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

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA versus KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC

Decided
24 April 2023
Judges listed
K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1133 · 2023 INSC 1090

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This application is filed by the applicant/appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated 27th March, 2023 passed by this Court. The relief sought in the prayer, inter alia, is as follows:- “(I) Clarify ‘Para 51’of the Judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court to the eff ect that the said judgment is only restricted to answering the issue referred to the larger bench and that several other issues which have been raised in the appeal would have to be considered by the appropriate bench of this Hon’ble Court till which time the impugned order of the High Court granting default bail, cannot be upheld by holding the same to be either correct or found to be in order.”

p. 1134

2

Heard Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

p. 1134

3

The paragraph-51 in the Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702 of 2020 pronounced on 27.03.2023 by this Court following correction, should now read as under:- “51. Following the above discussion and opinion, the impugned order of the High Court granting default bail to the respondents by applying the proviso (a) (ii) of Section 167(2) CrPC is found to be in order in terms of the reference made before this Court in respect of question referred before this Court and answered by us. Hence, we also uphold the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. Any other pending issues arising from these appeals are to be addressed by an appropriate Bench of this Court.”

pp. 1134–1135

4

The Interlocutory Application No.74084 of 2023 is allowed.

p. 1135

5

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

p. 1135