Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court's Short Order

Factual and Procedural Background

The court heard counsel for the parties in relation to the petitions before it. The opinion records that the issue raised in these petitions had already been addressed by a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 24.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1918/2014 and companion cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that position and requested that these petitions be disposed of on the same terms as that earlier decision. The court dismissed the petitions for the reasons recorded in the earlier decision. The petitioner raised an issue of clerical errors in the earlier decision; the court permitted the petitioner in the concerned petitions to file a formal application for correction of the record, to be considered by the appropriate Bench. The file was marked "Cc as per rules."

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Division Bench decision of this Court dated 24.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1918/2014 and companion cases Not specified in the provided opinion; the decision is identified as having "squarely answered" the issue raised in the present petitions. The court dismissed the present petitions for the reasons recorded in that earlier decision and disposed of the petitions on the same terms.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis is concise and proceeds on the following steps, as expressly recorded:

  1. The court heard counsel for the parties.
  2. It observed that the issue in these petitions had been previously and conclusively addressed by a Division Bench decision dated 24.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1918/2014 and companion cases.
  3. The petitioner’s counsel accepted that the earlier decision answered the issue and requested disposal of the present petitions on the same terms.
  4. On that basis the court dismissed the petitions by applying the reasoning set out in the earlier decision (the current order does not restate or elaborate that reasoning).
  5. The court acknowledged a submission by the petitioner's counsel that there were clerical errors in the earlier Division Bench decision and permitted the petitioner to file a formal application for correction of the record to be considered by the appropriate Bench.

The opinion does not set out the underlying legal principles from the earlier decision within this short order; it relies on that prior decision as dispositive.

Holding and Implications

Holding: DISMISSED — the petitions are dismissed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench decision dated 24.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1918/2014 and companion cases.

Implications:

  • The direct effect is that the petitions before this court were dismissed on the basis of the earlier Division Bench decision; no fresh adjudication of the underlying issue is contained in this brief order.
  • The petitioner is permitted to file a formal application for correction of clerical errors in the earlier decision; such an application is to be considered by the appropriate Bench.
  • The order itself does not purport to set out new legal principles or a new precedent; it disposes of the petitions by reference to an earlier decision.

    Nidhi Kaim Petitioner v. State Of M.P

    1. Heard counsel for the parties.

    2. The issue raised in these petitions is squarely answered in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1918/2014 and companion cases. This position is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He prays that these petitions be disposed of on the same terms.

    3. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid decision.

    4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there are some clerical errors in the aforesaid decision. It will be open to the petitioner in the concerned petitions, to take out formal application for correction of the record which can be considered by the appropriate Bench.

    5. Cc as per rules.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Nidhi Kaim Petitioner v. State Of M.P
    (Oct 7, 2014)