Snigdha Vs. Birla Institute of Technology Through Its Vice Chancellor and ors

Snigdha vs Birla Institute of Technology Through Its Vice Chancellor and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 23, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1024909

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1024909
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Aug 23, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Snigdha

Respondent

Birla Institute of Technology Through Its Vice Chancellor and ors

Excerpt

inthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi contemptcase(civil)no.596of2013 snigdha .... petitioner versus birlainstituteoftechnologyandors.....respondentsoppositeparties coram: honblemr.justiceapareshkumarsingh forthepetitioner :mr.sumeetgadodia fortherespondents/opp.parties :m/s.jaiprakash,aag& rishipallava 423.8.2013 after hearing learned counselfor the parties, itappears that interimorderdated1.7.2013hasbeensubstantiallycompliedwithas thepetitionerhasbeenprovisionallyadmittedinthethirdsemester courseandhadalsobeenallowedtoappearinthequizexamination held periodically during the course. however, the petitioner has an apprehension that since the respondentsopposite parties have not accepted the examination fee, she may be again prevented from appearingintheendsemesterexaminationscheduledtobeheldin october,2013. however,itappearsthattherespondentshaveearlierbyvirtue ofaninterimorderpassedinfavourofthepetitioner,notonlyallowed hertobeadmittedinthesecondsemestercoursebutalsoadmitted her to sit in the end semester examination, though provisionally subjecttotheoutcomeofthe writpetition.theyalsoappearedto haveacceptedtheexaminationfeeforthesecondsemestercourse,at therelevantpointoftime. thereisnoreasonwhytherespondents shouldnotfollowthesamecourse,asthepresentinterimorderalso waspassedinthesametermsastheearlierinterimorder,inthecaseof thepetitionerinthependingwritpetition. learnedcounselfortherespondentsoppositepartiessubmits thatthewritpetitionitselfmaybedecidedatanearlydatesothatthe issuesraisedbythepetitionermaybefinallyadjudicated. forthattherespondentsoppositepartiesareatlibertytomake aprayerbeforeanappropriatebenchwherethewritpetitionis 2. pending. since,itappearsthattheinterimorderdated1.7.2013hasbeen substantiallycompliedwith,thecontemptproceedingisdroppedwith theobservationmadehereinabove. (apareshkumarsingh,j.) pandey

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI ContemptCase(Civil)No.596of2013 Snigdha .... Petitioner Versus BirlaInstituteofTechnologyandors.....RespondentsOppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.SumeetGadodia FortheRespondents/Opp.Parties :M/s.JaiPrakash,AAG& RishiPallava 423.8.2013 After hearing learned counselfor the parties, itappears that interimorderdated1.7.2013hasbeensubstantiallycompliedwithas thepetitionerhasbeenprovisionallyadmittedinthethirdsemester courseandhadalsobeenallowedtoappearinthequizexamination held periodically during the course. However, the petitioner has an apprehension that since the respondentsopposite parties have not accepted the examination fee, she may be again prevented from appearingintheendsemesterexaminationscheduledtobeheldin October,2013. However,itappearsthattherespondentshaveearlierbyvirtue ofaninterimorderpassedinfavourofthepetitioner,notonlyallowed hertobeadmittedinthesecondsemestercoursebutalsoadmitted her to sit in the end semester examination, though provisionally subjecttotheoutcomeofthe writpetition.Theyalsoappearedto haveacceptedtheexaminationfeeforthesecondsemestercourse,at therelevantpointoftime. Thereisnoreasonwhytherespondents shouldnotfollowthesamecourse,asthepresentinterimorderalso waspassedinthesametermsastheearlierinterimorder,inthecaseof thepetitionerinthependingwritpetition. Learnedcounselfortherespondentsoppositepartiessubmits thatthewritpetitionitselfmaybedecidedatanearlydatesothatthe issuesraisedbythepetitionermaybefinallyadjudicated. Forthattherespondentsoppositepartiesareatlibertytomake aprayerbeforeanappropriateBenchwherethewritpetitionis 2. pending. Since,itappearsthattheinterimorderdated1.7.2013hasbeen substantiallycompliedwith,thecontemptproceedingisdroppedwith theobservationmadehereinabove. (ApareshKumarSingh,J.) Pandey

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Snigdha vs Birla Institute of Technology Through Its Vice Cha... Same Subject Land Acquisition