Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. MAJMUDAR, G.B. PATTANAIK, V.N. KHARE, U.C. BANERJEE AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.
State of Karnataka, Plaintiff
VERSUS
State of A.P. and others, Defendants.
Original Suit No. 1 of 1997, with O.S. No. 2 of 1997, D/- 25-1-2000.
F.S. Nariman, S.S. Javali, Sr. Advocates., A.N. Jayaram, Advocate General of State of Karnataka, S.P. Singh, Mohan V. Katarki and K.R. Nagaraja, Advocates, for Plaintiff; K. Parasaran, A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocates., N.V. Ramana, Addl. Advocate General of State of A.P., G. Umapathi and G. Prabhakar, Advocates, for Defendants. T.R. Andhyarujina, M.S. Nargolkar, Sr. Advocates, Subrat Birla and D.M. Nargolkar, Advocates, for State of Maharashtra. Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General of India, R.N. Trivedi Addl. Solicitor General, S. Wasim A. Quadri, S.K. Dwivedi, A.K. Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates, for Union of India. Vineet Kumar, Advocate, for Intervenor.
Exhibits - Inter State Correspondence - The court marked the inter state correspondence and certain documents as regular exhibits in the case, clarifying that the truth of the contents will not be treated as admitted by the other side.
Fact of the Case:
The court agreed to mark inter state correspondence and certain documents as regular exhibits, clarifying that the truth of the contents will not be treated as admitted by the other side. The senior counsel resumed arguments but could not conclude before the court rose for the day.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered the marking of exhibits and the continuation of arguments, as the matters remained part-heard.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the status of the marked exhibits and allowed the continuation of arguments in the case.
Final Decision: The court ordered the marking of exhibits and the continuation of arguments, as the matters remained part-heard.
ORDER :- It is agreed between the contesting parties that the inter se correspondence between the three States and some documents which are already admitted on record will be marked as regular exhibits in the case.
2. It is clarified that even though these documents are marked as Exhibits on record the truth of the contents will not be treated to have been admitted by the other side.
3. Learned senior counsel Shri F.S. Nariman resumed his arguments at 10.50 p.m. and could not conclude till the Court rose for the day.
4. The matters remained part-heard.
Order accordingly.
FOR CITATION AIR 2000 SC 3511(1)
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
