Madhya Pradesh Court March 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt.Parwati Vs. Shankerlal and Ors. Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Second Appeal No.1366 / 2005. 3/3/2014. Shri Manoj K. Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29/1/2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.28-A/03 by learned Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad (MP) confirming the judgment and decree dated 21/8/2003 passed in Civil Suit No.9-A/99 by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Seoni Malwa, rejecting the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to joint family property of her mother alleging that she is entitled to her mothers share. The plaintiff has also claimed her share in coparcener property of her maternal family claiming herself to be adopted daughter of her maternal uncle Mangal Yaduwanshi. The fact of adoption has not been proved and both the courts below have r...
Rajendra Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
W.P.No.8093/2013 03.03.2014 Shri Anil Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 5. This petition was filed challenging the order dated 12.04.2013, by which alleged juniors to the petitioneRs.respondents No.6 to 9, were promoted on the next higher post. The petition was not entertained as whenever the same was listed, time was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners to seek instructions. In fact, the order dated 12.04.2013 was cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 27.4.2013 and the said order was challenged by those who were promoted in different writ petitions before this Court. All those writ petitions were entertained and interim stay was granted. Such writ petitions were pending consideration and, therefore, it appears that this petition was not entertained. By filing an application, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that one such writ petition being W.P.No.8610/2013(S) (L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›