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 GOA AND ANR. versus SMT. S.A. ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC.

Decided
15 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 491 · 1996 INSC 393

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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 491, margin F

The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Babua Ram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 68.9.

p. 491, margin F

Following the judgment, the appeals are allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed;

p. 491, margin G