Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sheila Sebastian vs R.Jawaharaj on 16 November, 2016
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
REVISED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.359-360 OF 2010
SHEILA SEBASTIAN APPELLANT
VERSUS
R.JAWAHARAJ & ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Though prima facie in the death certificate, there appears to be an inconsistency in the surname of the deceased Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2010, it is apparent that the person dead is the same as is discernible from the name of his father-Gnanamuthu Nadar. In the above view of the matter, the aforementioned appeal stands abated against Respondent No.1.
.....................J. (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16, 2016 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RASHI GUPTA Date: 2016.11.30 16:53:12 IST Reason: REVISED ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIC S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal Nos. 359-360/2010 SHEILA SEBASTIAN Appellant(s) VERSUS R.JAWAHARAJ & ORS. Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 16/11/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY [IN CHAMBERS] For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Mukherjee, Adv.
For Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR For Respondent(s) M/s. Legion Of Lawyers UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Though prima facie in the death certificate, there appears to be an inconsistency in the surname of the deceased Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2010, it is apparent that the person dead is the same as is discernible from the name of his father-Gnanamuthu Nadar.
In the above view of the matter, the aforementioned appeal stands abated against Respondent No.1.
(RASHI GUPTA) (RENU DIWAN)
SR.P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[REVISED SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.359-360 OF 2010 SHEILA SEBASTIAN APPELLANT VERSUS R.JAWAHARAJ & ORS. RESPONDENTS O R D E R Though prima facie in the death certificate, there appears to be an inconsistency in the surname of the deceased Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2010, it is apparent that the person dead is the same as is discernible from the name of his father-Rajamani Nadar.
In the above view of the matter, the aforementioned appeal stands abated against Respondent No.1.
.....................J. (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16, 2016 ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIC S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal Nos. 359-360/2010 SHEILA SEBASTIAN Appellant(s) VERSUS R.JAWAHARAJ & ORS. Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 16/11/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY [IN CHAMBERS] For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Mukherjee, Adv.
For Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR For Respondent(s) M/s. Legion Of Lawyers UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Though prima facie in the death certificate, there appears to be an inconsistency in the surname of the deceased Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2010, it is apparent that the person dead is the same as is discernible from the name of his father-Rajamani Nadar.
In the above view of the matter, the aforementioned appeal stands abated against Respondent No.1.
(RASHI GUPTA) (RENU DIWAN)
SR.P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]