CHAMAN LAL SARAF (DEAD)BY LRS. . vs STATE OF HARYANA — SLP(Crl) No. 2238/1995

Case under Section II-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010082371995

Filing Date

05-Jul-1995

Registration No

SLP(Crl) No. 2238/1995

Diary Number

8237/1995

Order Date

03-Dec-2014

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHAMAN LAL SARAF (DEAD)BY LRS. .

    Adv. NAVIN CHAWLA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

    Adv. S. SRINIVASAN (Dead / Retired / Elevated) ASHOK K. MAHAJAN PREM MALHOTRA MONIKA GUSAIN (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Dec-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 03-Dec-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 23-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 23-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 10-Mar-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 10-Jan-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 03-Dec-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 26-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 25-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 14-Feb-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 05-Jul-1995

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(Crl) No. 2238/1995

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: SLP(Crl) No. 002238/1995 – Chaman Lal Saraf v. State of Haryana Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed Crl.M.P. No.10148 of 2013 (seeking clarification of a November 3, 2003 order) with costs, finding the application vexatious and an abuse of court process. The applicant Ramphal, a police officer dismissed for alleged custodial torture of the original petitioners, repeatedly attempted circumventing prior court orders blocking his reinstatement. Key Issue: Whether to clarify the Court's 2003 order refusing to permit Ramphal's reinstatement. The Court held the order required no clarification and was comprehensive; the applicant had deliberately misled courts across multiple proceedings spanning decades to secure reinstatement or retiral benefits contrary to explicit Supreme Court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case