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.

General Manager (Randr) Vs. Manvendra

General Manager (Randr) vs Manvendra

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 30, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048060

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

General Manager (Randr)

Advocate Shri. A.J.Pawar

Respondent

Manvendra

Advocate Shri. Shashank Upadhyaya

Excerpt

f.a.no.182/2012 30.7.2012 shri r.n.singh, learned senior advocate assisted by shri a.j.pawar, counsel for appellant. shri shashank upadhyaya, counsel for respondent no.1. shri jaideep singh, dy.g.a for respondents no.2, 3 & 4. i.a.no.3128/12 under section 149 of cpc for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee. considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 5.3.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. admit. issue notice to the respondents. notice on behalf of respondent no.1 is accepted by shri upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents no.2,3 & 4 by shri singh, dy.g.a.i.a.no.2040/12 for stay after hearing both parties, till further orders.following directions are issued:- (i) appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month before the reference court. (ii) appellant shall also furnish security for the remaining amount as is required under order 41 rule 5 of cpc to the satisfaction of the reference court. (iii) on compliance of the aforesaid, execution of the impugned award shall remain stayed. respondent no.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the reference court. in case the amount is not withdrawn within a period of one month from the date of notice, the reference court shall invest the deposited amount in a beneficial tdr in a nationalised bank, initially for a period of one year, extendable, in case the appeal is not heard and decided within aforesaid period. f.a.no.182/2012 be listed alongwith f.a.no.726/11 and other connected matters for analogous hearing. c.c.as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) m. judge judge

Full Judgment

F.A.No.182/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant.

Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2, 3 & 4.

I.A.No.3128/12 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee.

Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee.

Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed.

Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 5.3.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid.

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2,3 & 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.I.A.No.2040/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month before the reference Court.

(ii) Appellant shall also furnish security for the remaining amount as is required under Order 41 rule 5 of CPC to the satisfaction of the reference Court.

(iii) On compliance of the aforesaid, execution of the impugned award shall remain stayed.

Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the reference Court.

In case the amount is not withdrawn within a period of one month from the date of notice, the reference Court shall invest the deposited amount in a beneficial TDR in a nationalised bank, initially for a period of one year, extendable, in case the appeal is not heard and decided within aforesaid period.

F.A.No.182/2012 Be listed alongwith F.A.No.726/11 and other connected matters for analogous hearing.

C.C.as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) M.

Judge Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial