STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 699

DIPAK MISRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent

Advocates:
For Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subramanium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv., Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv.
Mr. B. Balaji, AOR
For Respondents: Mr. F.S. Nariman, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.S. Javali, Sr. Adv., Mr. M.R. Naik, Adv. Gen., Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, Adv., Mr. S.C. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. R.S. Ravi, Adv., Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. J.M. Gangadhar, Adv., Mr. Ranvir Singh, Adv., Mr. A.S. Nambiar, Sr. Adv., Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR,, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv., Mr. Shanta Vasudhuan, Adv., Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv., Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv., Mr. Manu Srinath, Adv., Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR, Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv., Mr. Raj Bhadur, Adv., Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR, Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme, AOR

ORDER

1. The present interlocutory application, being I.A. No.12 of 2016 which was mentioned yesterday, viz. 11.09.2016, is taken up today. In the affidavit of urgency in support of taking up of the application for hearing, if we allow ourselves to say so, is absolutely disturbing and to say the least, totally depreciable. Paragraph 3 of the said affidavit reads as follows:-

“I submit that this application for modification of the interim order dated 05th September, 2016, passed by this Hon'ble Court is necessitated not merely because of the spontaneous agitations in the various parts of Karnataka including Bangalore, Mandya, Mysore and Hassan in the Cauvery basis which has paralysed the normal life besides destroying the public and private properties (in hundreds of crores of rupees) as evident from the newspaper reports from 06.09.2016 to 10.09.2016, but having regard to the ground realities of needs and requirements as stated in the application.”

2. That apart, the application for modification contains certain averments which follow the tenor of similar language which cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 699

DIPAK MISRA, UDAY UMESH LALITSTATE OF TAMIL NADU – AppellantVersusSTATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent

DIPAK MISRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent