Skip to content


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

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Jharkhand High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Snigdha

Respondent

Birla Institute of Technology Through Its Vice Chancellor and ors

Excerpt:


.....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

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


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