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

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

Decided
1 December 2017
Judges listed
RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Heard

Citations

Official
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 137 · 2017 INSC 1143

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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Paragraph. I I of the Judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013 reads as follows:- "11. As the final disposal of the appeal may take some time,we are of the view that 50% of the compensation that is presently . lying in deposit in the Registry in terms of the Order dated 24.02.2012 should be released to the claimant on due identification."

p. 137, margin E

Upon a mention being made by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), the said paragraph will now be read to mean that the . amount lying in deposit in the trial Court be released to the claimant(s) on due identification.

p. 137, margin F