Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Naresh Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Naresh Pathak vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 29, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042328

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh Pathak

Advocate Shri. Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Advocate Shri. Swapnil Ganguly

Excerpt

1 mcc no.844/2012 naresh pathak state of m.p.& another 29.8.2012 shri sourabh bhushan shrivastava, counsel for petitioner. shri swapnil ganguly, counsel for respondents. i.a.no.9900/2012 for converting this mcc into a review petition for the reasons stated in the application and looking to the fact that petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 21.6.2012 in w.a.no.1184/2009, we allow the application and permit the petitioner to convert this mcc into a review petition. accordingly, the office is directed to delete the present case from the register of mcc and register this case as a review petition. heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. it is stated by the petitioner that in the order dated 21.6.2012 passed in writ appeal no.1184/2009 on 2nd page, this court has stated facts in which earnest money has been shown as rs.21,16,300/- while factually it is rs.2,16,300/- and prays that aforesaid error may be corrected. from the perusal of the entire record, we find that aforesaid error is there, which appears to be a typing error and accordingly we direct that in the order dated 21.6.2012 on 2nd page in 6th line, where figure 21,16,300 has been typed, it be corrected as rs.2,16,300/-. the office is directed to correct the aforesaid figure and after correction of the aforesaid figure, office to issue copy of the order to the petitioner free of cost. with the aforesaid, review petition is finally disposed of. no order as to costs. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) judge judge c.

Full Judgment

1 MCC No.844/2012 Naresh Pathak State of M.P.& another 29.8.2012 Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner.

Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Counsel for respondents.

I.A.No.9900/2012 for converting this MCC into a Review Petition For the reasons stated in the application and looking to the fact that petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 21.6.2012 in W.A.No.1184/2009, we allow the application and permit the petitioner to convert this MCC into a review petition.

Accordingly, the office is directed to delete the present case from the register of MCC and register this case as a review petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case.

It is stated by the petitioner that in the order dated 21.6.2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.1184/2009 on 2nd page, this Court has stated facts in which earnest money has been shown as Rs.21,16,300/- while factually it is Rs.2,16,300/- and prays that aforesaid error may be corrected.

From the perusal of the entire record, we find that aforesaid error is there, which appears to be a typing error and accordingly we direct that in the order dated 21.6.2012 on 2nd page in 6th line, where figure 21,16,300 has been typed, it be corrected as Rs.2,16,300/-.

The office is directed to correct the aforesaid figure and after correction of the aforesaid figure, office to issue copy of the order to the petitioner free of cost.

With the aforesaid, review petition is finally disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial