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

SHANTILAL MANGANLAL AND ANR. versus CHUNNILAL RANCHODDAS THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Decided
24 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. 205 · 1984 INSC 128
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J, This~pplication for Review is nothin~ short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of the time of this Court, time which has now become so dear and prec'ous because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a review ismen tioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first paragraph of the petition it is stated "This is an application for Review of the order dated 9.12. 83, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the above Snecial Leave to Appeal (Civil). The said order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition. for Special Leave to Appeal. ft is submitted that since ·the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the ca,e, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order". Jn the second paragrnph we are told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is even mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If so advised, further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of the Hon'ble Court" The petition was filed on 9 1.1984 and nothing has been done though more than six months have passed since then. The offer to file detailed grounds remains an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not to be thrown away after bad. To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared. We must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and petitions for review are being filed. The present application is entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed. S.R. Petition dismissed.

pp. 205–206, margin G