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

BHARAT BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD. AND ORS. versus PARIJAT FLAT OWNERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

Decided
4 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 24 · 1996 INSC 488
Also cited as
  • (1999) 5 SCC 622 (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.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. 24, margin F

While we are hearing the matter on the procedural part of listing for admission of the writ petitions filed under Articles n6, 227 of the Constitution of India in Bombay High Court, Mr. Anil B. Diwan, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated that a direction may be given to place this matter before the Division Bench for disposal. We think that the appropriate course would be that the matter may be placed before the Division Bench. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to place the matter before the Division Bench presided over by him or some other Bench for final disposal. We are informed that against the suit for specific performance decreed by the Civil Judge, City Civil Court, P.A.

p. 24, margin F

No. 869/92 has been filed and the Cdurl has directed that the appeal also may be tagged along with the writ petition. We are informed that the matter has already been lagged with the writ petition. In that view of the matter, it would be expedient that both the matters may be disposed of together by the Division Bench. We are informed that the respondents are also anxious to have the matter disposed of. Under these circumstances, we request the High Court have the matters disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.

p. 25, margin A

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 25, margin B