DHEERENDRA KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF M.P.. SECRETARY — C.A. No. 279/2012

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010269512008

Filing Date

16-Sep-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 279/2012

Diary Number

26951/2008

Order Date

03-Mar-2020

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHEERENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

    Adv. V. MAHESHWARI & CO.[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF M.P.. SECRETARY

    Adv. SAMAR VIJAY SINGH[R-3] HARSH PARASHAR[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Mar-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 03-Mar-2020

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

  4. 27-Feb-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 27-Feb-2020

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

  6. 25-Feb-2020

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

  7. 19-Feb-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Jan-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 08-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 15-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 23-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 02-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 03-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 15-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 20-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 01-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 16-Sep-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 279/2012

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 279/2012 Dheerendra Kumar Mishra appealed a Rs. 40/kg penalty imposed for short supply of Bhang under a 1990-1991 contract with Madhya Pradesh, contending the contract was frustrated due to lack of export permit from Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on March 3, 2020, holding that Mishra committed breach of contract and the penalty represented prevailing excise duty with no infirmity in the High Court's affirmation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case