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

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SMT. DARSHNA DEVI

Decided
22 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
IA disposed

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 839 · 1996 INSC 112

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.

This Court by order dated March 2, 1995 disposed of the appeal in the light of the earlier law laid down this Court. Review petitions in these appeals were filed and the same came to be dismissed on May 10, 1995. Now these applications have been filed after changing the counsel, for clarification and modification of the order. IA. No. in CA No. 3450/95

p. 839, margin F

When this Court asked the counsel as to under what provisions of law these applications are maintainable, the counsel found himself unable to bring to our notice any provision under which this application could be entertained. The counsel state that the Court can do it under its inherent power. Inherent power is meant only to correct orders when other remedy is not available. Since the remedy by way of review under the rules of this Court has been provided for and has been availed of, the inherent power cannot be invoked again for further clarification or modification. It would be an obvious abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.

pp. 839–840, margin G

The I.A. is accordingly dismissed. IA. Nos. in C4 Nos. 3451-3520/95

p. 840, margin B

If the decree is not drawn in accordance with the directions of this Court, then remedy would be open to the petitioners to have that decree corrected according to law. l.A.S. are accordingly disposed of. G.N. I.AS. disposed of.

p. 840, margin C