✦ Madhya Pradesh High Court

Civil Revision No. 29 of 2014 · Madhya Pradesh High Court

Civil Revision No. 29 of 2014HIRDESH

Case at a glance

Outcome

Withdrawn

The revision is dismissed as withdrawn

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. YASIN KHAN AND ANR. S/O CHANDU KHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TAILORING GRAM JIVAJIGAD TEH. TONKKHURD (MADHYA PRADESH) ABDUL WAHID S/O HUSAIN SHAH CHOTA BAZAR KAYTHA TEHSIL TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH) S/O JITENDRA TEHSIL GAURAVA TONKKHURD (MADHYA PRADESH) RAMBHAROSE VILLAGE THANA TONKHURD, (BY SHRI…

Judgment

BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPUR,JAIPUR,RAJASTHAN LTD. E-8, EPIP RIICO (BY SHRI ARUN GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT) .....PETITIONER AND

Operative part

3.

YASIN KHAN AND ANR. S/O CHANDU KHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TAILORING GRAM JIVAJIGAD TEH. TONKKHURD (MADHYA PRADESH) ABDUL WAHID S/O HUSAIN SHAH CHOTA BAZAR KAYTHA TEHSIL TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH) S/O JITENDRA TEHSIL GAURAVA TONKKHURD (MADHYA PRADESH) RAMBHAROSE VILLAGE THANA TONKHURD, (BY SHRI G.K.NEEMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2) .....RESPONDENTS This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER At the outset counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of this revision petition. Prayer allowed. The revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 8/22/2023 12:43:30 PM hk/ 2 (HIRDESH) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 8/22/2023 12:43:30 PM

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madhya Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Revision No. 29 of 2014). ← Search more judgments