Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Court: madhya pradesh Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.353 seconds)

Oct 20 2005 (HC)

Jagjeet Singh Vs. Bhopal Vikas Pradhikaran and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-20-2005

Reported in : AIR2006MP92; 2006(2)ARBLR325(MP); 2006(1)MPLJ254

ORDER1. This revision is directed against award dated 30-7-1999 by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in reference No. 50/1994 by which the reference application filed by the petitioner under Section 7 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for short) has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal found that the application was barred by limitation as provided under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam and dismissed it.2. This order has been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds:(i) That the Tribunal erred in considering the question of limitation while the said question was considered and decided by the Tribunal by order dated 28-10-1994 by which the Tribunal held that the application is not barred by limitation and rejected the objection of respondents. Once the question was heard and decided it ought not to have been reconsidered by the Tribunal.(ii) That the order dated 28-10-1994 was having res judicata between the part...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2005 (HC)

Bank of India Vs. S.K. Mukherjee and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2006MP58

ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. Unsuccessful plaintiff against the dismissal of its suit being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1992 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 64-B of 1990 (8-B of 1987) has preferred this appeal for decreeing its suit by setting aside the impugned decree and judgment.2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant plaintiff being a nationalized bank having a branch at Civil Lines, Jabalpur, respondent No. 1 Government Contractor had a current account in the aforesaid branch of the appellant. He requested appellant to provide overdraft facility. The same was considered and sanctioned up to the limit of Rs. 10,000/- on prevailing terms and conditions in respect of such facility. In continuance of this transaction the respondent had executed a demand promissory note for the some of Rs. 10,000/- with a promise to pay on demand along with interest @ 17%p.a. at quarterly rests. In this regard an agreeme...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //