SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1235

A.K.MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU
NARPAT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION – Respondent


( 1 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) I. A. Nos. 15-16 for clarification and direction of Court's Order dated 3-5-2007 are totally misconceived. Moreover, ordinarily No I. A. lies after a case is finally disposed of. Ordinarily, an I. A. is maintainable only in a pending case. Once a case is finally disposed of the Court becomes functus officio, and thereafter an I. A. lies ordinarily only for correcting clerical or accidental mistakes. The same are accordingly, dismissed.

( 3 ) PUT up the Contempt Petitions (C) No. 151-152 of 2007 in Civil Appeal No. 2181-2182 of 2001 after six months. Application dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top