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

AMITA KAUSHISH AND ORS. versus SANJAY KAUSHISH AND ORS.

Decided
16 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 442 · 1995 INSC 748
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

Leave granted.

p. 443, margin A

The impugned order is only a direction to list the appeal F AO (OS) No. 221/91 filed by the appellants for disposal pending in the High Court. The Division Bench by its order dated July 12, 1994 directed to list the appeal for final hearing on October 17, 1994 within first five cases. It would appear that there is long drawn litigation in,ter se parties. Since the time fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed of, we request the High Court to appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of this year.

p. 443, margin A

The learned counsel for the respondents stated that on account of the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.

p. 443, margin B

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. G.N. Appeal Disposed of.

p. 443, margin C