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

NIRMA LTD. versus M/S. LURGI LENTJES ENERGIETECHNIK GHBH AND ANR.

Decided
14 January 2002
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 911 · 2002 INSC 23
Not shown
2 other citation strings 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.

This is a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking leave to file civil appeal against an appellate order of City Civil Court No. 11 Ahmedabad, 'passed under sub-Section (2) of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition inasmuch as, in our opinion, an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a revision in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Merely because a second appeal against an appellate order is barred by the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 37, the remedy of revision does not cease to be available to the petitioner, for the City Civil Court deciding an appeal under sub-Section (2) of Section 37 remains a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the C.P.C. In taking this view, we find support from a decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder Agarwal and Co. v. Union of India, [1996] 2 sec 132. ·

pp. 911–912, margin G

The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner may file a revision before the High Court and in calculating the limitation, the petitioner shall be entitled to exclusion of time spent in this Court, i.e., between the date of filing of the special leave petition and today. RP. Petition dismissed.

p. 912, margin C