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

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI AND ORS.

Decided
26 October 1998
Judges listed
S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 359 · 1998 INSC 400
Also cited as
  • (1998) 8 SCC 1 (445 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1999 SC 22 (96 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0664/1998 (15 citing judgments)
  • JT 1998 (7) SC 243 (10 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1998 SCW 3345 (3 citing judgments)
  • 1998 SCC OnLine SC 663 (2 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
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 34 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

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.