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

ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Decided
10 January 2014
Judges listed
S.S. NIJJAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 929 · 2014 INSC 906

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

I.A. No. 3 and 4 The application for impleadment is dismissed.

p. 930, margin B

So far as Dr. Abraham is concerned, remarks have been made only for the purpose

p. 930, margin C

the Writ Petition and shall have no bearing on of Dr. Abraham.

p. 930, margin C

With the above observation, the application is disposed of.

p. 930, margin D

1

A. No.5 This is an application filed by the petitioner certain remarks made in paragraph 63 of the We have perused the application, which an affidavit, and heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, counsel; Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel Luthra, learned ASG. It would appear to us that the observations bonafides of the petitioner need to be expunged. of such remarks, in our opinion, would not in the Writ Petition and this has also been specifically by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel Accordingly, we expunge the remarks made is "acting at the behest of some other interested parties". We A also expunge the remarks that the petitioner may have filed the petition with an "ulterior motive at the interest of some other person". Furthermore, the remarks that the petitioner may be acting as a "surrogate for some powerful phantom lobbies shall also be expunged". The remarks that "the petitioner had earlier B filed writ petitions, in which identical relief had been claimed and the same had been dismissed", shall also be expunged. Furthermore, the remark that the petitioner is a "stool pigeon" and acting on the directions of some business houses is also expunged. c With these observations, this application is disposed of. R.P. Applications disposed of.

pp. 930–931, margin D