MALATI BAI vs SHRIKANT . — SLP(C) No. 22353/2008

Case under Section IV-C. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010240992008

Filing Date

22-Aug-2008

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 22353/2008

Diary Number

24099/2008

Order Date

02-Apr-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV-C

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MALATI BAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHRIKANT .

    Adv. VAIJAYANTHI GIRISH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 09-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 05-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 23-Mar-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 07-Dec-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 23-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 28-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 25-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 15-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 30-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 10-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 17-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 17-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 13-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 19-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 09-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 22-Aug-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(C) No. 22353/2008

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of SLP(C) No. 022353/2008 – Malati Bai v. Shrikant Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on April 2, 2013. The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision, finding no error in dismissing Malati Bai's second appeal. The respondents' suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with their property possession was upheld, and the release deed dated May 4, 1994 was deemed valid and binding. Reasoning: The Court noted that although Malati Bai filed a counter-claim challenging the validity of the release deed at the trial court, she failed to appeal or file a cross-objection when the trial court decided against her on this issue. Therefore, the High Court correctly refused to reconsider the matter in the second appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case