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

1995 Supreme(SC) 1075

B.N.KIRPAL, K.RAMASWAMY
Papanna – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates:
K.R.NAGARAJA, P.R.RAMASESHESH.S.PARIHARHAR

( 1 ) AFTER Mr K. N. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry had issued notices to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except Appellant 2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered appearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on-record. It is no part of the duty of this court to inform the parties. However, it has already been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant have not been brought on record till date.

( 2 ) THE appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

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