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.

Shakuntala Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Shakuntala Devi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 22, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053959

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

Shakuntala Devi

Advocate Shri. Anand Datt Mishra

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

1 w.p.no.9766/2012 22/2/2013: shri anand datt mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri sanjeev kumar singh, learned panel lawyer for the respondents. petitioner has filed this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and appellate court in the matter of rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioner under order 39 rule 1 and 2. petitioner is a plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration of title and injunction with regard to certain disputed land measuring 0.18 decimal situated in mouza civil lines, satna. even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, it is seen that both the courts have evaluated existence of balance of convenience, prima facie case and irreparable loss. finding that none of the ingredients necessary for grant of injunction is made out the application has been rejected. concurrent orders passed by the trial court and appellate court in the matter of rejecting the prayer for injunction in a proceeding under order 39 rule 1 and 2 cpc does not call for any interference not in this petition under article 227 of the constitution. nothing is brought to the notice of this court to hold that the concurrent orders passed by the courts below are pervers.or illegal to such an extent that interference is called for. accordingly finding no ground to interfere, this petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.m i shra

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.9766/2012 22/2/2013: Shri Anand Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in the matter of rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2.

Petitioner is a plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration of title and injunction with regard to certain disputed land measuring 0.18 decimal situated in mouza Civil Lines, Satna.

Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, it is seen that both the Courts have evaluated existence of balance of convenience, prima facie case and irreparable loss.

Finding that none of the ingredients necessary for grant of injunction is made out the application has been rejected.

Concurrent orders passed by the trial Court and Appellate Court in the matter of rejecting the prayer for injunction in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC does not call for any interference not in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to hold that the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference is called for.

Accordingly finding no ground to interfere, this petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.m i shra

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial