The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an interlocutory order. The Court declined to interfere as the third respondent had filed a vacate stay petition before the Single Judge to vacate that order, rendering interference unnecessary at this stage.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT APPEAL No.1489 OF 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan)
We have heard Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, who has challenged the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge essentially in his favour.
2
therefore, refuse to entertain the Writ Appeal and dismiss it without prejudice to the appellant’s right to prosecute the matter further before the learned Single Judge and also without prejudice to the third respondent’s right to prosecute the vacate stay petition before the learned Single Judge.
consideration before the learned Single Judge.
pending in the Writ Appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ
S.V. BHATT, J
12 th November, 2018.
Pnb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the interlocutory order since a vacate stay petition is pending before the Single Judge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Writ Petitioner-Appellant
State
Third Respondent
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
