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

2006 Supreme(Kar) 540

B.PADMARAJ, S.ABDUL NAZEER
MALLIKARJUN NINGAPPA RAGATI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


PADMARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THERE is no appearance for the appellants when the matter has reached and taken up for hearing though the appellants have appeared through their counsel and the cause list indicated the name of the learned counsel for the appellants. There was absolutely no representation on behalf of the appellants when the appeal had reached for final hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not turn up to argue the matter though we waited for quite some time. This appeal being of the year 2003 and there being no representation on behalf of the appellants, we had no other alternative except to proceed with the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants for the reason that we cannot dismiss the criminal appeal for default. It is needless to point out that the criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default and it has to be disposed of only on merits. Under the circumstances therefore, to be fair to the appellants, we thought it just and proper to appoint an Amicus curiae for the appellants to argue the matter and also to assist the Court in disposing of the appeal on merits. Under the circumstances, we deem it proper to appoint an amicu








































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