Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Supreme Court of India

Papanna & Anr. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 1 November, 1995

Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (1) 291, JT 1995 (8) 107, AIRONLINE 1995 SC 172, 1996 (10) SCC 95, 1996 HRR 83, (1996) 1 ICC 5, (1996) 1 LAND LR 205, (1995) 4 CUR CC 78, 1996 (1) SCC 291, (1995) 4 SCJ 346, (1995) 2 RENT LR 689, (1996) 27 ALL LR 133, (1996) LACC 133, (1995) 8 JT 107, (1996) 2 LS 5, 1995 SCC (SUPP) 4 670, (1996) 1 ICC 6, (1995) 4 SCJ 340, (1996) 1 LANDLR 204, (1996) 27 ALL LR 104, (1996) 1 ICC 4, (1995) 4 SCJ 414, (1995) 2 RENTLR 687, (1996) LACC 131, (1995) 8 JT 94 (SC), (1995) 8 JT 154 (SC), (1995) 8 JT 107 (SC), (2004) 15 ALLINDCAS 40, (2004) 3 ALLMR 808, (2004) ILR 2 SC 153, ILR 2019 CHH 1435

Author: K. Ramaswamy

Bench: K. Ramaswamy, B.N Kirpal

           PETITIONER:
PAPANNA & ANR. ETC.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1995

BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:
 1996 SCC  (1) 291	  JT 1995 (8)	107
 1995 SCALE  (6)220


ACT:



HEADNOTE:



JUDGMENT:

W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6260 OF 1983 O R D E R After Mr. K.N. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry had issued notices to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except appellant No.2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered appearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on\record. It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties. However, it has already been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of he Land Acquisition Act being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant have not been brought on record till date.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.