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

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND ORS. versus MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Decided
25 August 1998
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 124 · 1998 INSC 321
Also cited as
  • (1998) 7 SCC 445 (4 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
1 other citation string 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.

There is a delay of 2 years and 321 days in filing this review petition. The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and not at all reasonable. Besides, we also find that the petitioners had filed earlier also a review petition No. 214 of 1995 against the same order, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.2.1995. Both in the memorandum of the review petition and in the application seeking condonation of delay, though this fact is mentioned, but the number of the review petition has been left blank and so also the date on which the same was dismissed. This shows the casual manner in which this second review petition has been filed. Recourse to • 124 successive review petitions against the same order is not permissible more A so because no error apparent on the record had been brought out. It appears to us that the petitioners are unnecessarily taking liberties. The filing of the Second review petition is an abuse of the process of the court. We, therefore, dismiss this review petition both on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and on merits with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The directions with regard to disbursement of the costs shall be issued after the same are deposited in the Registry. R.P. Petition dismissed.

pp. 124–125, margin F