Supreme Court of India

SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: 2015 INSC 314
Decided: 10 April 2015
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: F M IBRAHIM KALIFULLASHIVA KIRTI SINGH

Holding

IA No.6 was dismissed as not pressed, and IA No.7 was allowed in terms of prayer ‘a’.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered two interlocutory applications (IA No.6 and IA No.7) filed in Civil Appeals Nos. 226‑227 of 2015 arising out of Swapna Sukumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. The applicant indicated that IA No.6 was not to be pressed, and the Court dismissed it as not pressed. IA No.7 was examined and the Court allowed it in accordance with prayer ‘a’ of the application. No substantive merits of the underlying appeals were addressed in the order. The order was delivered by Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Shiva Kirti Singh.

Issues considered

Whether IA No.6 should be dismissed as not pressed.
Whether IA No.7 should be allowed as per the prayer sought.

Subjects

interlocutory applicationdismissalallowanceservice lawappointmentSupreme Court

Judgment

                   (2015] 4 S.C.R. 341


              SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.                         A
                             v.
               STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
             I.A. NO. 6/2015 & I.A.NO. 7/2015
                                                            B
                             IN
             (Civil Appeal Nos.226-22712015)
                     APRIL 10, 2015
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, AND
                                                            c
             SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

   Service law: Appointment -Case reported in 2015 (1)
SCR 875 - IA - Dismissed as not pressed.
                                                            D
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A 6 & 7 of
2015.
                             IN
    Civil Appeal No. 226-227 of 2015                        E
    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2013 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (KAT) No. 1643 of
2013 and OP (KAT) No. 1861 of 2013.
                                                            F
    K. Rajeev for the Appellants.
     Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Chandrani Prasad, Himinder
Lal, Jogy Scaria, Apoorv Damodaran, Liz Mathew, Temple
Law Firm for the Respondents.
                                                            G
    The following order of the Court was delivered
                            ORDER

                            341                             H
342          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 4 S.C.R.


A          I.A. N0.6

           Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits
      that the applicant does not want to press this I.A. The I.A. is,
      accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
B
           I.A. N0.7

           I.A. No.7 is allowed in terms of prayer 'a'.
      Devika Gujral                                   I.As disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "interlocutory application"Sign in to search