Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 1988

520 judgments, newest first — showing 401–520.

KRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC.versusGHOUSE BASHA

1987 INSC 2418 September 1987Dismissed

The landlord, who ran a leather business, sought eviction of his tenant under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises for the business of his two sons. The sons had entered into a partnership with unrelated persons, holding half the

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSREE SREE MA ENGINEERING & ANR.

1987 INSC 2428 September 1987Disposed off

The State of West Bengal appealed a High Court order that set aside an arbitral award concerning a silt‑clearance contract and appointed a new arbitrator. The original award, dated November 1966, was unsigned but had been acted upon by the parties and the sum awarded was paid. The respondent sought to set aside the awa

VASANT KUMAR JAISWALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1987 INSC 2438 September 1987Disposed off

The appellant, Vasant Kumar Jaiswal, challenged a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had held that, in the absence of any statutory rule or executive order, seniority in a grade must be determined by length of service. Jaiswal contended that Rules 12(b) and 12(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Gener

YOGENDRA MURARIversusSTATE OF U.P.

1988 INSC 2078 August 1988Dismissed

Yogendra Murari was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 after three violent incidents that disturbed public order. He challenged the detention on grounds that the order improperly included incidents unrelated to public order, was delayed beyond four months, was intended to defeat a bail order

DILBAGRAI PUNJABIversusSHARAD CHANDRA

1988 INSC 2088 August 1988Dismissed

In a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the plaintiff claimed personal necessity and ownership of a shop. The trial court and the Additional District Judge rejected his claim for lack of a partition deed proving ownership. The High Court reversed these findings, ho

B.B. RAJWANSHIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1988 INSC 1008 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a workman dismissed by his employer, obtained a favourable award from the Labour Court. Before publishing the award, the Uttar Pradesh Government exercised its power under sub‑section (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to remit the award for reconsideration, without giving notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (LAW)versusN. KANNAN NAIR & ORS.

1988 INSC 1018 April 1988Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of PWD contractors, purchased sand, bricks and other materials for repairing public roads under contracts with the Public Works Department. The Revenue assessed purchase tax on the turnover of these materials under Section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, arguing that the goo

DR. SHIVARAO SHANTARAM WAGLE & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 668 March 1988Dismissed

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to stop the release of 7,500 cartons of Irish butter imported for the Operation Flood programme, alleging that the butter was contaminated with radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster. The Bombay High Court declined to issue such a writ, holding that the matter was tech

DR. CHAKRADHAR PASWANversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1988 INSC 678 March 1988Dismissed

The State of Bihar created a Directorate of Indigenous Medicines with a Director and three Deputy Directors (Homeopathic, Unani, Ayurvedic). Using a 50‑point roster for reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, the government reserved the sole vacancy of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) for a Scheduled Caste ca

KANTA RANI © KANTI DEVI & ANR.versusRAMA RANI

1988 INSC 348 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff tenant Kishan Chand claimed a customary right of pre-emption over a portion of a building that had been sold to the respondent. He filed a suit for pre-emption, but died during the proceedings. His legal representatives applied under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC to be substituted as parties. The respondent

STATE OF GUJARATversusSUNIL FULCHAND SHAH & ANOTHER

1988 INSC 358 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat detained Sunil Fulchand Shah under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on grounds that linked him to a large smuggling operation. Co‑accused filed bail applications on 2 Oct 1984 and a retraction petition on 3 Oct 1984, which the detai

DELHI MUNICIPAL KARAMCHARI EKTA UNION (REGD.)versusP.L. SINGH & ORS.

1987 INSC 3627 December 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Municipal Corporation employed certain vaccinators/immunisers on a daily‑wage basis for more than eight years while regular employees performing the same duties received higher salaries. The daily‑rated workers sought regularisation and payment at the minimum rate of the regular pay‑scale, invoking Articles 1

STATE OF ORLSSA AND ANR.versusALEKH CHANDRA JENA

1987 INSC 3637 December 1987Appeal(s) allowed

A.C. Jena, the Sarpanch of Padanipal Gram Panchayat in Orissa, was suspended and later removed from office under Section 115 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, after a report by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and a notice giving him a chance to show cause. The Collector’s suspension order expressly stated that Jena’s

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHERversusSMT. SUSHILA MAFATLAL SHAH & OTHERS

1988 INSC 2647 September 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra detained Bhadresh Mafatlal Shah under the COFEPOSA Act after he was caught with gold biscuits. The detention order was issued by D.N. Capoor, a specially empowered officer, who informed the detainee that he could make representations only to the State and Central Governments. The detainee’s mot

RAGHUNATH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

1988 INSC 977 April 1988Dismissed

The petitioners' lands were targeted for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 through a Section 4 notification followed by a Section 6 declaration. They challenged the notification and declaration, alleging they were not heard and that the notification was issued mala fides. The government withdrew the firs

V.K. AGARWAL, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSversusVASANTRAJ BHAGWANJI BHATIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 997 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia and others for possession of primary gold under the Customs Act, 1969 (Sec. 111 read with Sec. 135); one respondent was convicted and two were acquitted. The same authorities later sought to prosecute the three respondents under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Sec. 85) for

MOHAN LAXMAN HEDEversusNOORMOHAMED ADAM SHAIKH

1988 INSC 967 April 1988Disposed off

Mohan Laxman Hede (appellant) was a tenant of a shop owned by Noormohamed Adam Shaikh (respondent). After being served a notice for rent arrears, the appellant paid the arrears and thereafter deposited rent in court at irregular intervals, sometimes a few days late and sometimes in advance. The respondent sued for poss

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1988 INSC 637 March 1988Dismissed

Continental Construction entered into a contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh for construction work and later claimed extra costs due to a rise in material and labour prices, alleging the State's delay in work allotment. The Superintending Engineer refused payment and declined to refer the dispute to arbitration, p

RAKESH KUMAR & SHRI SHAKTI KUMARversusHINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOL LTD.

1988 INSC 647 March 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords, Rakesh Kumar and Shri Shakti Kumar, leased two shops to Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. under a lease requiring rent in advance. The tenant fell into arrears for February, March and April 1982, prompting the landlords to serve a reminder notice on 8 March 1982 and a termination notice on 19 April 1982 demand

SMT. ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 3626 December 1988Case Allowed

Two Delhi Police personnel, Ram Ratan (Head Constable) and Hawa Singh (Constable), were arrested for assaulting a rickshaw puller and seizing TV parts, offences under IPC sections 392 and 34. While the criminal case was pending, the Commissioner of Police detained them under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1

HARI NATH AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1987 INSC 3156 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

In November 1973 a dacoity occurred at Gangaram Yadav's house, resulting in the death of two brothers. The accused were arrested on 9 November 1973, but a test identification parade was conducted only on 5 March 1974, nearly four months later. Three eye‑witnesses, who were relatives of the victims, identified the accus

STATE OF U.P.versusKAMAL KISHORE SAINI

1987 INSC 3166 November 1987Dismissed

Kamal Kishore Saini was detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on three criminal grounds. He challenged the detention before the Allahabad High Court, which quashed the order on the ground that he was not supplied with vital documents (statements under Sec. 161 CrPC, applications of co‑accused,

GANGARAMversusN. SHANKAR REDDY

1988 INSC 3146 October 1988Case Allowed

The respondent, who owned building No.1‑1‑249 and used it for residence and business, purchased the adjoining building No.1‑1‑250 where the appellant was already operating a shop and residing. The respondent sought eviction of the appellant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction

SMT. SARLA NARULAversusSMT. RAGHBIR KAUR REHAL & ANR.

1987 INSC 2706 October 1987Dismissed

The landlady, residing abroad, sought to evict the tenant of a premises leased to M/s Bharat Carbons & Ribbons Manufacturing Co. under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bona‑fide necessity. The tenant company had abandoned the premises, and the appellant – the widow of a former employee of the company – applie

A. SUDHAversusUNIVERSITY OF MYSORE & ANR.

1987 INSC 2716 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

A. Sudha, who had secured 54.7% in her B.Sc. but only 43.1% in the PUC (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), was admitted to a private medical college based on a letter from the college principal stating she was eligible for MBBS admission. The university later cancelled her admission, citing the requirement of at least 50% m

GOPAL SINGH & ANR.versusDILE RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

1987 INSC 2726 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The widow Mst. Shem inherited her husband's property in 1942 with only a life interest. In 1943 she executed a deed of gift in favour of Shri Dhari, the father of the appellants, but a suit filed by the respondents led to a compromise decree declaring the gift ineffective and providing that the land would be divided af

KUSHESHWAR DUBEYversusBHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS.

1988 INSC 2636 September 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an electrical helper at Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., was charged with assaulting a supervising officer and faced both a criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings initiated by his employer. He filed a civil suit seeking an injunction to stay the disciplinary action pending the outcome of the criminal

STATE OF HARYANAversusRAM KISHAN & ORS.

1988 INSC 1476 May 1988Dismissed

The State of Haryana, having granted ten‑year mining leases for silica sand and ordinary sand to private lessees under the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, later terminated those leases prematurely under Section 4A, citing a request from the Central Government and the readiness of the public secto

TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 1486 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (the appellant) manufactured wheels, tyres and axles for Indian Railways, forging them and then machining and polishing to remove excess steel skin. The Revenue argued that the goods became a new commercial commodity after machining, making them liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 in a

GURU GOVEKARversusMISS FILOMENA F. LOBO & ORS.

1988 INSC 1506 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

A car owned by a firm was sent to Guru Govekar's workshop for electrical repairs. While the mechanic Momad Donttach was working on the vehicle, it moved and struck Miss Filomena F. Lobo, causing injuries. Lobo filed a claim under section 111-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation. The Motor Accidents C

PIARA LALversusKEWAL KRISHAN CHOPRA

1988 INSC 1526 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, occupied four ground‑floor rooms under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The roof of one room collapsed and the tenant repaired it after obtaining permission under Section 12 of the Act. The landlord sought eviction, first on bona‑fide occupation grounds and later added a claim

N.K. SANGHI, PARTNER OF M/S SANGHI BROTHERSversusCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, RAJASTHAN

1988 INSC 1536 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Motilal Sanghi gifted Rs.1,00,000 to his four sons, who immediately invested the amounts in a partnership firm, Sanghi Brothers, in which Motilal also held an 8‑annas share. After Motilal's death, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held the sum chargeable under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, but the Appe

BHUPINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1988 INSC 936 April 1988Dismissed

Bhupinder Singh, his father Sher Singh and mother Mukhtiar Kaur were convicted of murdering Bhupinder's wife Gian Kaur by administering an organophosphorus poison, motivated by dowry demands. The trial and High Courts upheld the conviction of Bhupinder and Sher, acquitting Mukhtiar. On appeal, the Supreme Court examine

INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONversusINDIAN CARBON LTD.

1988 INSC 946 April 1988

Indian Oil Corporation (petitioner) sold raw petroleum coke to Indian Carbon Ltd (respondent) under three agreements that provided for shifting of coke and interest on unpaid stock. After payment default, Indian Oil obtained attachment of coke, terminated the agreements and the dispute over interest and shifting charge

BABU RAM & ORS.versusGRAM SABHA BUHAVI & ANR.

1988 INSC 956 April 1988Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit in a Subordinate Court seeking a declaration of ownership over 124 acres, asserting that the Gram Sabha had no interest. The trial court transferred the suit to the Assistant Collector under Section 13B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, on the ground that the dispute

MINERVA TALKIES, BANGALORE & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.

1988 INSC 16 January 1988Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Karnataka's Rule 41-A, limiting cinema owners to four daily shows, was within the rule‑making power granted by Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1964, and whether it violated the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court held

FIRM SAGARMAL VISHNU BHAGWANversusGAURI SHANKAR AND ORS.

1988 INSC 3125 October 1988Case Allowed

The appellant, a tenant of a Nohara, was sued by the landlord for rent recovery and eviction, alleging default and material alteration after the tenant raised the walls. The trial court found no arrears and held that the wall‑raising was with the landlord's consent and did not amount to a material alteration under the

GIRJA SHANKAR TIWARI AND ANR.versusHIRDAY RANJAN CHAKRABORTY AND ANR.

1988 INSC 3135 October 1988Case Allowed

The premises in Rae Bareli were originally let to M/s. Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya in 1946-47. The Aushadhalaya ceased operations in 1976, but its employee, Hirday Ranjan Chakraborty, continued to occupy the shop and paid rent in the name of the former tenant. The appellant, brother‑in‑law of the landlords, filed an ap

P. GANESHWAR RAO & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

1988 INSC 2615 September 1988Disposed off

The State of Andhra Pradesh sought to fill 51 Assistant Engineer vacancies that had arisen in 1978‑79 by direct recruitment under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Service (Special) Rules, 1963. An amendment to the Rules on 28 April 1980 changed the recruitment formula to 37½% of substantive vacancies "arisi

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAYversusITALINDIA COTTON CO. (P) LTD.

1988 INSC 2625 September 1988Dismissed

The assessee, Italindia Cotton Co. Ltd., incurred a loss in the assessment year 1960‑61 and sought to set off that loss against income in the assessment year 1963‑64. A change in shareholding occurred in 1963, and the Income‑Tax Officer denied the set‑off under Section 79 of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that

BUDHU MAL ETC.,versusMAHABIR PRASAD & ORS., ETC.

1988 INSC 2055 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Mahabir Prasad, the landlord, executed a deed in 1966 granting the rent benefits of certain premises to his grandsons and their mother, Smt. Sulochana Devi, and instructed the tenants to pay rent to her. He later executed a cancellation deed in 1970, revoking that benefit, and sued the tenants for arrears of rent, clai

SARDAR HUSSAIN & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1988 INSC 2065 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sardar Hussain and a co‑accused, were charged with murdering Islam, the younger brother of PW 1, to conceal a fraudulent sale deed that purportedly transferred Islam's land to the wife of appellant No. 1. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence: a motive derived from the alleged fraud,

FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.versusKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER

1988 INSC 1415 May 1988Dismissed

Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd entered into a 1948 agreement with the princely State of Travancore for electricity at a fixed rate, later succeeded by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). In 1968 KSEB raised the tariff for the appellant to Rs.200 per kW per year under Regulation 11 of the 1966 General Tar

JAIN EXPORTS (P) LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 1435 May 1988Dismissed

Jain Exports (P) Ltd. and its managing director imported two consignments of refined industrial coconut oil in September 1982. The Customs Collector issued show‑cause notices alleging that industrial coconut oil was a canalised item under Appendix 9 para 5 of the Import Policy 1980‑81 and ordered confiscation under sec

TATA TEA LTD. & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ETC.

1988 INSC 1445 May 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by Tata Tea Ltd. and other tea companies challenging amendments made by the West Bengal and Kerala legislatures that sought to tax the entire income from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessees. The petitioners argued that only 60% of such income could be

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusL.K. AHUJA & CO.

1988 INSC 925 April 1988Dismissed

The Union of India entered into four construction contracts with L.K. Ahuja & Co., which were completed and final bills were accepted. Later the respondent claimed a balance of Rs 1,91,137 and sought arbitration, but the government replied that no dispute existed. The respondent filed an application under Section 20 of

STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERSversusCONSTRUCTION INDIA

1987 INSC 3584 December 1987Dismissed

The State of Orissa entered into a contract with Construction India in 1970‑71. An arbitrator appointed by the court awarded relief in 1982, including interest calculated from the date of reference to the arbitrator up to the date of the award. The award was challenged on the ground that it was unreasoned and that the

FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1987 INSC 3594 December 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd filed its quarterly sales‑tax returns a few days late without seeking a formal extension, but it paid the tax before the due dates and claimed the 1% rebate under section 15 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal and the High Court held that because the returns were not filed

PARADISE PRINTERS AND ORS.versusUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

1987 INSC 3604 December 1987Dismissed

The Chandigarh administration sought to relocate scattered printing presses to an industrial area, initially earmarking 43 larger sites in Phase‑II and inviting applications with a 10% earnest money deposit. After lots were drawn in 1977 awarding sites to the appellants, the administration abandoned the Phase‑II scheme

UJAGAR PRINTS ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1988 INSC 3434 November 1988Disposed off

The petitioners, processors of grey cotton and man‑made fabrics, challenged the levy of excise duty on operations such as bleaching, dyeing and printing, arguing that these were merely processing and not "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Gujarat High Court held the opposite

POMAL KANJI GOVINDJI & ORS.versusVRAJLAL KARSANDAS PUROHIT & ORS.

1988 INSC 3444 November 1988Dismissed

The plaintiffs sought redemption of a 99‑year mortgage executed in 1943 and possession of the mortgaged urban property from tenants inducted by the mortgagees. The mortgage deed imposed harsh conditions, including a clause that interest on a portion of the loan could be paid only at redemption after 99 years, effective

JOHNEY D' COUTOversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1987 INSC 3124 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a young clearing and forwarding agent, was detained under section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. At the Advisory Board hearing, he requested that a retired Assistant Collector of Central Excise assist him as a "friend," but the Board refu

STATE OF U.P., ETC.versusRAFIQUDDIN & ORS. ETC.

1987 INSC 3134 November 1987Directions issued

The case concerned the seniority of Munsifs appointed to the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva after competitive examinations held in 1970, 1972 and 1973. The Public Service Commission had fixed minimum marks of 35% in the viva voce test for the 1970 exam; candidates who failed this were placed on a "third list" (the "unplaced

MOHAMMAD SWALLEH & ORS.versusIIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT & ANR.

1987 INSC 3144 November 1987Dismissed

The landlord obtained permission to evict tenants under Section 3 of the 1947 U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, which became final after a rejected revision. He filed a suit for eviction, which was later dismissed on a technical ground. Subsequently, relying on Section 43(2)(rr) of the 1972 U.P. Urban Bu

OM PALversusANAND SWARUP (DEAD BY LRS.)

1988 INSC 3094 October 1988Case Allowed

Om Pal, a tenant, leased a shop for a dry‑cleaning business and installed a wooden parchhati (balcony) on the wall. The landlord sought eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging that the construction materially impaired the building's value or utility. The Rent Cont

ALL INDIA SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONversusDEFENCE MINISTER-CUM-CHAIRMAN BOARD OF GOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI & ORS.

1988 INSC 3104 October 1988Disposed off

The All India Sainik Schools Employees Association filed a petition under Article 32 seeking a mandamus directing the Sainik School Society to grant its employees the same service benefits and equal pay as those of Kendriya Vidyalaya (KVS) staff. The Court examined whether the Society, a body registered under the Socie

MANMOHAN KAURversusSURYA KANT BHAGWANDI

1988 INSC 3114 October 1988Disposed off

Manmohan Kaur, a tenant, was ordered by the trial court to deposit rent monthly. She failed to deposit rent for November and December 1986 due to a genuine mistake, believing her son had paid. The landlord sought to strike out her defence under Section 13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1

AELTEMESH REIN, ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 2034 August 1988Disposed off

The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed a writ petition alleging that he was handcuffed while being taken to court and that the Union Government had failed to issue guidelines on handcuffing as required by the Prem Kumar Shukla judgment. The petition also sought a mandamus directing the Central Government to bring

INDIAN RAYON CORPN. LTD.versusRAUNAQ & COMPANY PVT. LTD.

1988 INSC 2044 August 1988Dismissed

The award in a dispute between Indian Rayon Corp. Ltd. and Raunaq & Co. was filed in the Calcutta High Court on 4 February 1977. The appellant claimed the award had been wrongly filed and sought a notice of filing; the court issued a notice on 30 July 1981. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the award on 18

MARKANDEY SINGH, I.P.S., & ORS.versusM.L. BRANOT, I.P.S., & ORS.

1988 INSC 1344 May 1988Dismissed

Markandey Singh, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police in Uttar Pradesh, was absorbed into the Himachal Pradesh‑Delhi joint IPS cadre in 1963 and was allotted the year 1958 as his year of allotment. He later claimed that his officiation as Superintendent of Police while on deputation from 6 December 1961 to 13 May 1

MUKUL DALAL ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1988 INSC 1354 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the State of Maharashtra appointed Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors for their cases under CrPC sections 24(8) and 25(1) respectively, with the remuneration to be borne by the private complainants as per Rule 22

D.N. TANEJAversusBHAJAN LAL

1988 INSC 1364 May 1988Dismissed

D.N. Taneja filed a criminal contempt petition against Bhajan Lal, alleging that the latter used his position to intimidate a forest officer and interfere with a writ petition. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Single Judge dismissed the contempt application, holding that the case was not fit for the court to exercise it

BHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

1988 INSC 1374 May 1988Dismissed

Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd., a registered dealer under the Punjab and Haryana sales‑tax Acts, filed returns for the years 1968‑69 to 1974‑75. The assessing authority issued notices under the respective statutes and the company complied, but later issued further notices seeking additional documents. The company challenged t

JETHA BAI & SONS, JEW TOWN, COCHIN, ETC. ETC.versusSUNDERDAS RATHENAI, ETC. ETC .

1988 INSC 334 February 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a further revision by a High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible against a District Court's revisional order made under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1965. Earlier decisions – Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai (Kerala)

SMT. KULDIP KAURversusSURINDER SINGH AND ANR.

1988 INSC 3423 November 1988Case Allowed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, who had been awarded maintenance for herself and her child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The husband, respondent No.1, failed to pay the ordered amount, accruing arrears of Rs.5,090. While executing the maintenance order, the magi

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusNAY SWADESHI OIL MILLS

1987 INSC 3063 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against High Court decisions that set aside sales‑tax assessments made on returns filed after the prescribed filing date. The assessments were passed more than four years but within six years from the end of the assessment year. The Court examined the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Ta

BALWANT KAURversusUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

1987 INSC 3073 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Balwant Kaur was convicted for the murder of her husband, Pritam Singh, based primarily on the testimony of co‑accused Ram Sarup, who turned approver. The prosecution alleged that Kaur conspired with Nand Singh and Sarup to murder her husband and that she had urged them to do so. The Supreme Court examined whether the

KAMAL SINGH GHUGTYALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 3093 November 1987Dismissed

Kamal Singh Ghugtyal, a former Havildar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a pension under the Army Pension Regulations, claiming more than 15 years of service in the regular army, including a stint in the Lok Sahayak Sena (LSS). The respondents produced service records showing his actual army tenure amoun

SUBHASH BHANDARI & ANR. ETC.versusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW & ORS.

1987 INSC 3103 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, contractors for supplying ballast to the Public Works Department, were detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on grounds that they had attacked a rival contractor with firearms and grenades, allegedly to intimidate him and influence tendering. They challenged the detention, argui

MAHARAJA PILLAI LAKSHMI AMMALversusMAHARAJA PILLAI THILLANAYAKOM PILLAI AND ANOTHER

1987 INSC 3113 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

A family partition deed allotted certain 'A' schedule properties to Maharaja Pillai, and after his death his widow was given the right to receive income from those properties for her maintenance. One of Maharaja Pillai's sons sued for a one‑third share in the properties. The trial court held that the widow enjoyed an a

PRABHAKARAN NAIR, ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

1987 INSC 2373 September 1987Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of sections 14(1)(b), 16(2) and 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging that they were arbitrary, discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The case arose from an eviction order under section 14(1)(b) for demoliti

O.P. GUPTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 2383 September 1987Appeal(s) allowed

O.P. Gupta, an Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department, was suspended in 1959 pending a departmental enquiry that lingered for over a decade. He was reinstated in 1970 but the enquiry continued, leading to his compulsory retirement in 1972. The Delhi High Court quashed the retirement, held the suspens

ABHAY SINGH SURANAversusINDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD.

1988 INSC 2013 August 1988Disposed off

Abhay Singh Surana, the landlord of a godown, sued Jayshree Textiles (later amalgamated with Indian Rayon) for eviction and faced a title suit for injunction. He applied under Clause 13 of the 1865 Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court to have both suits transferred to the High Court, citing the respondent's dilato

SURINDER NATH KAPOORversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 2023 August 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a garnishee order issued under section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which sought payment of Rs.8,56,377.55 despite the notice specifying only Rs.2,86,450. The Court held that because the amount in the order was not mentioned in the notice, the garnishee order was a nullity and any s

KEHAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE (DELHI ADMN.)

1988 INSC 2003 August 1988Disposed off

The case arises from the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her security guards Beant Singh and Satwant Singh. The trial was held in Tihar Jail pursuant to a High Court notification. The Supreme Court considered whether the trial in jail violated the right to open public trial, whethe

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusDHARANGADHARA TRADING CO. LTD.

1988 INSC 1293 May 1988Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu challenged the tax treatment of sales made by Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. (the manufacturer) to Dharangadhara Trading Co. Ltd. (the trading company). The parties had a general agreement under which the trading company obtained orders from out‑of‑state buyers and the manufacturer booked the

BANARSI LALversusSMT. SAGHIRAN BEGUM

1988 INSC 1283 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant's shop, with the trial court ordering each party to bear its own costs. While the appeal was pending, the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force, requiring a tenant to deposit the landlord's full costs

SALIM RAJMOHMAD MUSLIMversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

1988 INSC 1313 May 1988Case Allowed

The petitioner, Salim Rajmohmad Muslim, was detained under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 on 11 June 1987. He filed a representation on 15 July 1987 to both the detaining authority (Police Commissioner, Surat) and the State Government, alleging that neither had considered it

KALYAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.versusUSHA PAPER PRODUCTS (P) LTD. & ANR.

1988 INSC 1323 May 1988Dismissed

The Kalyan Municipal Council levied property tax on Usha Paper Products Ltd for the years 1970-71 to 1972-73. After detecting new construction, the Council increased the rateable value of the property by a resolution on 3 October 1973 and served a notice under Section 123(1) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, issui

R.M. RAMUALversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS.

1988 INSC 3612 December 1988Case Allowed

The appellant, a Reception Officer who had been temporarily promoted to District Public Relations Officer, challenged an order that placed him below two Tourist Officers transferred from Punjab in the seniority list of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department. The High Court had dismissed his writ petition, holding that

BRIJENDRA NATH BHARGAVA & ANR.versusHARSH WARDHAN & ORS.

1987 INSC 3562 December 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The tenants appealed an eviction order that was based on an alleged material alteration – the construction of a wooden balcony (Dochhatti) – without the landlord's permission under Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court upheld th

RAM KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 3572 December 1987Disposed off

The petitioners, casual labourers employed for 10-16 years in the Northern Railway's construction department, filed writ petitions alleging they were denied temporary status, equal pay, and regularisation despite continuous service. The respondents contended that some petitioners had already been empanelled or given te

AMAR SINGH JAGRAM (DEAD) BY LRS.versusCHANDGI S/O DEEP CHAND

1988 INSC 3402 November 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, where the landowner Chandgi was allotted substituted parcels of land and the tenants Amar Singh and Jagram, who had been non‑occupancy tenants of the original holding, were not given c

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSANTIRAM GHOSH AND ORS.

1988 INSC 3412 November 1988Dismissed

The Union of India appealed a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had set aside an award of a Board of Arbitrators and directed that Scientific Assistants of the Botanical Survey of India receive the Rs.550‑900 pay scale. The Board had been tasked only with deciding whether the revised scale of Rs.550

M.S. JAGADAMBALversusSOUTHERN INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST & ORS.

1987 INSC 3042 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

M.S. Jagadambal, the widow of Nagappa Naicker, sued the Southern Indian Education Trust and others to recover a low‑lying, seasonally submerged parcel of land (described as a "pit" or "Pallam") that her husband had purchased in 1929. She claimed continuous possession by her husband and herself and alleged that the resp

P.N. KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

1987 INSC 3052 November 1987Disposed off

The petitioners, a company and its secretary, challenged a tax demand order issued by the Deputy Assessor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, seeking a writ of certiorari under Article 32 of the Constitution. They asked the Supreme Court to quash the composite tax demand of Rs.14,07,328. The Court examined whether s

VIKRAM DEO SINGH TOMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1988 INSC 1972 August 1988Disposed off

A writ petition was filed after a voluntary organisation reported inhuman conditions at a Bihar "Care Home" for female inmates. The Supreme Court, after a district judge’s inspection, found the facility to be a dilapidated, overcrowded hovel lacking basic amenities, adequate food, clothing, water, sanitation, and medic

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRASversusINDIAN OXYGEN LTD.

1988 INSC 1992 August 1988Dismissed

Indian Oxygen Ltd., a manufacturer of dissolved acetylene and compressed oxygen gases, supplied the gases in cylinders. Some customers used their own cylinders while others used cylinders supplied by the company, for which the company charged a rental fee and took a deposit on which a notional 18% interest was calculat

BIRAD MAL SINGHVIversusANAND PUROHIT

1988 INSC 1982 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the election of B.M. Singhvi from the Jodhpur City Assembly constituency. The petition alleged that three candidates – Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi – were improperly rejected, contending that Ben’s nomination should have been accepted despite

MAKHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1988 INSC 1712 July 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Makhan Singh was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 201 for the murder of his father Banta Singh and grandson Seva Singh, based on alleged motive over land, a claim that he was the last person seen with the victims, an extra‑judicial confession to Amrik Singh, a statement under Evidence Act s.27 that led to the disco

JAIPAL & OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

1988 INSC 1702 June 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, appointed as instructors under the centrally funded Adult and Non‑formal Education Scheme in Haryana, were paid a fixed salary of Rs.200 per month and treated as temporary employees, while squad teachers under the State Social Education Scheme were regularised with a pay scale of Rs.420‑700. The petiti

ALL INDIA REPORTER KARAMCHARI SANGH & ORS.versusALL INDIA REPORTER LIMITED AND ORS.

1988 INSC 1252 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

All India Reporter Ltd publishes several law reports and argued that these publications are not "newspapers" within the meaning of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1955, and therefore its employees were not entitled to the wage benefits ordered by the Palekar Tribunal.

CHUHARMAL S/0 TAKARMAL MOHNANIversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M.P., BHOPAL

1988 INSC 1262 May 1988Dismissed

The petitioner, Chuharmal, filed an income‑tax return for AY 1974‑75 showing a total income of Rs 3,113. During a customs search in May 1973, 565 foreign watches valued at Rs 87,455 were seized from his bedroom. The Income‑Tax Officer issued notices under s.69A of the Income Tax Act to treat the value of the watches as

CHUHARMALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 1272 May 1988Dismissed

In 1973 the Customs authorities seized 565 foreign wrist watches from the petitioner’s residence and issued a show‑cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act. The Collector later extended the statutory six‑month period for issuing the notice under the proviso to section 110(2) and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,00

AWADHESH & ANR.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1988 INSC 912 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Ram Pratap Singh was shot at an Octroi toll barrier; the State charged Awadhesh and Brajendra under IPC 302 read with 34 (and 307) based largely on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya. The trial court found the eye‑witness accounts unreliable, noted contradictions in their

NAGAR MAHAPALIKA BAREILLYversusSTATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

1988 INSC 322 February 1988Dismissed

The Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly imposed octroi duty on country spirit supplied from a bonded warehouse at a rate of Re 1 per litre, classifying it under Class VI of a 1986 notification as "foreign imported liquor and all kinds of wines made in India." The respondents, licensed retailers of country liquor, contended that

SANT LAL BHARTIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1987 INSC 3541 December 1987Dismissed

Sant Lal Bharti, claiming ownership of premises in Punjab, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and alleged unreasonableness. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine bec

HANUMANT KUMAR TELESARAversusMOHAN LAL

1987 INSC 3551 December 1987Dismissed

The respondent mortgaged his shop and handed possession to the mortgagees, who subsequently let the premises to the appellant as a tenant. The respondent sued for redemption of the mortgage and vacant possession; the mortgage was redeemed and an order was made to give possession to the respondent. The tenant sought to

AMMAL CHANDRA DUTTversusIIND ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE & ORS.

1988 INSC 3381 November 1988Dismissed

The tenant A.C. Duti challenged the order of the Appellate Authority that allowed the landlord to recover possession of the ground floor of a three‑storey house on the ground of the landlord's own requirement. The landlord had previously applied for eviction in 1967 under the 1947 Rent Act, which was rejected, and agai

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusR. NARASIMHAN

1988 INSC 1951 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

R. Narasimhan, a Class III railway servant governed by the pension rules, was compulsorily retired in 1982 under para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual, which allows retirement after 30 years of qualifying service. He challenged the order, arguing that the manual provision was void and that only Rule 2046 of the Indian

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U.P. LUCKNOWversusMOOL CHAND SHYAM LAL, BELANGANJ, AGRA

1988 INSC 1961 August 1988Dismissed

The appellant, Commissioner of Sales Tax, assessed a penalty on the respondent, a roller flour mill dealer, for allegedly realizing excess amounts as wheat purchase tax, sales tax, and octroi beyond what was legally payable under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The dealer had been authorised by a government notification to rec

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search