Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SUKH DEO NARAIN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided
20 July 1984
Judges listed
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 199 · 1984 INSC 125

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

J. This petition is totally bereft of any statement of facts. It has been drafted and filed in a most casual and careless manne~. All that is stated in the petition is that th~ Writ Petition pending· in the Rajasthan High Court raises exactly the same questions as those raised in SLP (Civil) No. 7561/83 pending in th;s Court and the writ petition may, therefore, be transferrcd to this Court. • Nothing else is mentioned. No facts relating to either case are mentioned. Even the alleged common questions are not stated. We can only say that it is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The advocate is not discharging his duty either to the court or to the client.

p. 200, margin A

Transfer petition is dismissed. H.S.K. Petition dismissed.

p. 200, margin C

~···

p. 200, margin D