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

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus MANISHA DWIVEDI AND ANR.

Decided
31 August 2001
Judges listed
S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 475 · 2001 INSC 416

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.

The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 (in fact it is found to be 12.1.2001). Notice was issued on the appeal leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents filed IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts were not brought to the notice of the Court.

p. 476, margin A

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

p. 476, margin B

We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits for two reasons; first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2001; ifthat were to be correct there was no dealy in filing the special petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it turns out that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 and on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a case of typographical error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year which remains unexplained and, therefore, the special leave petitions cannot be entertained. Secondly, the impugned order is only an interlocutory order and the Writ Petition is still pending. This Court will not normally execrise its jursidiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except in special circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court. We do not find any special circumstances warranting our intereferece in this case.

p. 476, margin B

Interlocutory applications are allowed and the special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly. R.P. Petitions dismissed and IA 's allowed.

p. 476, margin E