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

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Decided
14 May 2015
Judges listed
H.L. DATTU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 638 · 2015 INSC 410
Also cited as
  • (2015) 8 SCC 583 (6 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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel has brought to our notice the clerical/typographical error which has occurred in the judgment dated 14.5.2015 pronounced by the Constitution Bench in the WP(C)No. 1072/2013 authored by one of us (A.K.Sikri,J.). It is pointed out that in para 24 of the said judgment where this Court has held Section 409 (3)(a) and (c) are invalid, clause (c) has been wrongly typed instead of clause (e) of Section 409 (3). Submission of Mr Patwalia appears to be correct, as clause ( c) was not even the subject matter of challenge. The correction is carried out accordingly. Nidhi Jain Correction made earlier Judgment.

p. 689, margin E