E. V. Satish @ Satish Kumar vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Not Reached / Adjourned
Before:
Hon'ble Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CRIMINAL CASES
Remarks:
Leave Granted / Rule NISI / Appeal Admitted
Listed On:
30 Jan 2024
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
226915/2023,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.27
COURT NO.6
SECTION II
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14941/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-07-2023 in CRLP No. 7216/2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati)
E.V. SATISH @ SATISH KUMAR & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
$Respondent(s)$
(IA No. 226915/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date: 30-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s)
| Mr. Y.V. Anil Kumar, Adv. | |
|---|---|
| Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. | |
| Mr. Yashvir Kumar, Adv. | |
| Ms. Lothungbeni T. Lotha, Adv. | |
| Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. | |
| M/s. AG Veritas Law, AOR | |
| For Respondent(s) | |
| Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR | |
| Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. | |
| Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. | |
| Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. | |
| Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. | |
| Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv. | |
| Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv. | |
| Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. | |
| Ms. Ruhini Dey, Adv. | |
| Mrs. S. Yamunah Nachiar, AOR | |
| ature Not Verified | UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following |
| ally signed by<br>bak Guglani | 0 R D E R |
Heard Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 (informant).
The State of Andhra Pradesh is also represented by the learned counsel.
In the judgment dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure P-6), in the Original Suit No. 9/2013, there is a clear finding that the sale agreement dated 02.07.2009 (Exhibit A-1), is not a forged document. The suit, however, was dismissed taking into account other grounds.
Leave granted. The interim order shall continue until further orders.
(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2