Supreme Court of India

A. AYYASAMY versus A. PARAMASIVAM & ORS.

Decided: 4 October 2016
Judges listed: A.K. SIKRI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official

[2016] 11 S.C.R. 521 · 2016 INSC 948

Also cited as

(2016) 10 SCC 386 (82 citing judgments)
AIR 2016 SC 4675 (10 citing judgments)
(2017) 1 SCC(CIV) 79 (5 citing judgments)
2016 SCC OnLine SC 1110 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 10 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

K. MANGAYARKARASI & ANR. versus N.J. SUNDARESAN & ANR. 9 May 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 9 and 1 other paragraph
ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED versus SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED 2 May 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 22
SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI & ORS. versus B. UDAYASRI 5 October 2023 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 17
INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED versus KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) & ORS. 26 March 2021 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 23
VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS versus DURGA TRADING CORPORATION 14 December 2020 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 56

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

We show no paragraphs for this judgment: the judgment's start was not found in our copy, so its stored text may include the editorial headnote; we could not check the quote or pin-cite against it.