In Reference Vs. Laxman Prasad Gohal

In Reference vs Laxman Prasad Gohal

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 26, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047188

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/1047188
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 26, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Reference

Respondent

Laxman Prasad Gohal

Advocate Shri. B.P.Yadav

Excerpt

conc 1713 12 conc no.1713 o”26. 03/2013 shri p.r.bhave, learned senior counsel with shri b.p.yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. respondent is also present in person. the respondent was called upon by order dated 20- 09-2012 as to why he be not punished for deliberate concealing the fact that order dated 31- 08-2006 passed by the madhya pradesh cooperative tribunal was affirmed by order dated 14- 09-2007 passed in o.a.no.1781/2007 and yet got the order dated 31-08-2006 reviewed by the tribunal. responding to the show cause respondent fairly submits that there was a mistake on his part which he should not have committed. it is urged that his mistake may be pardoned. taking into consideration the explanation tendered by the respondent we condone his mistake and discharge him of the rule. proceeding dropped. rule nisi discharged. (ajit singh) (sanjay yadav) judge judge sc

Full Judgment

CONC 1713 12 CONC No.1713 o”

26. 03/2013 Shri P.R.Bhave, learned senior counsel with Shri B.P.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.

Respondent is also present in person.

The respondent was called upon by order dated 20- 09-2012 as to why he be not punished for deliberate concealing the fact that order dated 31- 08-2006 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal was affirmed by order dated 14- 09-2007 passed in O.A.No.1781/2007 and yet got the order dated 31-08-2006 reviewed by the Tribunal.

Responding to the show cause respondent fairly submits that there was a mistake on his part which he should not have committed.

It is urged that his mistake may be pardoned.

Taking into consideration the explanation tendered by the respondent we condone his mistake and discharge him of the rule.

Proceeding dropped.

Rule nisi discharged.

(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE SC

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties In Reference vs Laxman Prasad Gohal Same Subject Education