SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 303

A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
T. Nandagopal – Respondent


Advocates:
K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, K.RAM KUMAR, K.RAM MOHAN, K.S.Chauhan, S.V.LAMBWEKAR, V.R.REDDY, Y.S.Chitale

(1) NORMALLY, this court does not interfere with interlocutory orders of this nature except, under very exceptional circumstances. In the tacts and circumstances of the case, mere is no reason for us to depart from this well settled practice. Obviously, the Hign court could not have prejudged the whole issue involved in the writ petition which is still to be neard on merits,We, therefore, made the impugned order subject to the result of the writ petition and without prejudice to me rignts and contentions of the parties. Learned counsel for the State government seeks two weeks time to implement me impugned order of me High court. We grant two weeks time to me State government to implement the direction made by the High court as prayed for.

(2) WE hope and trust that the High court will endeavour to dispose of the writ petition on merits, as expeditiously as possible; and, in any event, not later than four weeks from today.

(3) SPECIAL leave petition is accordingly disposed of.

COURT Master.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top