Supreme Court of India

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus PRANAY SETHI AND ORS.

Decided: 31 October 2017
Judges listed: DIPAK MISRA, A.K. SIKRI, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.M. KHANWILKAR, ASHOK BHUSHAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Reference answered

Citations

Official

[2017] 13 S.C.R. 100 · 2017 INSC 1068

Also cited as

(2017) 16 SCC 680 (397 citing judgments)
AIR 2017 SC 5157 (125 citing judgments)
(2018) 3 SCC(CIV) 248 (39 citing judgments)
(2018) 2 SCC(CRI) 205 (38 citing judgments)
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270 (17 citing judgments)
MANU/SC/1366/2017 (14 citing judgments)
(2017) 13 SCALE 12 (13 citing judgments)
JT 2017 (10) SC 450 (3 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

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

Cited by

Cited in 24 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

RASHMIREKHA TRIPATHY AND ANR. versus THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL CLAIMS), SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. 1 July 2026 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 22
V. PATHMAVATHI & ORS. versus BHARTHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR. 6 February 2026 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 26 and 2 other paragraphs
PREETHA KRISHNAN & ORS. versus THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. 6 November 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 19
SANKAR PADAM THAPA versus VIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL 9 October 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 32 and 2 other paragraphs
HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL versus BABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI & ANR. 8 August 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 13

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.