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

2002 Supreme(Ker) 236

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR
S. Karunakara Kurup – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerela – Respondent


Judgment :-

Heard all parties.

2. This Writ appeal hads been placed before me pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed on 3-4-2002 for consideration. That order, in turn, was passed pursuant to a detailed judicial order passed on 19-3-02 by a Full Bench of which the Hon'ble Chief Justice was one of the parties.

3. A peresal of the said judicial order shows that based on the difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench which heard W.W.No.1175/96, the matter had been referred to the said Full Bench for consideration. The Full Bench, however, did not find it necessary to consider the case. It declined to answer the reference and directed the Registry to place records before the Hon'ble Chef Justice for reference to a third Judge in view of Sec.23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act which provides that in case of disagreement between the two Judges of the Division Bench, the Chief Justices can refer it to a third Judge for opinion.

4. In view of the turn of events as aforementioned, It so happens that there is no specific question referred to me for decision. I have therefore to cull out from the differing Judjements of the two learned Judges

























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