CR No.222/2009
21.01.2015
I.A. No.10997/2009
This application is for urgent hearing of the admitted matter. As per
the listing scheme in vogue, priority category of cases must proceed as per
its turn, under appropriate category.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with direction to the
Registry to process the main admitted matter, if ready in all respect, as per
its turn, under caption “High Court Expedited Cases” or any other
suitable caption of priority cases, whichever is earlier.
Liberty to the parties to apprise the Registrar (Judicial) about any
other suitable priority category in which the main admitted matter can
proceed in addition to “High Court Expedited Cases” or the caption
already assigned by the Registry. The Registrar (Judicial) after due
scrutiny shall issue instructions to the concerned Dealing Assistant to
update the main matter in such other appropriate category, so that the same
can proceed for final hearing in the category wherever it is earlier, as per
the CMIS software.
Further liberty is granted to the parties to mention the main matter,
in cases of exceptional urgency, for appropriate directions before DB-I, by
way of Mentioning Slip without filing any formal application for urgent
hearing.
Application for urgent hearing of the main matter is disposed of on
the above terms.
(A.M.Khanwilkar)
Chief Justice
(C.V. Sirpurkar)
Judge
M.A. No. 226/2009
01.12.2014.
Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant.
Case has been posted on admission; however, it would be
appropriate to hear learned counsel for the appellant on the question
whether statutory amount has been deposited by the appellant in order
to
make
this
appeal
under
Employees
maintainable?
List in the week commencing 12.1.2015.
{C.V. Sirpurkar}
JUDGE
Sh*
Compensation
Act,
Con.C. No. 2072/2013
19.12.2014.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
This contempt petition has been filed in respect of order dated
13.5.2013 passed in W.P. No. 8925/2013. By aforesaid order, it was
observed that it would be necessary to examine whether continuation of
petitioner under suspension is necessary or attachment of the petitioner
elsewhere would serve the purpose of any investigation or enquiry.
Ultimately, the petition was disposed of without entering into the merits
of the claim made by the petitioner with a direction to the respondent to
look into the representation made by the petitioner for revocation of the
suspension and pass appropriate orders on the said representation. It was
further observed that the Court has not looked into or examined the
validity of the claims made by the petitioner and therefore same are to
be decided by the respondent in accordance with law. The entire enquiry
was directed to be completed within a period of two months from the
date of production of copy of the order.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that by order dated
09.11.20114, the Principal Secretary to the State Government,
Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Bhopal, has disposed
of the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with the order
of High Court dated 13.5.2013.
With regard to the compliance report, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the compliance report is accompanied by affidavit
of Dr. S.L. Sahu, who is said to be Sampark Adhikari. It is not clear as
to in what manner Dr. Sahu is connected with the matter. It has further
been submitted that in the order dated 09.1.2014 it has been recorded
that in compliance with the order of the Court, petitioner Dr. Mittal was
again granted an opportunity of being heard on 24.12.2013. During the
hearing Dr. Mittal failed to bring home any solid ground or facts on the
basis of record, warranting cancellation of his suspension and granting
reinstatement; therefore, representation was rejected.
A perusal of the Court order dated 13.5.2013 reveals that the
Court desired that respondents should examine whether continuance of
the petitioner under suspension was necessary for the purpose of any
investigation or enquiry and whether his attachment elsewhere would
not serve the purpose. However, there is nothing to indicate in the order
dated 09.1.2014 that the matter was examined from the aforesaid angle.
The reply is also not supported by an affidavit of the Principal Secretary
which could through light on the fact as to whether or not mind was
applied from aforesaid angle. In the event, Principal Secretary is
directed to file his affidavit, clearly indicating as to whether or not the
representation submitted by the petitioner was examined from the
aforesaid angle.
List the matter in the first week of February, 2015.
{C.V. Sirpurkar}
JUDGE
Sh*
Con.C. No. 1651/2011
19.12.2014.
None for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents.
Learned Government Advocate has submitted that in compliance
with Court order dated 15.2.2011 passed in W.P. No. 10341/2010 (s),
order dated 23.3.2011 has been passed by the office of the Accountant
General; however, it appears that after passing the order dated
23.3.2011, this contempt petition has been filed on 13.10.2011.
Thereafter, mention memo was filed on 18.09.2014. As such, it cannot
be said that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.
In the circumstances, list the matter in the week commencing
27.1.2015.
{C.V. Sirpurkar}
JUDGE
Sh*
M.A. No. 2703/2014
19.12.2014.
Shri Paresh Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission, I.A.No. 16636/2014, an application for
temporary
injunction and I.A.No. 16637/2014, an application for ad-
interim injunction.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had
entered into an agreement for sell of immovable property with the
respondent but the respondent is refusing to execute the registered sale
deed of the property and is trying to alienate the same. It has been
argued that the deed of contract was stamped in accordance with law,
however, it was not registered but in view of Section 49 of the Indian
Registration Act it is admissible as evidence of agreement of sale in a
suit for specific performance of the contract.
Let notice on admission as well as I.A.No. 16636/2014 be issued
to the respondent, returnable in six weeks.
Let requisites for the same be filed within a week.
Meanwhile, by way of ad-interim measure, it is directed that the
respondent shall not alienate the suit property or create any third party
interest therein till next date of hearing.
Let the appellant comply with the provision of Rule 3 of Order 39
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
List the matter thereafter.
{C.V. Sirpurkar}
JUDGE
Sh*
C.R. No. 304/2012
15.12.2014.
Shri Abhisekh Gulati, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Umakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4
to 6.
This civil revision is posted for consideration of I.A.No.
13556/2012, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing this revision, however, a perusal of
record reveals that the office has not made any calculation with regard
to limitation.
Let the office do the same and proceed it under the same head on
12.1.2015.
{C.V. Sirpurkar}
JUDGE
Sh*
M.Cr.C. No.20417/2014
26.12.2014
Shri A.K. Tiwari, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Vikalp Soni, Counsel for the Objector.
Heard on this first application for bail filed on behalf of
applicant Manish under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in Crime No.286/2014 registered in P.S. Khalwa, District
Khandwa, under Sections 307 and 371 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
As per prosecution case, applicant Moolchand alongwith the coaccused persons Virendra and Manish stopped complainant Ajay on
the road. Co-accused Virendra stated that he wanted to take revenge
for the assault made by complainant Ajay on his brother. Thereafter,
all the three accused persons manhandled complainant Ajay.
Complainant Moolchand and Manish caught hold of complainant Ajay
and Virendra fired two or three shots by a country made pistol. One of
the bullets hit complainant Ajay in the right thigh and started to
bleeding.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
respondent/State
submits
that
complainant Ajay was admitted to hospital and his discharge ticket is
not on the record; therefore, it may be assumed that his treatment is
still going on. He further submitted that offence is serious one,
therefore, bail should not be granted to accused Manish.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that Manish was not
named in the FIR. His role in the incident is confined to manhandling
complainant Ajay and catching hold of him while he was fired at. It
has further been submitted that applicant Manish is falsely implicated
because it is highly improbable that a person who hold someone while
the person he is holding, is being fired at.
On due consideration of the contentions raised in the
application, nature of allegation against the applicant, and overall
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
view that it is a fit case to release the applicant Manish on bail,
therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the
application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Manish
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for
securing his presence before the said Courts on all the dates of
hearing fixed in this regard.
Certified copy as per rules.
(C.V. Sirpurkar)
V. Judge
ak
MCC No. 2401/2014
28.11.2014
Shri
Wajid
Hyder,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant.
This MCC has been filed for restoration of S.A.
No.
790/2007,
compliance
which
with
was
dismissed
peremptory
for
order
nondated
26.10.2007, whereby the appellant was directed to
pay PF within seven days.
Heard
on
I.A.No.
15246/2014,
which
is
an
application for condonation of delay of 2527 days in
filing the application for restoration.
It is
submitted
by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant that the appeal was listed on 26.10.2007
before Hon'ble the Court but due to oversight,
learned counsel for the applicant could not take note
of the case and failed to appear before the Court.
Hon'ble Court passed a peremptory order directing
the appellant to pay
(C.V. Sirpurkar)
Judge
Sh*
M.A. No. 2422/2007
24.11.2014
Shri K.B. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Let notice be issued against respondents by
ordinary mode as well as registered post, returnable
within eight weeks.
Requisite for the same be filed within a week.
(C.V. Sirpurkar)
Judge
Sh*
Note-sheet
21.11.2014
As directed by His Lordship, I am to inform you
that
His
Lordship
has
purchased
a
Mobile
of
Samsung Galaxy S4 worth Rs. 28007/-. The said
amount may kindly be reimbursed to His Lordship
upto the extent permissible.
Encl. A copy of the bill.
P.S. to
Honble Shri Justice C.V.Sirpurkar
Protocol Officer
Note-sheet
10.11.2014
As directed by His Lordship, I am to inform you
that a Micro Sim Card and E-Video Card may kindly
be provided to His Lordship for the use of Apple i
Pad.
P.S. to
Honble Shri Justice C.V.Sirpurkar
Protocol Officer
Note-sheet
20.11.2014
As directed by His Lordship, I am to inform you
that Table Glass of 65” x 6” & 41” x 6” of 12mm may
kindly be provided in the Chamber of his Lordship
and also issue following stationery items:1. Two whitener
2. Pen 2 liquiflo
3. Stapler 1
4. Pen box 2
5. Flag-2
6. Stapler pin 2 packet
P.S. to
Honble Shri Justice C.V.Sirpurkar
Stationery Section
To,
The Registrar General
High Court of M.P.
Jabalpur.
Sub:- Regarding Petrol Allowance.
Respected Sir,
It is humbly submitted that I have been posted to His
Lordship. I used to got to His Lordship's Bungalow as and when
required by my motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-20-MJ8877. It is further requested that I may please be granted petrol
allowance.
Kindly accept my prayer and obliged.
Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,
(S. Hushmat Hussain)
Steno to
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
Date:10.11.2014.
Encl: Copy of driving licence
Note-sheet
10.11.2014
It is submitted that the printer-HP Laser Jet
P2015 installed at the PA/PS chamber of Court Room
No. 14 is very old and is not working properly and
take lots of time to print which causes inconvenience
in the work of Court/office. Kindly replace the same
with new Printer such as of Xerox or any other
company which is provided by the Office.
Steno to
Honble Shri Justice C.V.Sirpurkar
Registrar I.T.
The appellants have been convicted on the basis of Daily Diary
(Roznamcha Sanha) recorded 18 hours after the incident, which
was treated as a dying declaration. Eyewitnesses have not
supported the prosecution. That apart, the appellants were on
bail during the trial.
AKM
27.10.2014
As directed by His Lordship the cases
wherein the following advocates are appearing
may not be listed before His Lordship:(1) Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar (Advocate)
(2) Shri Aditya Khandekar (Advocate)
(3) Sushree Sudha Pandit
(Advocate)
(4) Shri Shreyas Pandit (Advocate)
(5) Smt. Janhvi Pandit (Advocate)
P.S. to
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
Note sheet
As directed by His Lordship, Hon'ble Shri
Justice
Chandrahas Sirpurkar has directed me to convey that
His Lordship is willing to occupy Bungalow No.A-2,
Newly constructed Bungalow, previously occupied by
Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Verma which would fall vacant
on 01.11.2014, for his residence.
By order,
P.S. to
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
Note sheet
As directed by His Lordship, Hon'ble Shri
Justice
Chandrahas Sirpurkar, this is to inform that His Lordship
shall not be available for Court work on 3 rd and 5 th of
November, 2014. This may be treated as Casual Absence of
his Lordship.
Submitted.
By order,
P.S. to
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
Shri Monohar Mamtani:
Principal Registrar (J)
Note sheet
As directed by His Lordship, Hon'ble Shri
Justice
Chandrahas Sirpurkar, this is to inform that His Lordship
was available for Court work only on 3 rd of November, 2014
and he was on leave on 5 th and 7 th of November, 2014.
Therefore, the application for leave for
3 rd November, 2014
be cancelled.
Submitted.
By order,
P.S. to
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
Shri Monohar Mamtani:
Principal Registrar (J)
Note sheet
As directed by His Lordship, two new Almirahs be
provided in the Chamber of his Lordship.
By order,
P.S. to
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar