S. Khursheed Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

S. Khursheed Ali vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 26, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048520

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/1048520
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 26, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Khursheed Ali

Advocate Shri. Sankalp Kochar

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

r.p.no.550/13 26/7/2013 shri sankalp kochar, learned counsel for the applicant. having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the order passed by this court on 15-05-2013 in w.p.no.9302/13 is modified and it is clarified that the writ petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india was being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court in postponing the decision on the application under order 26 rule 9 cpc and not for dismissal of the application this has been wrongly mentioned in the order. the above correction be read into the order passed on 15-05-2013 in w.p.no.9302/13 with the aforesaid modification, the review petition stands disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge hsp

Full Judgment

R.P.NO.550/13 26/7/2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the order passed by this court on 15-05-2013 in W.P.No.9302/13 is modified and it is clarified that the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court in postponing the decision on the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and not for dismissal of the application this has been wrongly mentioned in the order.

The above correction be read into the order passed on 15-05-2013 in W.P.No.9302/13 With the aforesaid modification, the review petition stands disposed of.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties S. Khursheed Ali vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education