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

RAM PRAKASH SHARMA versus BABULAL IRLA (D) BY LRS. & OTHERS

Decided
12 May 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
IA disposed

Citations

Official
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 757 · 2011 INSC 391
Also cited as
  • (2011) 6 SCC 449 (3 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

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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Taken on Board. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 758, margin A

In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force.

p. 758, margin B

We further make it clear that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt 1roceedings or any other proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction that when tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own.

p. 758, margin C

If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance.

p. 758, margin E

The Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly. N.J. Interlocutory Application allowed.

p. 758, margin F