INDICARB LTD vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU — C.A. No. 936 - 938/2001
Case under Section Z_NOT KNOWN. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010129211997
Filing Date
04-Aug-1997
Registration No
C.A. No. 936 - 938/2001
Diary Number
12921/1997
Order Date
26-Apr-2004
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.INDICARB LTD
Adv. A. T. M. SAMPATH (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Adv. ANIL KATIYAR GUNTUR PRABHAKAR SINHA & DAS MUKESH K. GIRI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Apr-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Oct-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2003
ROPView PDF
-
19-Aug-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Aug-2003
ROPView PDF
-
08-Aug-2003
ROPView PDF
-
01-May-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Mar-2003
ROPView PDF
-
14-Feb-2003
ROPView PDF
-
28-Jan-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Nov-2002
ROPView PDF
-
23-Oct-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Sep-2002
ROPView PDF
-
06-Sep-2002
ROPView PDF
-
16-Aug-2002
ROPView PDF
-
12-Aug-2002
ROPView PDF
-
05-Aug-2002
ROPView PDF
-
29-Jul-2002
ROPView PDF
-
15-Jul-2002
ROPView PDF
-
10-Jul-2002
ROPView PDF
-
17-Jun-2002
ROPView PDF
-
09-May-2002
ROPView PDF
-
29-Apr-2002
ROPView PDF
-
12-Apr-2002
ROPView PDF
-
09-Apr-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Mar-2002
ROPView PDF
-
06-Mar-2002
ROPView PDF
-
20-Feb-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Jan-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Jan-2002
ROPView PDF
-
08-Jan-2002
ROPView PDF
-
24-Jul-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jul-2001
ROPView PDF
-
25-Jan-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jan-2001
ROPView PDF
-
04-Aug-1997
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 936 - 938/2001
On 26 April 2004, the Supreme Court heard Indicarb Ltd's interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 4-6) in civil appeals against the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court found that the main appeals had already been disposed of and accordingly dismissed the interlocutory applications, holding that no further orders were required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts