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.

Vikas Dubey Vs. General Manager West Central Railway

Vikas Dubey vs General Manager West Central Railway

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 10, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1044641

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

Vikas Dubey

Advocate Shri. Vipin Yadav

Respondent

General Manager West Central Railway

Advocate Shri. Govind Patel

Excerpt

w.p.no.20231/2012 vikas dubey versus g.m.& anr. 10.12.2012 shri vipin yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri govind patel, learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy. heard on the question of admission and interim relief. the petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the respondent no.2, asking the petitioner to remove his liquor shop from khasr.no.160, shop no.605 on jabalpur katni road by 02.12.2012. from a perusal of the petition as well as the documents filed alongwith the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in respect of the action proposed to be taken by the respondent no.2, which was registered as c.s.no.53-a/11, but was dismissed in default, subsequent to which the petitioner had filed an application under order 9 rule 4 of the c.p.c., which is pending decision and in which notices have already been issued to the respondents. it is stated that the suit was fixed before the civil judge class i, katni on 04.12.2012, but no orders thereon have been passed till date. the learned counsel appearing for the w.p.no.20231/2012 vikas dubey versus g.m.& anr. respondents submits that the respondents shall promptly respond to any notice received by them from the court and shall comply with the orders passed by the competent civil court in accordance with law. in view of the aforesaid and looking to the fact that the petitioner had already taken up the issues before the competent court and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take up parallel proceedings, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the matter and obtain appropriate orders in accordance with law from the civil court before whom the matter is pending. with the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge gn

Full Judgment

W.P.No.20231/2012 Vikas Dubey versus G.M.& anr.

10.12.2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, asking the petitioner to remove his liquor shop from KhaSr.No.160, shop No.605 on Jabalpur Katni road by 02.12.2012.

From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents filed alongwith the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in respect of the action proposed to be taken by the respondent No.2, which was registered as C.S.No.53-A/11, but was dismissed in default, subsequent to which the petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., which is pending decision and in which notices have already been issued to the respondents.

It is stated that the suit was fixed before the Civil Judge Class I, Katni on 04.12.2012, but no orders thereon have been passed till date.

The learned counsel appearing for the W.P.No.20231/2012 Vikas Dubey versus G.M.& anr.

respondents submits that the respondents shall promptly respond to any notice received by them from the Court and shall comply with the orders passed by the competent civil court in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid and looking to the fact that the petitioner had already taken up the issues before the competent court and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take up parallel proceedings, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the matter and obtain appropriate orders in accordance with law from the civil court before whom the matter is pending.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(R.S.Jha) Judge gn

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial