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

SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. versus SAGI SUBBA RAJU AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
6 May 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 260 · 2009 INSC 724
Also cited as
  • (2009) 7 SCC 460 (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.

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

When the matter was taken up on 3.2.2009, the Court passed the following order. "When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.N. Rao, A learned senior counsel brought to the notice that I.A.Nos. 9 to 11/2008 had been filed for transposing the applicants as petitioners. It is also prayed that they may be transposed as petitioner Nos. 2 <md 3 from proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in speqial !eave petition ag<1inst the order in ~PA No. No. 323191. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 from respondent Nos. 1 and ~ in speo!!'ll !e11vei petition a~ainst the order in Appeal too. 2959/2001 and Appeal No. 2960/2001. This application is filed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, a statement was made on 25.8.2008 by !earned counsel for respondent 1 that the petitioner had died. Learned counsel wanted to obtain further instructions in the matter. Thereafter it appears that a copy of affida'li!_ has been .... ser\ted on learned counsel for the petitioners as well, some of the respondents that Sunkara Lakshminarasamma had D died about 1 and 1/2 years earlier. The affidavit is dated 26.12.2008. A copy has been filed for our record by learned counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed by Sunkara lakshmf narasamma which has been filed on 30th January, 2009 stating that the affidavit filed by E Sunkara Kamala is wrong and she is alive and a false affidavit has been flied. In view of the aforesaid position, let notice be issued to Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall not been taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose of this case as is evident from the fact that copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks. '. ~. Personal presence is dispensed with for the present. The matter shall be listed on 24th February, 200¥.

pp. 260–261, margin G

2

In view of the statement made, notice was issued to Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose of this case as is evident from the fact that the copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply was to be filed within two weeks. At that stage personal appearance was dispensed with.

pp. 261–262

3

When the matter was listed on 4.3.2009, in spite of the directions of this Court, the respondent did not file any reply. This is apparently a clear case of contempt as false affidavit has been filed. On 8.9.2008 it was brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that after verification from his clients he has ascertained that Mrs. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Thawala Divya Sarojini Kasidevi are alive.

p. 262, margin A

4

The affidavit which has been filed on 26.12.2008 states as follows: "I, Smt. Sunkara Kalama @ Dorasani W/o late S. Veeraswamy Rio Bhimavaram, Distt. East Godhavari do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the daughter-in-law of Sunkara Lakshminarasamma. I am well conversant with the facts, records and circumstances of the case. Hence I am competent to swear in this affidavit. 2. I say that my mother-in-law had died one year and six month ago. I have filed an application for transposing as a petitioner in the above special leave petition and state that the averments facts made therein are true to my knowledge and information derived from the record of the case. 3. I say that the averments of facts stated herein above are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Bhimavaram on this 26th day of December, 2008"

pp. 262–263, margin C

5

After the statements made by learned counsel for petitioners that those whom the contemnor has named as dead are alive there is no denial of the statements. Opportunity was granted to the concerned respondents to clarify the position that has not been done.

p. 263, margin A

6

The application was made for transposition petitioners in the special leave petitions. In view of the apparent false statement stated in the affidavit, it is clear that application filed and the affidavit thereafter re-affirming position were not done bona fide. That being so, the applicants on the face of it are guilty of contempt of this Court. Exemplarf costs of Rs.25,000/- is imposed. The amount shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two months. If the amount is paid the contemnor shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

p. 263, margin A

7

Ordered accordingly. N.J. Applicants held guilty of contempt.

p. 263, margin D