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

MOTILAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided
5 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. 303 · 2009 INSC 676
Also cited as
  • AIR 2009 SC 2790 (2 citing judgments)
  • (2009) 7 SCC 454 (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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2003. NANO KISHORE @ NANDA

p. 307, margin G

Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT(S) A In view of judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 117/2003 this appeal deserves to succeed which we direct.

pp. 307–308, margin G

Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2003. STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S)

p. 308

Versus PHOOL CHAND AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

p. 308

..

p. 308

Opinion 2

In view of judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 117/2003 this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct.

p. 308

Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2003. STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S)

p. 308

Versus MOTi LAL AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

p. 308

Opinion 3

E In view of judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 117/2003 this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.

p. 308