Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Mohd. Abdul Rahim vs S.B.I on 12 August, 2014

               CHAMBER MATTER                                         SECTION XII

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   R.P.(C) No. 754/2014 In C.A. No. 5472/2013

               MOHD. ABDUL RAHIM                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                    VERSUS

               S.B.I & ANR                                        Respondent(s)
               (with appln(s) for c/delay in filing review petition)


               Date : 12/08/2014 This petition was circulated today.

               CORAM :
                                 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
                                 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI

                                        By Circulation


                              UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
                                                 O R D E R

Delay condoned.

The review petition is dismissed.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Assistant Registrar [signed order is placed on the file] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Parveen Kumar Chawla Date: 2014.08.12 18:47:42 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 754 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5472 OF 2013 Mohammed Abdul Rahim ... Petitioner versus State Bank of India and another ... Respondents O R D E R Delay of 17 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

Civil Appeal No.5472 of 2013 was allowed vide this Court’s judgment dated 15.7.2013. Aggrieved theiragainst, the petitioner, who was the respondent in the civil appeal, has preferred the instant petition for review.

We have carefully perused the petition for review and the papers annexed in support thereof. We do not find any ground therein warranting reconsideration of the judgment of this Court dated 15.7.2013.

The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

...................................................J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar) ....................................................J. (Ranjan Gogoi) New Delhi;

August 12, 2014.