PRAKASH SONI vs DEEPAK KUMAR . — C.A. No. 6388/2009

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010030022007

Filing Date

27-Jan-2007

Registration No

C.A. No. 6388/2009

Diary Number

3002/2007

Order Date

15-Sep-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2017 INSC 952

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRAKASH SONI

    Adv. PRATIBHA JAIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DEEPAK KUMAR .

    Adv. SHAKIL AHMED SYED (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Sep-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 15-Sep-2017

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 15-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

  5. 07-Sep-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 06-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

  7. 05-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 07-Feb-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 26-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 11-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 21-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 18-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 07-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 23-Mar-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 27-Jan-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 6388/2009

  16. [ 2017 INSC 952 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 006388/2009 (Prakash Soni v. Deepak Kumar) The Supreme Court allowed Dr. Prakash Soni's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the first appellate court's order. The case involved competing claims to the retiral benefits of deceased teacher Srimati Mooli Swarnkar. The Court rejected the alleged will executed on her deathbed (18.11.2001) as surrounded by suspicious circumstances: the testator was gravely ill with liver cancer, her hands were shivering while signing, she died hours later, signatures didn't match prior documents, and nomination forms favoring respondents were executed just two days before death. The Court held that the appellant husband, as successor, is entitled to all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, G.P.F., and insurance. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case