D. SENTHILKUMAR AND ORS. KHAITAN & CO.[R-1] IV-A CAMPCO AND ORS. [P-2], [P-3] UNION OF INDIA GURMEET SINGH (C.A. 5336/2025)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · C.A. 5336/2025

Case Record

C.A. 5336/2025

D. SENTHILKUMAR AND ORS. KHAITAN & CO.[R-1] IV-A CAMPCO AND ORS. [P-2], [P-3] UNION OF INDIA GURMEET SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

C.A.Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay

10 PDF renditions· 10 distinct judicial orders· 7 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

D.KOTHAI Versus D. SENTHIL KUMAR & ORS.. C.A. 5336/2025 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010581972024. Status on the court record: DISPOSED. This page is written from 7 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 17 April 2025 to 13 October 2025.

On 17 April 2025 the order records: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. Delay condoned.
On 28 April 2025 the order records: 1. Application for condondation of delay in filing the spare copies is condoned in Civil Appeal No.3796/2025. 2. Parties to this litigation are related to each other. We believe that they must sit and try to resolve their disputes.
On 13 October 2025 the order records: 1. The appeal is disposed in terms of the signed order. 2. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Issues Before Court

The orders on this record do not frame issues for decision.

Procedural History

17 April 2025. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. Delay condoned.
28 April 2025. 1. Application for condondation of delay in filing the spare copies is condoned in Civil Appeal No.3796/2025. 2. Parties to this litigation are related to each other. We believe that they must sit and try to resolve their disputes.
18 August 2025. As prayed for, list on 22-8-2025.
1 September 2025. List the matters on 15.09.2025 in the first five matters on the Board.
15 September 2025. List on 07.10.2025 on top of the board.
7 October 2025. List on 13-10-2025 on top of the Board.
13 October 2025. 1. The appeal is disposed in terms of the signed order. 2. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Mrs. Prabha Swami, Ms. Divya Swami, Mr. Nikhil Swami, Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., Mr. Surya Teja Nalla, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Mr. Shyam Gopal, Mr. P.krishnadevan Advocates — Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Nikhilesh Roa, Mr. Sahil Narang, Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Madhvam Sharma, Mr. Aditya Sethi, Mr. Yash Johri, Dr. A.m. Singhvi, Mr. Madhavam Sharma, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi

Relief Sought & Granted

On 13 October 2025 the order records: In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.3796 of 2025, this appeal also stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Subjects

Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay

Current position

DISPOSED · Latest recorded event 13 Oct 2025

Latest development

Latest recorded event 13 Oct 2025

Final disposition

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.3796 of 2025, this appeal also stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Important procedural note

Written only from 7 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added. 3 other files in the folder were left out.