/2012
pending before learned JMFC, Ratlam shall continue.
However, no final order shall be passed till disposal of this
application.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.11886/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Hitesh Sharma , learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.1/State.

Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.

Applicant and respondent No.2 are present in person
before this Court and they are directed to remain present before
the Principal Registrar of this Court on 19/12/2016 at about
11:00 a.m.
The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to verify
the factum of the compromise and submit his report.

List the matter alongwith report of the Principal
Registrar.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No..11979/2016
06/12/2016
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant list
after a week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12203/2016
06/12/2016
Shri D.S. Rathore on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant list
after a week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12207/2016
06/12/2016
Shri D.S. Rathore on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta,
learned counsel for the applicant.

On payment of process fee within a week notice be
issued to respondent on IA No. 10482/2016 as well as on merit.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12225/2016
06/12/2016
Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list
after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.4094/2015
06/12/2016
Shri Tousif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that
Investigating Officer is not present and he could not seek
instructions from him. Therefore, he further seeks two weeks
time to seeks instruction from the concerned Investigating
Officer.

Learned counsel for the applicant opposes the prayer.
By way of indulgence one last opportunity is granted to
him . It is also made clear that on next date of hearing case
shall be disposed of on the basis of the copy of the charge sheet
filed by the applicant.

List in the month of January, 2017.

(ALOK VERMA)
skt JUDGE
M.Cr.C. No.10000/2014
06/12/2016

Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet .

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
MA No.2171/2016
06/12/2016
Ms. Vineeta Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be
issued to respondents . Notice be made returnable within four
weeks.

List the matter immediately after service of notice on
respondents.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
MA No.2176/2016
06/12/2016
Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the point of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Requisition record of the lower court.
Issue notice on IA No. 9392/2016 as well as the
memorandum of appeal to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within
four weeks.

Meanwhile, it is directed that on payment of 50% of the
amount which shall include the statutory deposit by the
appellant and also interest on such 50% amount, the recovery
proceedings for remaining portion of award shall remain
stayed till next date of hearing.

It is made clear that respondents shall not withdraw this
amount without leave of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
MA No.2108/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the point of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Requisition record of the lower court.
Issue notice on IA No. 9104/2016 as well as the
memorandum of appeal to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within
four weeks.

Meanwhile, it is directed that on payment of 50% of the
amount which shall include the statutory deposit by the
appellant and also interest on such 50% amount, the recovery
proceedings for remaining portion of award shall remain
stayed till next date of hearing.

It is made clear that respondents shall not withdraw this
amount without leave of this Court.

List the appeal alongwith MA No. 807/2014.
Certified copy as per rules.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
CONC No.804/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.

On payment of process fee within a week notice be
issued to respondents by Humdast as well as by regular mode.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List the matter immediately after service of notice on
respondents.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.A. No.2024/2014
06/12/2016
Shri S. Ashraf, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks
alongwith service report.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.12245/2016
06/12/2016
Shri Gaurav Laad on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press
this application.

Accordingly this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.11941/2016
06/12/2016
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

Status report is awaited.

List in the next week alongwith status report.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.11785/2016
06/12/2016
Shri P.L. Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after
a week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

skt
M.Cr.C. No.11301/2016
06/12/2016
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

Status report is received. According to the status report
so far as prosecution witnesses could not be examined.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this case
may be disposed of with a direction to trial Court for
concluding the trial within a period of six months.

After due consideration prayer is allowed. Accordingly,
this petition stands disposed of with the direction to trial Court
to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Applicant is at liberty to renew the prayer after six
months.

Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State is also
directed to issue necessary directions to the concerning police
station to keep present all the witnesses before the trial Court
for recording of their evidence.

With the aforesaid liberty and direction this petition
stands disposed of.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt
M.Cr.C. No.10569//2016
06/12/2016
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

Status report is received. According to the status report
so far as prosecution witnesses could not be examined. After
lapse of two years charges were framed on 12/08/2016 only.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this case
may be disposed of with a direction to trial Court for
concluding the trial within a period of six months.

After due consideration prayer is allowed. Accordingly,
this petition stands disposed of with the direction to trial Court
to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Applicant is at liberty to renew the prayer after six
months.

Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State is also
directed to issue necessary directions to the concerning police
station to keep present all the witnesses before the trial Court
for recording of their evidence.

With the aforesaid liberty and direction this petition
stands disposed of.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE
skt
M.Cr.C. No.10360//2016
18.10.2016
Ms. Shradha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list next
week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.7422//2016
18.10.2016
Shri Sanjay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has
filed an application (I.A. No.9292/16) for impleading
complainant as respondent No.2.

The application is not on record.
Office is directed to trace the application and place it on
record.

After due consideration, the application is allowed.
Necessary amendment be incorporated within three days.

After incorporating the amendment on payment of PF
within one week issue notice to complainant/respondent No.2,
returnable within two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC No.133//2016
18.10.2016
Shri Vaibhav Asawa, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
compliance has been made.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the
application as not pressed.

Prayer is allowed.

The application is dismissed as not pressed.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.657/2016
24.08.2016
Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prakhar Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on
I.A. No.3262/2016.

Last opportunity is granted.
List on 6th September 2016.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.706/2016
24.08.2016
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rounak Chaukse, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.

Sri Pankaj Wadhwani,learned counsel for respondent
Nos.3 and 4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks three weeks
time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.864/2016
24.08.2016
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kailash Chandra Baghel, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.

As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list after
one week on any Wednesday.

IR to continue.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.2020/2014
24.08.2016
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Zulfa Sultana, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that due to
the interim order, passed by this Court, the final order is not
being passed by the appellate Court.

It is directed that the appellate Court is free to pass the
final order, Civil Appeal No.24/2014, pending before 5th
Additional District Judge, Indore.

List under the similar category after two weeks.
Meanwhile, IR to continue.

C.C. as per rules.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.6514/2013
24.08.2016
Shri Shashank Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Anil Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after
two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.870/2013
24.08.2016
Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent though served and represented
by the counsel.

Heard on I.A. No.5532/2016, this application is filed for
refund of excess amount of Court's fee paid by the appellant.

According to report of Taxing Officer excess amount of
Court's fee Rs.60030/- has been paid by the appellant.

After due consideration the application is allowed.
Certificate may be issued to the appellant for refund of court
fee amounting Rs.60030/-.

Heard on point of admission, appeal is admitted for final
hearing. Verification record of the Court if adjourned.

Service of notice is dismissed.
List for final hearing alongwith the record in due course.
As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant place the
matter before fourth coming Lok Adalat for consideration, as
liability of the insurance company is not disputed in this case.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.932/2013
24.08.2016
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Respondent No.1 is served, none appear on his behalf.
Respondent No.2 is unserved for want of correct address.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he would
file an application for dispensing with service of notice on
respondent No.2.

He is directed to file the application within one week.
List after one week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.1910/2013
24.08.2016
Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.

None appeared for respondent No.2, though served.
Respondent No.1 has reported that learned counsel for
the appellant seeks further time to bring legal representative of
respondent No.1 on record.

Prayer is allowed.

He is further directed to take necessary steps within four
weeks.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.2528/2013
24.08.2016
Shri Rishi Srivastava on behalf of Sri Sumit Samvatskar,
learned counsel for the appellant.

Service report of respondent No.1 is awaited.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served.
List after two weeks alongwith service report of
respondent No.1.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.1301/2014
24.08.2016
Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file copy
of newspaper, in which notice was served.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.1799/2014
24.08.2016
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 to 7.

learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to take
necessary steps for service of notice on respondent No.8 by
substituted service.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.488/2015
24.08.2016
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6
and 13 to 17.

Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Shri Vijay Govindani, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and 2.

Learned counsel for applicant is directed to pay fresh PF
within two working days.

Notice may be served to legal representative of
respondent No.3 by Humdust mode.

List on 14 September 2016.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CRA No.1918/2014
24.08.2016
Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Tanveer Ahmed on behalf of Shri Santosh Pathak,
learned counsel for the surety.

Learned counsel seeks three weeks' time to file reply on
behalf of surety.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.889/2014
23.08.2016
Shri Suresh Kr. Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
rejoinder.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
M.A. No.1847/2014
23.08.2016
Shri Sudhir Dandvate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2
and 3.

Service of respondent No.4 and 5 is dispensed with.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing alongwith the record
of the lower Court in due course.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.63/2016
23.08.2016
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent
submits that compliance has been made alongwith monitory
benefits have already been given to applicant.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant admitted his
client received all the monitory benefits. Learned counsel prays
that application may be dismissed as complied with.

Prayer is allowed.

The application is dismissed.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.59/2016
23.08.2016
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent
seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC No.54/2016
23.08.2016
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent
seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.53/2016
23.08.2016
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent
seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.47/2016
23.08.2016
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent
seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.46/2016
23.08.2016
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent
seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.153/2015
23.08.2016
Shri Abhishek Tugnavat, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.

Ms. Chitralekaha Hardia, learned counsel for respondent
No.1.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks time to file
reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC No.540/2015
23.08.2016
Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.

Respondent No.3-Smt. Lalita Mandloi is present-in-
person before the court.

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3.
Copy of reply filed by respondent No.3 has been supplied
to the counsel for applicant.

According to learned counsel for applicant order passed
on 13.08.2016 has been complied with and applicant has
received payment of Rs.16,533/-. He seeks permission to
withdraw the application with liberty to file fresh application, if
anything remains to be complied with.

Prayer is allowed.

With aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed.
The personal appearance of respondent No.3 is dispensed
with.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.582/2015
23.08.2016
Shri Rahul Sethi, alongwith Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned
counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents alongwith Ms. Savita Jhaniya, Joint Collector,
Incharge-Assistant Commissioner, District-Barwani.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a fund of
Rs.5,28,00,000/- is required for making payment to the
applicant and other persons. The Incharge Assistant
Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Barwani, who is
present-in-person before the court, submits that matter has been
sent to the Government for allocation of money which is
awaited.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are
almost 81 cases pertaining to District-Barwani are pending. He
further submits that respondent No.1-Shri B.R. Naidu has been
transferred and in his place a new incumbent Ms. Alka
Upadhyay has joined.

He is directed to suitably amend the cause of title of the
application within two days and replace name of Ms. Alka
Upadhyay immediately after amendment, on payment of
necessary PF, notice be issued to respondent No.1 for her
appearance in person before the Court on 3rd November 2016.

Meanwhile, personal appearance of respondent No.3 Ms.
Savita Jhaniya, is dispensed with.

C.C., as per rules.

                                    (ALOK VERMA)
Ravi JUDGE
Ravi
Ravi
CONC. No.583/2015
23.08.2016

Shri Rahul Sethi, alongwith Sri Rishabh Sethi, learned
counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.3.

Learned counsel for applicant seeks two weeks' time to
argue the matter and also to file additional documents.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.608/2015
23.08.2016
Shri Akshay Kelapure, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant filed an application,
I.A. No.7197/2016 for taking additional documents on record.
He prays to argue the counsel, who is not available today. She
is before the another bench
List next week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.798/2015
23.08.2016
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, on behalf of Sri Piyush Jain,
learned counsel for the respondent/State, seeks time to file
reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after one week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.824/2015
23.08.2016
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent,
seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi
CONC. No.827/2015
23.08.2016
Shri Pankaj Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for respondent,
seeks time to file reply today, he is permitted.

The office is directed to receive the reply.
List after one week.

(ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE

Ravi

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation