Supreme Court of India

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, IAS AND ANR.

Decided: 10 August 2006
Judges listed: ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official

[2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 450 · 2006 INSC 505

Also cited as

(2006) 7 SCC 188 (28 citing judgments)
AIR 2006 SC 2872 (23 citing judgments)
(2006) 3 SCC(CRI) 233 (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.

Not shown

1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 7 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE versus M. MURUGESAN & ANR. 15 January 2020 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 7
SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU 7 May 2019 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 23
INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POWDER METALLURGY AND NEW MATERIALS (ARCI) &ORS. versus NIMRA CERGLASS TECHNICS (P) LTD.&ANR. 22 September 2015 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 12
STATE OF PUNJAB versus DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC 7 December 2011 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 33
DHARIWAL TOBAGO PRODUCTS LTD. AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER 17 December 2008 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 13

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

We show no paragraphs for this judgment: the judgment's start was not found in our copy, so its stored text may include the editorial headnote; we could not check the quote or pin-cite against it.