Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1600

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
State of T. Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, C.A. No. 2454 of 2007
Decided On : 04-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anil B. Divan, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.S. Javali, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.R. Naik, Advocate Gen., Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocates, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Ranvir Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate, Mr. G. Umapathy, Mr. C. Paramasivam, Advocates, Mr. B. Balaji, AOR., Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Mr. Manu Srinath, Advocates
For the Respondents:Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Wasim A. Qadrai, Mrs. Madhvi Divan, Mr. Zaid Ali, Mr. M.K. Maroria, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Mr. Ansh Singh Luthra, Mr. Shashank Dewan, Advocates, Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR, Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Advocate, Mr. A.S. Bhasme, AOR, Mr. B. Balaji, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., AOR, Mr. A.S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, AOR, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Ms. Shantha Vasudevan, Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Mr. Manu Srinath, Advocates, Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anil B. Divan, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.S. Javali, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.R. Naik, Advocate Gen., Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocates, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Ranvir Singh, Ms. Joshita Pai, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Bhat AOR and Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR.

The court has the discretion to dismiss an application for intervention/impleadment and fix the appeals for hearing on a specific date, while also having the authority to continue the interim order until the appeals are decided.

Headnote:
Intervention/Impleadment - Civil Appeal - The court dismissed the application for intervention/impleadment and fixed the appeals for hearing on a specific date, with the interim order to continue until the appeals are decided.
Fact of the Case:

This is an application for intervention/impleadment. The applicant sought permission to withdraw the interlocutory application, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The court then fixed the appeals for hearing on a specific date and agreed to continue the interim order until the appeals are decided.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the application for intervention/impleadment, fixed the appeals for hearing on a specific date, and agreed to continue the interim order until the appeals are decided.
Issues: Application for intervention/impleadment, withdrawal of interlocutory application, fixing of appeals for hearing, continuation of interim order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the discretion to dismiss an application for intervention/impleadment, fix the appeals for hearing on a specific date, and continue the interim order until the appeals are decided.
Final Decision: The application for intervention/impleadment was dismissed, and the appeals were fixed for hearing on a specific date with the interim order to continue until the appeals are decided.

ORDER :

I.A. No.13 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No.2456 of 2007

This is an application for intervention/impleadment.

2. Ms. Joshita Pai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the interlocutory application. The interlocutory application is dismissed as withdrawn.

C.A. No. 2453 of 2007, C.A. No.2456 of 2007 & C.A. No.2454 of 2007

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is submitted at the Bar that the hearing of the appeals is likely to take almost three weeks if the matter is taken up every day at 2.00 p.m.

5. Regard being had to the aforesaid submission, we think it appropriate to fix the appeals for hearing at 2.00 p.m. on 7th February, 2017. The matter shall continue on day to day basis as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. As further agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, they shall submit preliminary written notes of submissions by that date.

The interim order which is in force shall continue till the appeals are decided.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 1600

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.State of Karnataka – AppellantVersusState of T. Nadu & Ors. – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, C.A. No. 2454 of 2007Decided On : 04-01-2017

The court has the discretion to dismiss an application for intervention/impleadment and fix the appeals for hearing on a specific date, while also having the authority to continue the interim order until the appeals are decided.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
State of T. Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, C.A. No. 2454 of 2007
Decided On : 04-01-2017