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

CHANDRASHEKHAR GAJANAN BHOGAONKAR versus YESHWANT DHONDI POTDAR AND ORS

Decided
28 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 117 · 1995 INSC 507

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.

Leave granted.

p. 117, margin G

Notice was issued with a view to impress upon the parties to settle the dispute amicably and learned counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that he is not informed about the settlement and, therefore, he is unable to impress upon them to enter into any compromise.

pp. 117–118, margin G

Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contended on merits that the trial Court was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. We do not want to go into the controversy as to who is in possession of the land. It is true that the trial court on p1i.• na acie evidence found that the appellant was in possession o1 the land. It was further found that irreparable injury would be caused to him if ad interim injunction is granted. On appeal, the District Judge re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. High Court did not interfere on being approached under Article 227.

p. 118, margin A

At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the case and the findings of the courts below, which would have adverse effect on the respective interests of the parties. The issue was of prim a f acie case and of balance of convenience to grant or to refuse ad interim injunction.

p. 118, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 118, margin D