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 12]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

S. Sivaguru vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 April, 2014

>CHAMBER MATTERS                                             SECTION XII


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

REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 638-640 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL
4483-4485/2013

S. SIVAGURU                                                Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS                                  Respondent(s)


(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing review petition,oral hearing
and office report )

with

REVIEW PETITIN(C) NOS. 649-650 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4503-4504 OF 2013

Date: 09/04/2014         These Petitions were circulated today.

CORAM :
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR


                              By Circulation



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

The applications for oral hearing are rejected. Delay condoned.

The review petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS.638-640 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4483-4485 OF 2013 S. SIVAGURU Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS Respondent(s) W I T H REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS.649-650 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4503-4504 OF 2013 O R D E R The present review petitions have been filed seeking review of the Order dated 7.5.2013 whereby the Civil Appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed.

The applications for oral hearing are rejected. Delay condoned.

Having gone through the review petitions and the connected papers, we do not find any ground to review the aforementioned order. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

.........................J. (Surinder Singh Nijjar) ........................J. (J. Chelameswar) New Delhi, April 09, 2014.