MARTHANDA VARMA vs T. P. SUNDARA RAJAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(SC) 2728

R.M.LODHA, A.K.PATNAIK
MARTHANDA VARMA – Appellant
Versus
T. P. SUNDARA RAJAN – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Parameswaran Nair, Adv., Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv., Mr. Shyam Mohan, Adv., Mr. B.V. Deepak, Ad. For M/S. T.T.K. Deepak & Co., Mr. M.K.S. Menon, Adv., Ms. Leena Nair, Adv., Mr. Robin V.S., Adv. For, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv., Mr. K. Sukumaran, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv., Mr. Deepak Dixit, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vipin Nair, Adv., Mr. P.B. Suresh, Adv., Mr. Ram Krishna for, M/s. Temple Law Firm, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv., Mr. C.K.Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ashwani Gar,Adv, Mr. M. Khairati,Adv. For, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv., State of Kerala Ms. Liz Mathew ,Adv, Mr. R. Sathish, Adv., Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Adv., Mr. C.K. Sasi, Adv.,Mr. Sajith. P, Adv., Mr. K. Sukumaran, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv., Mr. Deepak Dixit, Adv., Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv., Mr. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Adv., Mr. Sivan Madathil, Adv., Ms. Usha Nandini, Adv., Mr. Biju P. Raman, Adv., Mr. Sanad Ramakrishnan, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.

ORDER :

On hearing Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel for the State of Kerala, we pass the following order in continuation of the earlier orders/directions:

1 The removal of articles necessary for the conduct of pujas, rituals and other ceremonies from Kalaras ’C’ and ’D’ shall be done with the help of two Advocate Commissioners S/Sh B.R. Shyam and V. Suresh Kumar under the supervision of the Expert Committee. The Advocate Commissioners shall fully co-operate with the Expert Committee and abide by the directions that may be given by the Expert Committee from time to time.

2. In case, the Expert Committee finds that the Advocate Commissioners are not co-operating with it or not following its directions, it will be open to the Expert Committee to replace the above Advocate Commissioners by two other respectable devotees.

3. For the purposes of inventorisation of Kallaras ’C’ and ’D’, it is clarified that the help of the Advocate Commissioners is not required and the Expert Committee shall be free to open the Kallara ’C’ and ’D’ for the purpose of invento

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 2728

R.M.LODHA, A.K.PATNAIKMARTHANDA VARMA – AppellantVersusT. P. SUNDARA RAJAN – Respondent

R.M.LODHA, A.K.PATNAIK
MARTHANDA VARMA – Appellant
Versus
T. P. SUNDARA RAJAN – Respondent