Supreme Court of India

MS. EERA THROUGH DR. MANJULA KRIPPENDORF versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Decided: 21 July 2017
Judges listed: DIPAK MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Disposed off

Citations

Official

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 924 · 2017 INSC 658

Also cited as

(2017) 15 SCC 133 (23 citing judgments)
2017 SCC OnLine SC 787 (3 citing judgments)
AIR 2017 SC 3457 (2 citing judgments)
(2018) 1 SCC(CRI) 588 (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.

Not shown

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

Cited by

Cited in 12 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR. versus S. HARISH & ORS. 23 September 2024 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 55
NAWABUDDIN versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 8 February 2022 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 9
BANK OF BARODA & ANR versus MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED & ORS. 18 January 2022 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 49
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS NO. 45 E AND 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus M. HAKEEM & ANR. 20 July 2021 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 45
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. 19 March 2021 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 43

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.