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

DEVI LAL AND ANR. versus MOHAN PRASAD AND ANR.

Decided
9 May 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 651 · 1996 INSC 653

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioners pray in these petitions, among other things, lo recall our order dated 8.1.1996. They say that the counsel who appeared for them did not inform the result and the undertaking they were required tu give to vacate tht: pren1iscs. Tht.:y v.'ere not ~crve<l \Vith the da.'>ti .service: in the contempt proceedings and, therefore, they were unaware uf the proceedings that took place in this Court. Consequently, they were wrongly convicted. Their special leave petition against order of eviction upheld by the High ('ourt dismissed. Time, at rcqBcst, was g1ven to deliver vacant possef'sion after expiry of the time and \vritten undL;rtaking was given. It is loo much Lo accept such contentions. lt is not is dispute that Mrs. Gyan Sudha Misra, counsel appearing on their behalf had filed the SLP. It is not their case that they made enquiry of the result of the case in this Court. It would be normal practice. unless contrary is proved, that the counsel who appeared for the petitioners duly would intimate the result of the order passed by this Court. Undt;r these circumstances, this Court cannot investigate into the fact whether the counsel for the petitioners had communicated the order ur not. It is not their case that they have vacated the premises after the SLP came to be dismissed by this Court after expiry of given period. The postal service of notice in contempt petition has not been effected. Consequently, we directed service by dasti so that personal notice could be given to the petitione" by the respondents. An affidavit has been tiled by Mohan Prasad, son of Dwarka Prasad, the respondent in the SLP and the petitioner in the contempt petition, wherein he has stated that he had taken the service personally to the respondents and sought to serve on them. They had declined lo receive the notice. Thus, service of notice could not be effected through dasti. We do not find that any case is made out to recall the order directjng them to undergo sentence of six months awarded in the contempt case.

p. 652, margin A

All the I.As. arc accordingly disposed of. R.P. Petition dismissed of.

p. 652, margin F