Special Civil Application No. … vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 17 June, 2015

Gujarat High Court
Special Civil Application No. … vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 17 June, 2015
        C/SCA/13272/2014                             ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13272 of 2014
==========================================================
          MINABEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL & 1....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MANTHAN K BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6.4
==========================================================
        CORAM:             HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
                              Date : 17/06/2015
                               ORAL ORDER

NOTICE, returnable on 13TH JULY, 2015.

(K.J.THAKER, J)
UMESH

Page 1 of 1

Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi For The vs Unknown on 1 June, 2015

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi For The vs Unknown on 1 June, 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION (SOS) NO.556/2015
IN
S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.478/2015
Hitendra Singh alias Hitesh Singh & Anr.

Vs.

                     State of Rajasthan

     Date of order            :          1st June 2015


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA,VJ.

Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi for the appellants.
Mr. R.K.Bohra, P.P.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of
sentence.

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced
on behalf of the appellants and having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is
a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the
accused appellants.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special
Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur vide
judgment dated 22.05.2015 in Sessions Case No.07/2010
against the appellants-applicants No.1 Hitendra Singh alias
Hitesh Singh son of Hem Singh Rajput and No.2 Mahendra
Singh son of Loon Singh, shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on
bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance
in this court on 27.07.2015 and whenever ordered to do so till
the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

-2-

1. That they will appear before the trial Court
in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they will give in writing their
changed address to the trial Court as well as to
the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their
address(s), they will give in writing their
changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of
attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such
file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original
case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and
convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file
for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into
account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and
disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused
applicants do not appear before the trial court, the learned
trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),V J.

MK

Raj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2015

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2015
CRA-1906-2010

(RAJKUMAR YADA V Vs THE STA TE 0F MADHYA PRADESH)
05-05-2015

Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State seeks time to file objections to the application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Two weeks time as prayed for is granted.

(SHANTANU KEMKAR) (RAJ ENDRA MAHAJAN)
JUDGE JUDGE

Dr Krishna Bihari Lall vs The State Of Bihar Through The … on 1 May, 2015

Jharkhand High Court
Dr Krishna Bihari Lall vs The State Of Bihar Through The … on 1 May, 2015
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    C.M.P. No. 57 of 2014
                                             ---
         Dr. Krishna Bihari Lall                        ---  ---    ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
         1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary,
            Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Government of Bihar
         2. The Secretary,Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Govt. of Bihar
         3. Additional Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry &
            Fishery, Government of Bihar
         4. The State of Jharkhand
         5. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Jharkhand
         6. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department,Govt. of Jharkhand - Respondents
                                             ---
         CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

         For the Petitioner:               Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
         For the Respondent No. 4-6:       JC to Sr. SC-I
                                            ---
03/ 01.05.2015

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks restoration of CWJC No. 8163/1999 which was
dismissed as not pressed by order dated 30.01.2014, which reads as under:

“None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, counsel for
the State is preset.

Learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, whose name is
reflecting in the cause list submitted that the petitioner has taken
back the brief from his office long ago and is not in touch with
him. It however appears that no one has entered appearance
thereafter on behalf of the petitioner. It also appears that earlier
also the writ petition was dismissed for default, in the absence of
representation on behalf of the petitioner, which was restored,
thereafter. The matter relates to the year 1999 and it appears that
the petitioner is no longer interested in the matter.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as
not pressed.”

3. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had taken away the brief from his
counsel who was engaged in the said writ petition and had not entrusted it to any
such counsel. The matter was of 1999 and had been dismissed earlier also for
default. Learned counsel who was earlier representing the petitioner was gracious
enough to inform the Court on the fateful day despite the fact that the brief have
been taken away from him long ago that he was no longer in a position to represent
the petitioner. Therefore, on 30.01.2014, taking note of all these facts, this Court
was constrained to dismiss the writ petition as not pressed.

4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and averments in the
instant petition seeking restoration, I am not satisfied that the petitioner was
diligent enough in prosecuting his case. Therefore this Court is not inclined to
accept his explanation. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/

Janak Industries Pvt Ltd vs M/S Lakhani India Ltd on 28 April, 2015

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janak Industries Pvt Ltd vs M/S Lakhani India Ltd on 28 April, 2015
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                            CP No.133 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                            Date of decision : 28.04.2015


           Janak Industries Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                                ...Petitioner

                                                   Versus

           M/s Lakhani India Ltd.

                                                                              ...Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL


           Present:            Mr. R.L. Bhatia, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                               ****

           AMIT RAWAL, J. (Oral)

In view of the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in CP No.159 of

2013 titled as M/s Jaimurty Minerals & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s

Lakhani India Pvt. Ltd., wherein winding up petition filed by the petitioner

company has been admitted and the Official Liquidator has been appointed

Provisional Liquidator of the respondent company, present petition is

disposed of as infructuous, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to get

the same revived in case the respondent-company comes out of liquidation.

           28.04.2015                                             (AMIT RAWAL)
           pawan                                                    JUDGE




PAWAN KUMAR
2015.04.29 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 

Md. Rabbani vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2015

Patna High Court – Orders
Md. Rabbani vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2015
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    Criminal Miscellaneous No.14536 of 2015
                        Arising Out of PS.Case No. -227 Year- 2014 Thana -PARIHAR District- SITAMARHI
                   ======================================================
                   Md. Rabbani Son of Lal Mohammad Ansari R/o village - Dimahi, P.S.
                   Bela, District - Sitamarhi

                                                                                  .... ....   Petitioner/s
                                                          Versus
                   The State of Bihar

                                                                   .... .... Opposite Party/s
                   ======================================================
                   Appearance :
                   For the Petitioner/s     :  Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha
                   For the Opposite Party/s   : Mr. Nirmala Kumari(App)
                   ======================================================
                   CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR
                   SINGH
                   ORAL ORDER

02/ 28-04-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and

the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since

10.11.2014 in a case registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Three persons were intercepted while

travelling on a motorcycle when one managed to escape from the

scene and co-accused Ashok Das and Ubaid Alam have been

apprehended when on the confession of Ashok Das a stolen

motorcycle was recovered from the house of this petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner from the possession of Ashok Das also a stolen

motorcycle was recovered, who has been granted bail vide Cr.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14536 of 2015 (02) dt.28-04-2015

2/2

Misc. No. 4524 of 2015.

A statement has been made in para 3 of the

petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above

named petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of

Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sitamarhi in connection with Parihar P.S. Case No. 227 of 2014.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
DKS/-

U           T
 

Mahesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2015

Patna High Court – Orders
Mahesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2015
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Criminal Miscellaneous No.48000 of 2014
                       Arising Out of PS.Case No. -156 Year- 2014 Thana -SIRDALA District- NAWADA
                 ======================================================
                 Mahesh Kumar Son of Kamta Ram Resident of village- Rajaundh, Police
                 Station- Sirdala, District- Nawada
                                                                 .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                            .... .... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance:
                 For the Petitioner/s         :   Mr.
                 For the Opposite Party/s     : Mr.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
                 ORAL ORDER

3 20-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in Sirdala P.S. Case

No. 156 of 2014 under Sections 376/493 of the Indian Penal Code.

The victim herself stated that she went along with the

petitioner to Rajauli and from there boarded a bus and went to

Kolkata. They solemnized marriage in a temple. She lived with the

petitioner as husband and wife in a rented room but, later on, the

petitioner refused to keep the informant and she was also aborted.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the nature of

allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the

informant herself alleged that she was 19 years old and she

willingly went along with the petitioner, the above named

petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond

of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48000 of 2014 (3) dt.20-04-2015

2/2

amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Subhash Kumar, Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawada in Sirdala P.S. Case No. 156 of

2014.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Dilip/-

  U          T
 

M/S Clear Water & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 April, 2015

Delhi High Court
M/S Clear Water & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 April, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~33
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 13.04.2015

+       WP(C) No. 8350/2014 & CM 19345/2014


M/S CLEAR WATER & ANR.                                       .... Petitioners
                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners         : Mr Sumeer Sodhi with Mr Arjun Nanda, Mr Mohit
                            Malhotra.
For the Respondent No.1     : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay.
For the Respondent DDA       :Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta.
For the Respondent Nos. 3&4 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4 is handed

over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The learned

counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit

inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments already contained in

the writ petition.

W.P.(C) No. 8350/2014 Page 1 of 5

2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2013 Act‟)

which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the

effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1894 Act‟) in respect of which

Award No. 14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners‟ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 777/2 (3-10), 781/1-2/2

(4-03) measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas in all in village Satbari shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioners, who

claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same

has not been paid to the petitioners but according to the respondents, the

same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke

the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was

introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

W.P.(C) No. 8350/2014 Page 2 of 5
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)

Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Ordinance”).

5. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the

respondents inasmuch as a similar provision introduced by the preceding

ordinance of 2014 has been held to be prospective in nature and does not

take away vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme Court in

M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the

Supreme Court held as under:-

“The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the
acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the
statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be
taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the
abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect
to the same.”

6. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail

Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013

decided on 22.01.2015.

W.P.(C) No. 8350/2014 Page 3 of 5

7. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is

prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners as

on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second

Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by

the said Ordinance.

8. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical

possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five

years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation

has also not been paid to the petitioners, but has only been deposited in

the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as

interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and

Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.

9. All the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the

following cases stand satisfied:-

(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;

(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;

W.P.(C) No. 8350/2014 Page 4 of 5

(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

10. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the

subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

11. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 13, 2015.

kb

W.P.(C) No. 8350/2014 Page 5 of 5

In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs The District Collector on 10 April, 2015

Madras High Court
In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs The District Collector on 10 April, 2015
       

  

   

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 10.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
W.P.No.10488 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
J.Ramakrishnan				.. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Uthagamandalam  643 001,
Nilgiris District.
 
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Uthagamandalam  643 001,
Nilgiris District.

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies,	
Uthagamandalam  643 001.
Nilgiris District.

4.S.Murthy @ Bheeman
President
J-127, Sholur Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society,
Sholur Village, Nilgiris District.	
 
5.The Secretary / Vice President,
President
J-127, Sholur Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society,
Sholur Village, Nilgiris District.		.. Respondents

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents herein to initiate appropriate legal action against the 4th and 5th respondents herein as per the representation dated 20.10.2014 for their dereliction of public duty in accordance with law.

	For Petitioner	: Mr.J.Selvarajan

	For Respondents  	: Mr.D.Venkatachalam (for R1 to R3)
			  Government Advocate 

O R D E R

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner along with one S.N.Parthiban, filed W.P.No.8607 if 2015 praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent viz., The District Collector, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris District and the 2nd respondent, viz., The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris District, to take action against the respondents 4 and 5 in terms of their representation/complaint dated 16.03.2015 and this Court vide order dated 25.03.2015 has directed the second respondent to consider the complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, on or before 30.03.2015 and in compliance of the order, the second respondent has also passed an order dated 28.03.2015 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.981/2014. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that inspite of the said order, no action, is taken against the fourth and fifth respondent and therefore, came forward to file this writ petition.

3. Heard the submissions of Mr.J.Selvarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and he would submit that necessary action will be taken as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.03.2015, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the said submission is placed on record.

4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of and the third respondent is directed to take appropriate steps in terms of the order/proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.03.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.981 of 2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after putting the concerned persons on notice and inform the decision taken to the concerned parties. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

10.04.2015

Internet:Yes
ars
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,

ars
To

1. The District Collector,
Uthagamandalam 643 001,
Nilgiris District.

2. The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Uthagamandalam 643 001,
Nilgiris District.

3. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Uthagamandalam 643 001.

Nilgiris District.

W.P.No.10488 of 2015

10.04.2015

Smt. Somvati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2015

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Somvati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2015
                             M.Cr.C.No. 2315/2015


                                        Smt. Somvati vs State of M.P.

07 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4
                          Shri U.S. Tomar, Advocate for the applicant.
                          Shri     R.   K.   Agarwal,    Panel     Lawyer    for   the
                     respondent /State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Case diary is available.

This is the first bail application on behalf of the
applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is
in custody since 16.02.2015 in connection with Crime
No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Tighra, District
Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 304B,
498A, 201/34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case. It is further submitted that
applicant is resident of Gwalior. The applicant is in
custody since 16.02.2015 and conclusion of trial would
take considerable time. On the aforesaid grounds, it is
prayed that the applicants be released on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently
opposed the application.

Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case coupled with the material
M.Cr.C.No. 2315/2015

available on record, the application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. may be allowed. Consequently, it is hereby
allowed.

It is directed that applicant – Somvati be released on
bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000 / – (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the CJM, Gwalior securing her presence before the trial
Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard
during trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUBHASH KAKADE)
JUDGE

neetu