Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: v r rao · Page 1 of about 81 results (0.289 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Feb 02 1996

S.P. Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-02-1996

Subject : Contract

Acts : Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Sections 7A, 19(1) and 20(2); Arbitration Act - Sections 2

Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ512

Advocate for Appellant : V.R. Rao, Adv.

ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a revision under Section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 for short 'the Adhiniyam') by the petitioner-contractor against the award dated 24-9-1990, passed in Reference Case No. 108/1989,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 08 2005

Sanjay R. Trivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-08-2005

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Sections 7B and 19

Reported in : 2005(4)MPHT57

Advocate for Appellant : V.R. Rao, Adv.

Dipak Misra, J.1. In this revision preferred under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for brevity 'the Act'), the applicant has called in question the sustainability of the award dated 28-10-2004 passed by...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 13 2005

M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pandey Construction Co.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Subject : LimitationCivil

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 4 to 24, 29 and 29(2); Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Sections 3, 7, 7A, 7B, 7B(2A), 9, 10, 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 19(1), 20, 22, 23, 24(1), 24(2), 42, 65, 84C and 211; Rent Control Act; Representation of People Act - Sections 81, 82, 86, 86(1) and 117; Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 28 and 28(4); Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 19; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act - Sections 13(1), 13(5) and 13(6); Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 18; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3(35); Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 - Sections 13(4); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 34(1) and 34(3); Ciminal Procedure Code - Sections 340, 342, 344, 345, 34

Reported in : 2005(2)MPHT206; 2005(2)MPLJ550

Advocate for Appellant : M.L. Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. and ;R.S. Jaiswal, Adv. in C.R. No. 633/2003, ;V.R. Rao, Adv. in C.R. No. 1000/2003, ;Sanjay K. Yadav, Govt. Adv. in C.R. Nos. 1330/2003 and 151/2004 and ;Mohd. Nasir, Adv. in C

ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In C.R. No. 1330/2003 question has been referred for consideration of Larger Bench as to applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to a revision preferred under Section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Oct 21 2002

Tirupati Constructions Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-21-2002

Subject : Contract

Reported in : 2003(2)MPHT17

Advocate for Appellant : V.R. Rao, Adv.

ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is assailing the order contained in document No. 6 passed on20-6-2002 debarring the petitioner from participating in any tender process for two years from the date of issue of the letter (D-6)....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 22 2002

Saluja Constructions Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-22-2002

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Sections 17A

Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT553; 2002(4)MPLJ20

Advocate for Appellant : V.R. Rao, Adv.

ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 21-8-2001, Annexure P-1, passed by the Madhya Pradesh...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 01 2000

Jyoti Talkies and 5 ors. Vs. M.P. Film Development Corporation Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-01-2000

Subject : CivilArbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33; Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 35 - Schedule - Article 12

Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT303

Advocate for Appellant : V.R. Rao, Adv.

ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 28-11-1996 passed by the Court of Vth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, making the award passed by the Managing Director of M.P. Film Development...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 30 2013

Rai Singh Machhirke Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-30-2013

Subject : Arbitration

Civil Revision 1344/1996 30/9/2013: Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Kapil Jain for the petitioner. Shri Devashish Sakalkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. This revision petition under Section 19 of the M.P.Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 10 2009

Motilal Pandey Vs. Kailash Pathak

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-10-2009

Subject : Property

Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT346

A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of defendant who has lost from both the Courts below. The suit for injunction filed by plaintiff/respondent was decreed by the Trial Court and...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 16 2013

M/S Nandsons Construction Company Vs. M.P. State Tourism Development C ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-16-2013

Subject : Land Acquisition

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR C.R. No.823/1998 M/s Nandsons Construction Company Vs. M.P. State Tourism Development & another Present: Hon’ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.& Hon'ble Shri A. K. Sharma, J.______________________________________________________ Shri...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 15 2014

Shree Agencies Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. M.P.State Mining Corporation a ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-15-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

1. These applications were analogous heard on the joint request of the parties. It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the legal questions involved in these matters are similar. 2. The facts are...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial