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.

Anil Kumar Vs. Kashiram

Anil Kumar vs Kashiram

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 31, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050160

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

Anil Kumar

Respondent

Kashiram

Excerpt

m.a.no.3377/2009 31/07/2013. shri pramesh jain, advocate for the appellants. shri yaduvendra dwivedi, advocate for the respondent no.1. shri n.s.ruprah, advocate for the respondent no.2. heard on ia no.9283/2009, which is an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay of more than 8 years.the appellants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the motor vehicles act. the aforesaid application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that the appellants engaged to shri u.c.thakur, advocate as his counsel before the learned tribunal and handed over him the relevant documents including driving licence. shri u.c.thakur, advocate was also the counsel for the insurance company and in 12 cases arising out of the same accident, compromise was arrived in lok adalat and the counsel for the appellants had also assured the appellants that their claim shall also be settled in the lok adalat. however, the matter was not settled in the lok adalat and award was passed on 2.12.2000 and the information about passing of the award was not intimated by the counsel to the appellants. the appellants came to knot about passing of the award on 30.5.2009. thereafter, the appellants contacted their counsel but no satisfactory answer was given by shri thakur. thereafter, the appellants sent their clerk to tikarmgarh in 3rd week of june, 2009 and he was informed that award has been passed against the appellants. thereafter, appellants applied for certified copy of the impugned award which

Full Judgment

M.A.No.3377/2009 31/07/2013.

Shri Pramesh Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Shri N.S.Ruprah, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Heard on IA No.9283/2009, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of more than 8 yeaRs.The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The aforesaid application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that the appellants engaged to Shri U.C.Thakur, Advocate as his counsel before the learned Tribunal and handed over him the relevant documents including driving licence.

Shri U.C.Thakur, Advocate was also the counsel for the Insurance Company and in 12 cases arising out of the same accident, compromise was arrived in Lok Adalat and the counsel for the appellants had also assured the appellants that their claim shall also be settled in the Lok Adalat.

However, the matter was not settled in the Lok Adalat and award was passed on 2.12.2000 and the information about passing of the award was not intimated by the counsel to the appellants.

The appellants came to knot about passing of the award on 30.5.2009.

Thereafter, the appellants contacted their counsel but no satisfactory answer was given by Shri Thakur.

Thereafter, the appellants sent their clerk to Tikarmgarh in 3rd week of June, 2009 and he was informed that award has been passed against the appellants.

Thereafter, appellants applied for certified copy of the impugned award which

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial