Smt. Shashi Kanta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Nitin Rathee, Advocate, for the respondents.…
Judgment
Smt. Shashi Kanta and others. VERSUS Union of India and others. .. Petitioners .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Nitin Rathee, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide separate order, the plaintiffs-petitioners have been relegated to avail the remedy under Order 43 Rule 1 (na) CPC, against the order of rejecting application for permission to sue as indigent person. In case the said appeal is allowed the petitioners will have got a right either to contest the suit as indigent persons and in case the appeal is dismissed, the petitioners will be given . . . 1 C.R. No.3270 of 2007 opportunity to affix the Court fee. In view of above observations, order dated
9.6.2007, is hereby set aside subject to the final decision in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner within a period of one month against the order dated 1.9.2006 rejecting the application for permission to sue as indigent person. January 31, 2012. JUDGE (M.M.S.BEDI) . . . 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 31 Jan 2012. The bench was M M S BEDI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.