Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 1996

1,311 judgments, newest first — showing 601–800.

PADANATHIL RUGMINI AMMAversusP.K. ABDULLA

1996 INSC 8717 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a leasehold property originally owned by a Tarwad, which was taken by an ex parte decree in 1942 and sold at a court auction to the decree‑holder Mohammed Haji. The decree‑holder subsequently leased the land to Raghavan Nair, whose rights were later assigned to P.K. Abdulla, the respondent. The e

HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATIONversusRAM AVTAR AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8817 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Avtar, a Mali‑cum‑Chowkidar employed by Haryana Warehousing Corporation, was stopped at the efficiency bar for the years 1988 and 1989 and faced adverse remarks in his 1986‑87 confidential report. He challenged the orders through writ petitions; the High Court dismissed the first petition but allowed the second, di

KESAVENCHARI GOPALKRISHNAN ACHARIversusVELU ACHARI PAPPUKUTTY ACHARI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8917 January 1996Dismissed

The case concerned a partition suit over land originally owned by Ummini, whose five sisters inherited his interest and executed an Ottikuzhikanam deed in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant later released his interest to the second defendant, who also obtained a sale deed from a man claiming to be Ummin

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusP.S. RAMAKRISHNA

1996 INSC 8017 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from an order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting a service matter involving P.S. Ramakrishna. The appellant argued that a notice sent on 28 September 1993, which was returned marked “Not present”, should be deemed served on the respondent. The Tribunal had not treated the notice as serv

N. NARASIMHAIAH AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8217 January 1996Dismissed

The State of Karnataka and the Union of India issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire 114 acres for the Defence Research & Development Organisation, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A by invoking Section 17(4) and publishing a declaration under Section 6 on June 2

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.versusL. KRISHNAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8317 January 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu against a Madras High Court order that had quashed a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that it was vague because the development scheme was not fully formulated. The Court held that a scheme need not be comple

UMRAH KHATOONversusMD. ZAFIR KHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148816 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Umrah Khatoon filed a suit claiming an easement right to discharge drain water over the land of Md. Zafir Khan. The trial court decreed in her favour and the first appellate court affirmed the decree. The High Court reversed, holding the suit non‑maintainable because the plaint also asserted title to the land, deeming

BALBIR CHANDversusTHE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148916 December 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a manager of the Food Corporation of India, was removed from service after a joint disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to verify a fraudulent transport contract obtained by a notorious contractor impersonating another person. The petitioner challenged the validity of

P. THAMPANversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 149016 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Reserved Police Constable, applied for recruitment to the post of Sub‑Inspector under Government Order No. G.O. Ms. No. 55/66/HOME dated 11 February 1966, which permitted graduates employed in any branch of the police department and within the age limit to apply. He was rejected on the ground that he w

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusN.R. BANERJEE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 149116 December 1996Dismissed

The case concerned promotion to the post of Senior General Manager in the Indian Ordinance Factories under the Indian Ordinance Factories Service Rules. The Union of India argued that the Central Administrative Tribunal erred by directing the government to ignore the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of 1994 and to co

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD AND ORS.versusDR. ANAND PRAKASH MISHRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 149216 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Allahabad University had begun recruitment for two Reader posts before the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Act, 1994 came into force. After the Act became effective (retrospectively from 11 December 1993), the Chancellor directed the Vice‑Chancellor to a

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusDHARAM SINGH

1996 INSC 149316 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab initiated disciplinary action against Dharm Singh for failing to report for duty during his suspension from 21 November 1991 to 31 October 1992. An inquiry concluded that his absence was wilful, leading to his removal from service. The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the removal on the ground

KULDIP SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 105716 September 1996Dismissed

Head Constable Kuldip Singh was dismissed from the Punjab Police without a departmental enquiry under proviso (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry because witnesses feared for their lives. The dismissal was based primarily on a confession he

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKANWAR KUMAR MEHTA AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 105816 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted 5,000 plots in Rohini, Delhi, but a stay ordered by the High Court on land acquisition delayed issuance of allotment letters. After the stay was vacated, the DDA recalculated plot costs using a cost‑of‑living index escalation of 16.62% per annum, whereas the High Court had

PFIZER LTD.versusMAZDOOR CONGRESS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 89216 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Pfizer Ltd., a pharmaceutical manufacturer, terminated two security staff members (respondents) after they were arrested for alleged theft, invoking its standing order for loss of confidence. The respondents filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour

SRI M.A. RAJASEKHARversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA.AND ANR.

1996 INSC 89316 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Tehsildar, challenged an adverse remark in his 1988‑89 Annual Confidential Report that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma." The Supreme Court held that adverse remarks must be based on specific instances and the officer must be given an opportunity to respond. Since the remark was

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAYversusT.P. KUMARAN

1996 INSC 89416 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an Income‑Tax Officer, was dismissed from service and filed a suit challenging his dismissal. The suit was decreed, resulting in his reinstatement, but the arrears of salary were not paid, prompting a writ petition in the High Court which ordered payment of all arrears. After the arrears were paid, the

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusG.M. HAYATH

1996 INSC 89716 August 1996Dismissed

The State of Karnataka initiated disciplinary proceedings against G.M. Hayath under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka State Police Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, 1965, alleging that he had submitted a false income certificate at recruitment, claiming his father's income exceeded the Rs 1,000 per annum ceiling. The Tribunal h

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNIONversusFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 74616 July 1996Disposed off

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) had employed 464 handling mazdoors at its Siliguri depot, first through a contractor, then via a direct‑payment system, and later reverted to the contractor method. The workers, represented by their union, claimed that the re‑introduction of the contractor system was illegal and that

M/S. KALPETTA ESTATES LTD. ETC. ETC.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN

1996 INSC 74716 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of rubber estates, sold old, unyielding rubber trees during the assessment years 1968-69 to 1978-79. The Income Tax Officer treated the difference between the sale price and the notional price fixed under Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act as capital gains and also taxed the replantation subsidy

SRI KRISHNA PVT. LTD. ETC.versusITO CALCUTTA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 74816 July 1996Dismissed

Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. claimed large unsecured hundi loans in its return for AY 1959‑60. In the assessment of the subsequent year (AY 1960‑61) the Income Tax Officer discovered that many of those loans were bogus and that the alleged lenders were near relatives of the company’s directors. Relying on this, the Officer is

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPURversusAJAY KUMAR GULATI

1996 INSC 74916 July 1996Dismissed

The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ordered a fresh disciplinary inquiry against employee Ajay Kumar Gulati, appointing a new inquiry officer despite an earlier report finding the charges established. Gulati challenged the order in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, contending that the de novo enquiry should

COMORIN MATCH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1996 INSC 53016 April 1996Dismissed

Comorin Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. challenged Central Sales Tax assessments for the years 1957-58 to 1965-66 on the ground that the tax was levied on turnover that included excise duty, which the Madras High Court had held to be illegal. The High Court quashed the assessments, but the State of Tamil Nadu did not appe

SMITH KLINE AND FRENCH (INDIA) LTD. ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1996 INSC 53216 April 1996

The assessees, Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd., claimed a deduction for a surtax liability of Rs. 76,777 under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 while computing their total income for AY 1976-77. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction based on Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income‑Tax Act, which bars any

SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYALversusTRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 53416 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. S. Sanyal, was occupying premises as a tenant of India Foils Ltd. when the landlady sold the property to Habitat Developers, who obtained a decree for specific performance and possession. Although the decree was against the landlady, the appellant was not impleaded nor was any eviction order passed ag

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MOGA ETC.versusMANCHANDA SOAP WORKS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 53516 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Improvement Trust, Moga initiated a truck diversion scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, acquiring 15.5 acres for a new market. Notices of the scheme and objections were published in newspapers and the Gazette as required by the Act, and the scheme was approved under Section 40. The res

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusNANDLAL RAIGAR

1996 INSC 53616 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Nandlal Raigar, an accountant in the Rajasthan Telephones Department, was dismissed on May 9, 1973 for alleged fabrication of records. After exhausting departmental appeals, he filed a suit in 1980 seeking a declaration that his dismissal was illegal. The trial court dismissed the suit on limitation grounds but noted p

J. JOSE DHANAPAULversusS. THOMAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 27116 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, J. Jose Dhanapoul, challenged an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal that annulled the appointment of S. Thomas without the appellant being made a party to the proceedings. The Tribunal had issued the impugned order on June 15, 1993, cancelling Thomas's appointment, but the appellant was neit

DR. GHANSHYAM JAISWALversusKAMAL SINGH

1996 INSC 27216 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In a suit for ejectment filed on 5 April 1984, the respondent entered into a compromise and a decree for eviction was subsequently recorded. The respondent failed to deliver possession, prompting the appellant to file an execution petition. The respondent first challenged the validity of the compromise decree under Sec

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN. RANCHI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 27316 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ranchi Municipal Corporation demanded Rs 1,01,501 as service charges from the Railways for the years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95. The Union of India challenged the demand, and the Patna High Court upheld it. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the municipality could levy such charges under Section 135 of the Rail

BABULALversusRAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 27416 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Babulal obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, but the decree did not grant possession. When the decree‑holder sought to execute the decree, Raj Kumar (the appellant), who was not a party to the decree, claimed a right in the property and obtained an injunction. He obje

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.versusRADHIKA SYNTHETICS AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7316 January 1996Disposed off

Cholamandalam Investments & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit in the Madras High Court for recovery of money under a hire‑purchase agreement that contained a clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to Madras courts. Radhika Synthetics Ltd. later instituted a suit in the Bombay High Court claiming damages, relying on a

RAM SARANversusPYARE LAL AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7416 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Ram Saran, let a shop to a tenant who later formed a registered society, Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti, comprising himself and his family, and began paying rent through the society as its President. The landlord sought eviction under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, alleging un

DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7216 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. and another established a fertiliser unit in the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj, which were treated as part of Kota municipality and were levied octroi. The State of Rajasthan later issued a Kota Municipal Limits (Continued Existence) Validating Act, 1975 that deemed the villages to

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusGURMIT SINGH ANR ORS.

1996 INSC 7516 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed the acquittal of Gurmit Singh and two others for abduction, wrongful confinement and rape of a minor girl. The trial court had disbelieved the prosecutrix, citing her ignorance of car details, alleged delay in filing the FIR, and alleged family enmity. The Supreme Court held that the girl’s

S. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7616 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (formerly Junior Engineers) in Andhra Pradesh's Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department. After the 1970 ban on direct recruitment, temporary and ad‑hoc appointments were made, followed by a Special Qualification Test (SQT) in 1975 and later regu

SMT. INDRANI RAJA DURAI AND ORS.versusMADRAS MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7716 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Rajadurai, was riding a motorcycle when a bus collided with him after he swerved to avoid a car, resulting in his death. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000 compensation, reducing it by 40% for the deceased's contributory negligence, leaving Rs. 60,000 payable. The Madras High Court reversed this, holding t

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALOREversusV.T. VELU AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7816 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Special Land Acquisition Officer sought to acquire 1 acre 6 guntas of land for defence purposes. The land was requisitioned in 1965 and rentals were fixed at Rs 4 per sq ft under the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Collector’s award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was Rs 24,250

KOCHUKAKKADA ABOOBACKER (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusATTAH KASIM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7916 January 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a civil appeal challenging a preliminary decree for partition of the Konchukakkada property. The trial court had placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs, a view corrected by the appellate court, but the appellate court failed to properly consider key documentary evidence establishing the

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusRANI DEVI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 73415 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Rani Devi and Anguri Devi, widows of Apprentice Canal Patwaris who died while in service, filed writ petitions seeking appointment to class‑IV posts on compassionate grounds. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the State of Haryana to appoint them, but the State appealed. The Supreme Court held that the term "empl

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusA. JAGANATHAN

1996 INSC 73615 July 1996Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed against the Madras High Court’s order that suspended the convictions and sentences of four public servants, including A. Jaganathan, who had been convicted under IPC sections 392, 218, 466 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court had relied on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, h

SUDIP MAZUMDARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1996 INSC 73715 July 1996Disposed off

The petitioners alleged that test firing exercises at a range near Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh were endangering the lives of tribal people who entered the area to collect firewood, resulting in injuries and deaths, thereby violating their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, recalling its

THE SECRETARY (ESTT.) RAILWAY BOARD AND ANR. ETC.versusSH. D. FRANCIS PAUL ETC.

1996 INSC 73815 July 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, recruited as legal assistants in 1963 and 1964, retired after 25 years of service and claimed an additional five years of qualifying service for pension computation under Rule 2423-A of the Railway Establishment Manual II. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed their claim, but the petitioners app

RUDRADHAR R. TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 73915 July 1996Dismissed

The petition challenged a land acquisition made in 1953 for the establishment of an Indian Institute of Technology, where 60.8 acres were later transferred to the National Institute of Technology (NITIE) by a government resolution. The petitioner, a sub‑lessee, claimed that he was not given notice under Section 5‑A of

G. NARAYAN RAOversusTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

1996 INSC 74015 July 1996Dismissed

G.N. Rao challenged the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for 7 acres of land in Nizamabad acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had fixed compensation at Rs 32,000 per acre, relying on sale deeds of adjacent lands and a claim of potential value. Rao argued tha

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusM/S. BIJOY MINING COMPANY LTD. AND ORS .

1996 INSC 74115 July 1996

The Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) entered into a supply agreement with M/s Bijoy Mining Co. Ltd. which required the consumer to pay an annual minimum guarantee charge. The consumer objected to a bill on the ground that erratic supply prevented it from taking the contracted amount, invoking clause 13 of the agree

KASHMIR CHANDversusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 74215 July 1996Disposed off

The appellant, Kashmir Chand, bought a plot in an open auction in July 1971 for Rs 46,000 but paid only Rs 11,500, leaving a balance of Rs 34,500. Over more than 21 years he failed to pay the balance, and the authorities demanded a larger sum of Rs 3,78,000, which he also defaulted on. He filed a writ petition in the P

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusVINOD KUMAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 74315 July 1996Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against a promotion order that deviated from the rule of granting 50% of the quota and an additional two‑year benefit to Upper Division Clerks under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Section 5‑D(7)(a) of the Act requires prior approval of the Central Govern

VASANT GANGARAMSA CHANDANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 74415 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Vasant Gangaram Sa Chandan was appointed as Peon‑cum‑Watchman in the Hyderabad Agricultural Committee on 1 April 1957 and, after the reorganisation of states, transferred to the Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti, retiring on 1 April 1991 after about 35 years of service. The pension scheme of the Market Committee stipulated t

NEW INDIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. ETC.versusHUDA AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 74515 July 1996

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) invited applications for school sites in Panchkula and allotted 11 of 23 plots, denying eight applicants. The denied applicants challenged the allotment procedure, leading to a single judge finding procedural faults but upholding the allotments because schools were already

BETAL SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.

1996 INSC 52015 April 1996Dismissed

Betal Singh was convicted of murdering his wife Kamla by setting her ablaze, an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was based primarily on Kamla's dying declaration recorded by a police officer under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, which alleged that her husband had doused her with kerose

THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-CUM-REGIONAL MANAGER AND ORS.versusNIKUNJA BIHARI PATNALK

1996 INSC 52115 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Scale‑I officer of the Central Bank of India serving as Branch Manager, was charged with ten counts of allowing overdrafts, issuing guarantees and sanctioning loans beyond his delegated authority. An enquiry found several charges fully established and others partially, leading to his dismissal. The Or

KANTA PRASAD D. PATELversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 52215 April 1996Dismissed

Kanta Prasad D. Patel purchased a site in 1965 and erected sheds, claiming the structures existed before April 1, 1962 based on a lease from the previous owner. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued a demolition notice; the Deputy Municipal Commissioner initially allowed retention of a 30'x30' shed in 1983

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMARUTI LAXMAN

1996 INSC 52315 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed a High Court order that had granted enhanced compensation to Maruti Laxman under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The original acquisition notice was issued in 1969 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,000 per acre in 1972. A civil court enhanced this award to Rs.2,

SYED ABDUL ALAM AND ORS.versusTHE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 52415 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Head Constables, had passed a merit‑based written test for promotion to Sub‑Inspector under the Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate Service Rules, which require promotion on the basis of merit and ability. The Government later issued a G.O. (No. 585) amending the Police Standing Orders to prescribe

KANSHI RAMversusOM PRAKASH JAWAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 52515 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a sale agreement on 7 April 1969 for a 100‑square‑yard plot in Delhi, with a price of Rs 16,000 and Rs 2,500 paid as earnest money. The buyer (appellant) failed to execute the sale deed, and the seller (respondent) sued on 13 July 1970 for specific performance, alternatively claiming damages of

NABHIRAJ AND ORS.versusJAYAVATIBAI @SHANTHA BAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 52815 April 1996Dismissed

The first respondent filed a suit on 30 October 1981 seeking a declaratory decree that she was the absolute owner of 6 acres 25 gunthas of land at Raichur. The appellants were later impleaded as respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but, despite repeated adjournments, failed to file a written statement, leading

HAV BHAGAT SINGH, ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 38715 March 1996Dismissed

H.B. Singh, who served in the Indian Army from 1959 to 1976 and later joined the Haryana State Government in 1978, challenged a 1976 amendment to the Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 that narrowed the definition of "Military Service" to only those who enlisted during the 1962 emergency, thereby withdr

LILABEN UDESING GOHEL ETC. ETC.versusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 39115 March 1996Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Gujarat High Court Full Bench's guidelines in Kamlaben v. Oriental Insurance, which required a ten‑year waiting period and periodic payments by the insurer for motor accident compensation. The Court held that these guidelines conflicted with the Supreme Court’s earlier dir

STATE OF GOA AND ANR.versusSMT. S.A. ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 39315 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa appealed a Bombay High Court order concerning land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal raised issues already decided in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., which the Court affirmed applied to the present case. After condoning delay and gran

MASIPATLA RAGHAVULUversusTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAO, PEDDAPALLI

1996 INSC 39415 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The National Thermal Power Corporation acquired a large tract of land under a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 3,000 per acre, which the Sub‑Judge enhanced to Rs 6,500 per acre, a decision affirmed by the Andhra Pra

M. RAMJAYARAMversusGENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 39515 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

M. Ramjayaram applied for the post of Law Assistant in South Central Railway and scored over 60% in the written test and performed well in the viva. Two other candidates were awarded an additional 15 marks for seniority under Rule 320 of the Railway Establishment Code, which gave them a higher total score and led to th

SEETHAMMALversusSENTHIL FINANCE AND ANR.

1996 INSC 39615 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In execution of a money decree, a mortgaged property valued at Rs 75,000 (later reduced to Rs 50,000) was auctioned and sold for Rs 15,100, with the mortgagee himself submitting the winning bid. The appellant, the judgment debtor, challenged the validity of the sale under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, arguing that the s

SMT. BASAVVA AND ORS. ETC.versusTHE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND ORS.

1996 INSC 39715 March 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by landowners whose 33 acres of a 194‑acre industrial acquisition near Dharwad had been valued at Rs 56,000 per acre by the Karnataka High Court after a series of enhancements and reductions. The appellants argued that the High Court erred by applying a 65% deduction for development

V.G. KULKARNIversusTHE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

1996 INSC 39915 March 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by V.G. Kulkarni challenging the Karnataka High Court’s reduction of compensation for land acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification dated 21 January 1982 acquired 20 acres and 4 gunthas for industrial development, with the Land Acquisition Offi

ISHWARLAL PREMCHAND SHAH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 40015 March 1996Dismissed

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Sarigam for industrial purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land owners had entered into agreements with the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) in 1980 and 1985, accepting a compensation of Rs. 22,857 per hectare inclusive of solatium and other benefits

JAIN MOTOR CAR CO., DELHIversusSMT. SWAYAM PRABHA JAIN AND ANR

1996 INSC 25515 February 1996Dismissed

The tenant, Jain Motor Car Co., was served an eviction petition by the landlord, S.P. Jain, for defaulting on rent payment and alleged sub‑letting. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to pay arrears within one month and to continue depositing monthly rent by the 15th, but the tenant paid the February rent late, on 3

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SIRHINDversusPARSHOTAM DASS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 25615 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were the khewatdars of land classified as “Shamlat deh” in village Brahman Majra, claimed that the land reverted to them after the Gram Sabha was abolished, invoking Rule 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965. The Municipal Committee of Sirhind argued that the land had vested in it when a noti

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT AND BUILDING MATERIALSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 25715 February 1996Dismissed

The National Council for Cement and Building Materials, a society, was challenged by its employees’ association to prepare certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The society argued that it was not an “industry” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and

RITESH R. SHAHversusDR. Y.L. YAMUL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 25815 February 1996Case Allowed

Ritesh R. Shah, a reserved‑category candidate, applied for admission to the MBBS course in Maharashtra for 1995‑96 but was denied because other reserved‑category applicants were admitted against the reserved quota despite being eligible on open‑merit grounds. He challenged the state’s selection rules, arguing that coun

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERSversusRAMASH-YRAYA YADAV AND ANOTHER

1996 INSC 25915 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were appointed as temporary Investigators‑cum‑Computer under a scheme that was later cancelled, but they were allowed to continue in service by an interim order of the Allahabad High Court. While still serving, they filed a writ petition seeking the same salary as regular investigators, invoking the pri

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARATversusJYOTI LTD.

1996 INSC 26015 February 1996Case Partly allowed

Jyoti Ltd., a Baroda‑based company, claimed that its reserves for doubtful debts (Rs 85,000) and gratuity (Rs 5,60,000) should be treated as part of its capital base for computing statutory deduction under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Surtax Officer excluded the amounts; the Appellate Assistant Commiss

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusMOTI LAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 26115 February 1996Dismissed

The respondents, who had been directly appointed as casual mates in Class III of the Northern Railway, were later regularised as gangmen (Class IV) by the railway authorities. They contended that their long‑term service as mates and the temporary status conferred upon them entitled them to be regularised as mates. The

UNION OF INDIAversusRAM SUA SHARMA

1996 INSC 26215 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves Ram S. Sharma, a government servant who discovered, after 25 years of service, that his date of birth recorded in the service records was incorrect. He claimed that his correct date of birth was January 2, 1939, instead of the recorded December 16, 1934, and sought correction. The Central Administrati

J.L. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 26315 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In this civil appeal, the appellant J.L. Jain challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal that denied a reopening of a departmental inquiry against him. The appellant sought a one‑time opportunity to participate in the inquiry, present his defence, and cross‑examine witnesses. The respondents argued

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARHversusCHARANJIT KAUR

1996 INSC 26415 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, having been in custody since September 1983. She filed an application in the High Court seeking premature release, and the High Court ordered her release on the ground that the State had failed to file a counter‑affidavit despite multiple adjour

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENTversusL. SRINIVASAN

1996 INSC 26515 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, L. Srinivasan, an Assistant Section Officer in the Prohibition and Excise Department, was suspended and a departmental inquiry was ordered while a charge‑sheet for embezzlement and fabrication of false records was filed and a criminal trial was pending. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside t

SINGHAI LAL CHAND JAIN (DEAD)versusRASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH, PANNA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 26615 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought eviction of the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS Sangh) from premises it occupied. The Sangh was represented in the suit by its manager, president and a member, and the trial court dismissed the suit. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on appeal, decreed ejectment in favour of the appellant, but the r

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusDARSHAN SINGH

1996 INSC 26715 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Darshan Singh, a bus conductor employed by the State of Punjab, was removed from service on 26 May 1989 for alleged misconduct of collecting fares without issuing tickets, which was deemed fraud. The removal order also listed his earlier punishments, leading the trial court to hold that the authority had considered tho

ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RATAK AND ANR.versusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 26815 February 1996Dismissed

The appellants, whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, entered into an agreement with the municipal corporation to receive two‑thirds of the compensation at a rate of Rs.40 per square yard, with interest fixed at 4% per annum from possession. The compensation award was later enhanced to Rs.300 pe

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ETC.versusSMT. RAM KUMARI DEVI ETC.

1996 INSC 26915 February 1996Case Partly allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired 13.75 acres of land for a government college and the Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 11,887.78 per acre. A District Judge later awarded Rs 5 per square foot and the High Court reduced it to Rs 3.30 per square foot, relying on sale deeds of small parcels th

PALI DEVI AND ORS.versusCHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR.

1996 INSC 27015 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, former employees of the Army School, Jalandhar, claimed that the school had failed to pay the minimum wages fixed by the State Government and filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Authority initially granted relief, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside tha

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusHLRALAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6615 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired land belonging to Hiralal and others and the respondents claimed compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984, which purported to provide enhanced compensation and solatium. The High Court had allowed their claim, but the State appealed. The Supreme

M. V. K.GUNDARAOversusREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (L.A.O.), NARASARAOPET

1996 INSC 6715 January 1996Dismissed

The case concerned compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a telephone exchange in Narasaraopet. The acquisition officer initially awarded Rs 40 per square yard, which was enhanced to Rs 75 per square yard by the Subordinate Judge on the basis of four sale deeds executed in 1978 at rates

RAMESH SINGH (DIED) BY L.RS. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6815 January 1996Dismissed

The State acquired land in Etmadpur Village under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Collector awarded compensation under Section 11. Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh sought a reference under Section 18, which was dismissed, while Ruma Singh obtained a higher award after a reference and a decree under Section 26. The pe

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, SANGRURversusGURJJT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6915 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an appeal by Improvement Trust, Sangrur against Gurjjt Singh Sandhu and others under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute centered on whether the respondents were entitled to the additional amount provided under Section 23(1A) of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The Collector’s award was

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7015 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The second respondent, who held an M.Sc. in Medical Biochemistry and worked as a professor, applied to be entered in the State Medical Register but was denied because he lacked an MBBS degree. He obtained a writ order from the Rajasthan High Court directing his registration, which was later set aside by the High Court

VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCILversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1996 INSC 88414 August 1996Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu filed an application seeking modification of the Supreme Court’s July 22, 1996 order that continued the August 18, 1994 order directing a 69% reservation for backward classes, SCs and STs in medical, engineering and other educational institutions and the creation of additional seats for general‑

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusKARAM CHAND THAPAR AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 88514 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, Karam Chand Thapar & others, acted as a del credere agent for coal collieries and as an agent for coal purchasers. It claimed "under‑charges" from collieries for freight overcharges on under‑loaded wagons, received the amounts before any purchaser claim, and paid purchasers when they demanded reimbursemen

SHREE KRISHNA GYANODAY SUGAR LTD.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 88714 August 1996Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd., operated several distilleries licensed to manufacture denatured spirit, other industrial spirits and potable liquor. The State of Bihar, via the Superintendent of Excise, demanded that the appellants bear the establishment costs of excise staff posted at the distilleri

SATGURU SHARAN SHRIVASTAVAversusDWARKA PRASAD MATHUR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 88814 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner had agreed to purchase a house from the first respondent, Dwarka Prasad Mathur, and paid the consideration. Before taking possession, the second respondent obtained a decree of specific performance in a separate suit, which the petitioner challenged in suit 121‑A of 1984 on the ground of fraud. Both resp

J. JAISHANKARversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 88914 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a government employee, was convicted under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and fined Rs.200, a conviction that was final and involved moral turpitude. He sought a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to contest his dismissal. The High Court init

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusJAIPAL SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 89014 August 1996Disposed off

The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land in Rewari district. The respondents argued that a government policy excluded lands on which buildings had been constructed and that their shops were built before the notification, seeking exemption and compen

DR. B.P. YADAV AND ANR.versusDR. RATNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 38614 March 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether two members of the Bihar University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Dr. B.P. Yadav and Prof. Suresh Prasad Singh, possessed the statutory qualification of being Professors as required by Section 6 of the Service Commission Act, given that their promotions to Professor were

SH. MOHD. AYUB KHANversusPROF. BHIM SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 38214 March 1996Dismissed

The Election Commission issued a notification for a bye‑election to the Udhampur Parliamentary Constituency and, after a reference by the Returning Officer, directed a repoll at certain polling stations, which was carried out. The election result was challenged before an election petition, and the High Court set aside

HOOKIYAR SINGH ETC. ETC.versusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MORADABAD AND ANR.

1996 INSC 38314 March 1996Disposed off

The case concerned acquisition of 171.46 acres of agricultural land in Moradabad for UPSIDC. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 15,500 per acre, which was later increased by the District Court to Rs 40,000 and by the High Court to Rs 50,000 per acre based on sale deeds and oral evidence. Bo

SH. A. CHINNAPPAversusSH V. VENKATAMUNI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 38414 March 1996Dismissed

Sh. A. Chinnappa contested the Bethamangala Assembly seat in Karnataka, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes, claiming he belonged to the Mundala caste listed in the Presidential notification under Article 341. The Karnataka High Court held that he actually belonged to the Mondy/Mondigaru caste, which is not include

Y. H. PAWARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 38514 March 1996Dismissed

Y.H. Pawar was appointed as a Class III employee on an ad‑hoc basis on 22 March 1960 after being called from the Employment Exchange. When the Ministerial Recruitment Rules were later framed, he was regularised on 6 May 1968 with seniority from the date of selection under the new rules. Pawar contended that his seniori

KAHANDU DAULAT DANGDEversusJAY WANTRAO YADAVRAO KHARADE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 24114 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K.D. Dangde, was a tenant of agricultural land owned by Anjanabai, a widow and member of a joint family, from before 1 April 1957. A partition suit in 1961 resulted in the land being allotted to Anjanabai, who later applied for an exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricult

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMN. AND ORS.versusMANAGING SOCIETY, GOSWAMI, GDSDC

1996 INSC 24214 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Chandigarh Administration allotted 10.5 acres of land to the managing society for 99 years in 1975, fixing the ground rent at Rs 100 per acre per annum, which was lower than the rate mandated by Rule 13 of the Chandigarh Lease‑hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973. In 1991 the Estate Officer issued a notice deman

K. NANDAKUMARversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAI PERIYAR TRANSPORT CORPN.

1996 INSC 24514 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

K. Nandakumar was injured in a collision between his motorcycle and a bus owned by Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation on 15 January 1987, resulting in permanent disability. He filed a claim under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for no‑fault compensation, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the

MUKHTIAR AHMEDversusSMT. HUSAN BANO AND ORS.

1996 INSC 24614 February 1996Dismissed

Mukhtar Ahmed filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was entitled to a two‑thirds share in a house as a co‑owner. Earlier, in a suit filed by a co‑sharer, the court had determined that the co‑sharer was only entitled to a one‑fifth share, and that decree became final. The issue before the appellate court was whethe

PUTTU LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 24714 February 1996Dismissed

The land originally owned by Smt. Kokilla was acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification on 15 April 1928 and a declaration on 28 July 1928 for a public purpose. Compensation was paid and, under Section 16 of the Act, the land vested in the State free of all encumbrances, extinguish

BALMOKAND KHATRI EDUCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIALTRUST, AMRITSARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1996 INSC 24914 February 1996Dismissed

The Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust challenged the acquisition of its land by the State of Punjab, arguing that the government illegally dispensed with the enquiry required under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by invoking the urgency clause in Section 17(4) for the purpose of providing

THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS.versusNEW MARINE COAL CO. (PVT.) LTD.

1996 INSC 25114 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Steel Authority of India sued New Marine Coal Co. to recover Rs 1,13,000 for coal supplied under an agreement that required Grade‑I coal between Dec 1962 and June 1967. Instead, Grade‑II coal was delivered but the plaintiff collected the price of Grade‑I, and the contract contained a clause permitting adjustment of

SHRI JAI KISHANversusSHRI KESHA V RAM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147813 December 1996Dismissed

The petitioner sought special leave to challenge a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that appointed a Local Commissioner (Tehsildar) to re‑measure a disputed land parcel and relied on the Commissioner’s report indicating encroachment by the respondent. The High Court, after examining the report, upheld the appellate co

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusRAMA RANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147913 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat acquired 68 hectares of land for an irrigation scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The initial compensation award was later enhanced, but the Reference Court, lacking sale deeds, relied on oral evidence of yield and deducted one‑third of the market value. The High Court affirmed this award

THE MANIPUR TEA CO. PVT. LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF HAILAKANDI

1996 INSC 148113 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. challenged the compensation awarded for 123 Bighas of its tea estate acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for railway construction. The Supreme Court examined whether sale statistics and three sale deeds relating to agricultural land could be used to determine compensation for tea

SUNDER DAS AND ORSversusGAJANANRAO AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148413 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit filed by three brothers challenging a 1959 sale deed by their father, the Karta of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family, which conveyed an ancestral house to the defendants. The plaintiffs argued the father lacked authority to alienate their undivided 3/4 share and that the suit was barred

MAHENDRA RAIversusMITHILESH RAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148513 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of 12‑year‑old Arun Rai, alleged to have arisen from a dispute over the price of milk. The trial court convicted Mithilesh Rai (Sec.302 IPC, death sentence) and Madan Rai (Sec.302 read with Sec.109 IPC, life imprisonment); Raj Naresh Rai was acquitted. On appeal, the High Court set

STATE OF U.P.versusRAGHUBIR SINGH

1996 INSC 148613 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of U.P. appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s acquittal of Raghubir Singh (A‑2) in a murder‑kidnapping case involving the death of a six‑year‑old boy, Ashok. The trial court had convicted both accused, Manpal Singh (A‑1) and Raghubir Singh, under IPC sections 364, 302 and 34 based on the testimony of th

JAHAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 104913 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Jahar Singh, an employee of the Savings Bank Control Organisation (SBCO), qualified in the 1992 examination for Accountant posts in the Post Office and Railway Mail Service but his candidature was cancelled on the ground that he was a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and therefore ineligible. The appellant challenged the can

DEVINDERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1996 INSC 105113 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

On 26 July 1986 the appellant Devinder allegedly attacked Ramphal with a knife, inflicting chest and abdominal injuries in the presence of two eyewitnesses. The victim was taken to a hospital, where a medico‑legal report recorded his details and the manner of injury but omitted the assailant's name; he died the followi

ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 105213 September 1996Dismissed

The All India State Bank Officers Federation filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the State Bank of India's 7 March 1989 promotion policy for moving officers from Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI. The petitioners argued that the policy was arbitrary for raising the minimum se

KESHUB MAHINDRAversusSTATE OF M.P.

1996 INSC 105313 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the criminal proceedings arising from the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, where a leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide India Ltd plant caused thousands of deaths and injuries. Twelve individuals, including Keshub Mahindra and other senior officials, were charged under IPC sections 30

JUDHISTIR MOHANTYversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 105513 September 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a Superintendent of Jail in leave reserve (Class II), petitioned the Chief Minister for a transfer to Behrampur so he could settle before retirement. The government honored his request and transferred him to a Superintendent of Circle Jail (Class I) post, where he served from April to October 1978 before

DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAOversusMR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 87313 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a former Indian Navy captain, was detained in 1988 on suspicion of carrying atomic and defence secrets and was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and the Atomic Energy Act after consent from the Attorney General and authorisation from the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department of Atomic Energy

D.C.M. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 87513 August 1996Dismissed

D.C.M. Ltd. owned two sugar factories and expanded them after receiving a licence in February 1975. The Government announced an incentive scheme in November 1975 offering a higher quota of levy‑free sugar to factories that expanded between 1 Nov 1975 and 20 Oct 1980. The sugar market was decontrolled from August 1978 t

SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAMversusMOTI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 87613 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, widow of a saw‑mill owner who defaulted on employer's provident fund, challenged the auction sale of the owner's land on the ground that the successful bidder (first respondent) failed to deposit the balance of the bid within the two‑month period prescribed by Sections 202 and 203 of the Maharashtra Land

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTYL. JEEVANLAL LTD.

1996 INSC 87913 August 1996Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu challenged orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that were partly against the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee, Tyl. Jeevanlal Ltd. The issue was whether the Board of Revenue could, suo motu, revise the portion of the order adverse to the Revenue after the assessee had appea

M. GOVINDARAJUversusK. MUNISAMI GOUNDER (D) AND ORS.

1996 INSC 88013 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard the appeal of M. Govindaraju, who sought a one‑seventh share in his father's joint Hindu family property. Govindaraju was born to Pappammal, who had earlier been married to Koala Gounder but left his house in 1942‑43 and thereafter lived with Munisami Gounder, the father of the appellant. The Hi

SURAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS ETCversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 88213 August 1996Dismissed

The case concerns the award of compensation for land acquired under a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs. 2,000 per bigha, which was later enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs. 2,000‑3,000 per bigha, and fi

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. GAYATRI DEVI PANDEY

1996 INSC 88313 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Gayatri Devi Pandey, originally appointed as a School Psychologist and later regularised as an L.T. Grade teacher, was subsequently appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as Assistant Psychologist and promoted to Vocational Guidance Counsellor. She sought regularisation in these posts, but her representation was rejected. T

NEW BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 37613 March 1996Dismissed

The New Bank of India, a loss‑making nationalised bank, was merged with Punjab National Bank under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The Central Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, framed a Placement Scheme to determine the inter‑se seniority of the tran

GOPALAN KRISHNAN KUTTYversusKUNJAMMA PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA & ORS.

1996 INSC 37513 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lessee of a shop, was granted a mortgage by the lessor in his favour on 18 July 1974 for Rs.13,000. After the mortgage period expired, the lessor filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage and recovery of possession. The trial court granted a preliminary decree for redemption and possession, and the H

STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALAversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA

1996 INSC 37713 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of Patiala had, in several assessment years, transferred sums to a "bad and doubtful debts" account and claimed that these amounts were "reserves" under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, thereby eligible for statutory deduction. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim, but the Income Tax Appell

RAM JANAMversusRADHAKRISHNA CHAUBE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 38013 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Ramjanam filed a suit under Sections 59 and 61 of the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939, claiming hereditary tenancy rights after possessing the land for more than 50 years. The trial court and the appellate court held that he was a tenant and had acquired title by adverse possession, but the Allahabad High Court set asi

M/S. SOUTH EAST ASIA SHIPPING CO. LTD.versusM/S. NAV BHARAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 38113 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, M/s South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd., filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a perpetual injunction against the enforcement of a bank guarantee dated 16 July 1977. The underlying contract was executed in Bombay and required performance (transport of livestock) to be carried out in Bombay. The defe

KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKHversusDISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

1996 INSC 23613 February 1996Case Allowed

The petitioners were detained under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and filed representations against their detention on 23 August 1995. They alleged that the State and Central Governments failed to dispose of these representations promptl

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 23713 February 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court entertained a social‑action writ filed by the Indian Council for Enviro‑Legal Action on behalf of villagers of Bichhri, who suffered severe water, soil and health damage due to untreated effluents and toxic sludge from private chemical industries. The petition sought directions against the Union of In

STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI)versusS.J. CHOUDHARY

1996 INSC 23313 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted S.J. Chaudhary for murder and offences under the Explosive Substances Act, seeking to introduce the testimony of a typewriter expert to identify the machine that produced a disputed document. The trial court and the Delhi High Court excluded the expert's opinion, relying on the earlier Supreme Cour

UNION OF INDIAversusVICTORY PLASTIC PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 23813 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed a Bombay High Court order that had allowed a writ petition filed by Victory Plastic Pvt. Ltd. The dispute concerned customs duty on PVC resin imported under tariff Item No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. An initial 1979 notification granted full exemption from duty, but a subseque

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusA. SANYASI RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 23513 February 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Sections 44AC and 206C of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, which allow tax to be levied on a presumptive basis on traders of specified goods. Petitioners argued that the provisions were ultra‑vio​les, beyond Parliament’s competence under Schedule VII, Entry 82, and violated Articles 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALAversusTHE KILKOTAGIRI TEA AND COFFEE ESTATE CO. LTD.

1996 INSC 23913 February 1996Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala appealed against the Kerala High Court's decision in favor of Kilkottagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd., which allowed the company to claim a development allowance for unclaimed expenses incurred in clearing land and planting tea bushes during 1966-67 and 1967-68. The dispute ce

A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIYARversusSMT. LOKANAYAKAMMA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 24013 February 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Arumugam Chetiyar, occupied a house as a tenant from 1971. In 1977 the landlord executed a mortgage deed in favour of the appellant. The issue was whether the mortgage deed implied a surrender of the appellant's tenancy rights, thereby converting him merely into a mortgagee. The trial court and the Karna

M/S COX AND KINGS LTD. AND ANR.versusSMT. CHANDER MALHOTRA

1996 INSC 147512 December 1996Dismissed

The premises were originally leased to Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd., a foreign company incorporated in the United Kingdom. After the Reserve Bank of India denied permission for the foreign company to continue its business under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the leasehold interest was assigned to an Indian com

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147712 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and clarified that the term "forest" includes all statutorily recognised forests irrespective of ownership. It held that any activity such as operating saw‑mills, veneer or plywood mills, or mining within forest areas is a non‑forest purpose and

THE CANTONMENT BOARD,MATHURAversusKRISHNA BRICKS AND LIME FACTORY

1996 INSC 104712 September 1996Dismissed

The respondent, a brick‑kiln owner, challenged a notification by the Mathura Cantonment Board that raised the tax on bricks from 0.19p to 0.75p per thousand, arguing that the Board derived no benefit and that the tax violated Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the ceiling on

GAJRAJ SINGH ETCversusSTATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 104312 September 1996Disposed off

The appellant, Gajraj Singh, held a stage‑carriage permit originally granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was later renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After the 1988 Act came into force, the State Transport Authority granted overlapping permits to other operators, and the appellant challenged the

BIKRAM SINGH AND ORS.versusTHE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 104412 September 1996Dismissed

The appellants, owners of land acquired compulsorily, received a notice demanding income‑tax on interest accrued due to delayed payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They challenged the notice through writ petitions, which the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed, holding that such interest is

BASANT KUMAR ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA ETC.

1996 INSC 104612 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from a 1961 notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which acquired 1669 bighas of land in Posangipur. The original compensation was Rs 1400/1200 per bigha, later enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs 3050 per bigha. The appellants argue

CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATIONversusM/S. KHEMCHAND KHUSHALDAS AND SONS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 86912 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, manufacturers of incense sticks, challenged a 1979 notification by the State of Maharashtra that sanctioned higher octroi rates proposed by the City of Nagpur Corporation under the 1948 Act. The High Court held the rates ultra vires because they exceeded the maximum octroi rates fixed under Section 66(

THE AMALAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.versusU. SIMHADRI

1996 INSC 87012 August 1996Dismissed

The Amalapuram Municipal Council sought to fill the post of Chairman by calling names from the employment exchange. Initially, under Government Memorandum No. 372 (Feb 18, 1992) the Chairman could select candidates without any counter‑verification. However, Government Order No. 413 (Mar 10, 1992) was issued to curb mal

PARWATBAIversusSONABAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 87212 August 1996Dismissed

The dispute concerned land originally owned by Punjaba. Upon his death, his widow Parwatabai obtained a limited estate in 1941 and executed a registered gift deed transferring enjoyment of the land to her husband, who thereafter possessed it. After Parwatabai’s death in 1966, her daughters claimed succession to the fat

UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN, (UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)versusTARACHAND AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 73012 July 1996Case Partly allowed

The Ujjain Development Authority acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition officer initially awarded Rs 27,500 per hectare. The District Judge enhanced the award to Rs 50,000 per hectare with solatium and interest, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court further increased compensation to Rs 1,25,

M/S. ALIJI MONOJI AND CO.versusLALJI MAVJI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 73212 July 1996Dismissed

Ali Ji Monoji & Co., a lessee, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Bombay to stop demolition of alleged unauthorised structures under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The municipal corporation issued a demolition notice, and the landlords of the property sought to be

DR. NANDA BALLABH PATHAKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 73312 July 1996Dismissed

Dr. Nanda Ballabh Pathak, a Hindi Pandit in a lower‑grade school, applied for promotion to the post of Hindu Pandit in an upgraded inter‑college. The post was prescribed to require an MA in Hindi, a BA in Sanskrit and a B.Ed. While the appellant held an MA and PhD in Hindi, he did not possess a BA in Sanskrit. He chall

G.S. KAUSHIK AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 50812 April 1996Disposed off

The All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association and the All India Gramin Bank Workers Organisation filed writ petitions seeking pay parity between Regional Rural Bank (RRB) employees and those of nationalised commercial banks. A National Industrial Tribunal awarded that RRB employees be placed on the same pay s

UNION OF INDIAversusP.S. DHILLON

1996 INSC 50912 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

P.S. Dhillon, a Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was compulsorily retired under FR 56(j) after attaining the age of 55, despite having less than ten years of qualifying service. He challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed it on the grounds that pre‑confirmation

THE RT. REV. B.P. SUGANDHARversusSAT. D. DOROTHY DAYASHEELA EBENESER

1996 INSC 51012 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Chairman of the Diocesan Executive Committee of the CSI EVA Technical Institute suspended the Principal and constituted a Commission of Enquiry to conduct a preliminary fact‑finding inquiry into serious administrative and financial irregularities. The Principal challenged the suspension and the appointment of the C

HARYANA UNRECOGNISED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1996 INSC 51112 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Unrecognised Schools Association challenged a Haryana Government notification that added "Employment in private coaching classes, schools including Nursery Schools and technical institutions" to the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and fixed minimum wages for teachers. The Punjab & Haryana High Court

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusHARISH CHANDRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 51212 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, selected in a 1987 merit list for Class III and IV clerical posts under the U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, alleged that the State failed to appoint them and obtained a mandamus from the Allahabad High Court ordering their recruitment. The High Court held that

MRS. JOYCE PRIMROSE PRESTORversusMISS VERA MARIE VAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 51312 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Joyce Primrose Prestor, sought letters of administration for her mother’s estate, relying on a holograph will dated 19 June 1964 that bequeathed equal shares to her three daughters. The husband and two other daughters contested the will, alleging undue influence by the plaintiff. The trial court held the

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusDR. HARBHAJAN SINGH GREASY

1996 INSC 51412 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, a government doctor, was charged with absence from emergency flood duty and alleged private practice during suspension. An inquiry officer reported that the doctor admitted to the private practice, but no written admission was recorded and the doctor denied making any statement. The discipli

U.P. ELECT. BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANR.versusM/S. TRIVENI ENGG. WORKS LTD.

1996 INSC 51512 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. Electricity Board (appeal) and M/s Triveni Engineering Works Ltd (respondent) entered into an agreement for electricity supply of 104 kW, which allowed the Board to revise tariffs under Section 48 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Board revised tariffs on 13 July 1986, deleting the LMV‑10 schedule witho

THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSMT. YVETTE PEREIRA A.E. COSTA ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 51812 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa filed an appeal against a High Court order that had held that certain judicial officers appointed in 1963 were "absorbed employees" entitled to the pay scales of posts created under the Portuguese administration. The appellants argued that the definition of "absorbed employee" in Section 2(a) of the Go

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY ETCversusM/S. MAFATLAL GANGABHAI AND CO. (P) LTD. ETC.

1996 INSC 36112 March 1996Dismissed

The assessee, M/s Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd., paid cash amounts to its employees as house‑rent allowance, conveyance allowance and medical reimbursement and claimed these as deductions. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deductions, treating the cash payments as perquisites under Section 40(a)(v) and Section

JAGDJSH NARAIN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1996 INSC 36312 March 1996Dismissed

Five persons, including Jagdish Narain and his two sons, were tried for rioting and the murder of Jitendra Nath after allegedly ambushing him and firing shots. The trial court acquitted them, citing contradictions between eye‑witness statements and their earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC and alleging a faulty i

MOHANversusSMT. ANANDI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 36712 March 1996Dismissed

Mohan (appellant) claimed title to a property he had purchased from Bhiwa, who had earlier gifted the same land to the respondents. The respondents filed suit for declaration of title and possession. The trial court allowed attachment of the property, but the appellant challenged this in a separate suit (No. 42-A of 19

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusLOUIS SHOPPE AND ANR.

1996 INSC 36812 March 1996Disposed off

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the classification of wooden furniture by Louis Shoppe as "handicrafts" under Excise Notification No. 76 of 1986. The Central Excise and Customs Appellate Tribunal had held the furniture to be handicrafts, a view the Supreme Court found inconsistent with its earlier test

GURNAM SINGH AND ORS.versusTHE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL), KAITHAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 37012 March 1996Dismissed

The appellants had occupied certain Shamlat Deh lands as tenants for about twenty years before 1975, after which their lease expired and no new lease was granted. The lands are vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector, invoking Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rules 19 and 20

SMT. AMBEY DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

1996 INSC 37112 March 1996Dismissed

The State of Bihar acquired 25 acres of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awarded compensation equally to four co‑owners, each receiving a one‑fourth share. One co‑owner filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading the civil court to enhance his compensation. The appellant, another co‑owner, did n

A. MAHUDESWARAN AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

1996 INSC 37312 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

After the abolition of the Village Officer post in 1982, about 2,000 Section Writers were trained and appointed as Surveyor‑cum‑Draftsman in the Survey and Settlement Department on a contract basis, later regularised with regular pay‑scales and promotions. The Government later issued a clarification directing that thei

ANSARAM RAMBHAU YELVE AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1996 INSC 22112 February 1996Dismissed

The appellants, eight brothers and relatives, disputed a strip of land owned by the deceased and, on 17 August 1982, armed themselves with axes and sticks, attacked the deceased and others, causing the deaths of two victims. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 324, 325 read with Section 149 IPC, but the

THIRUMURUGA KIRUPANANDA VARIYAR THA VATHIRU SUNDARA SWAMIGAL MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUSTversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 22212 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Trust sought to establish a medical college in Salem and required affiliation from Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. The University and the State Government conditioned affiliation on prior State permission, which the Trust could not obtain. The Central Government, under Section 10‑A of the Indian Medical Council Act

REV. FATHER BRAIN E FERNANDES ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 22312 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where the notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1965 and the declaration under Section 6 in 1969, but the award of compensation was only made in 1986. The appellants argued that an erratum notice that listed guntha numbers instead of

RAM JATAN AND ORS.versusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 22412 February 1996Dismissed

The deceased Newaj Mal executed a registered will leaving his land to his daughter's son, a fact accepted by the Director of Consolidation and upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The brother of the deceased (appellant) claimed a preferential right to the property under Class V of Section 24 of the Agra Tenancy Act, arg

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S. SH. RAM RAYONS

1996 INSC 22512 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Mis. Sh. Ram Rayons, applied for a supplementary import licence and paid a fee of Rs.1 lakh under Clause 4(2) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. A policy change later prevented the issuance of the licence, prompting the respondent to file a writ petition seeking a refund of the fee. The Delhi High Co

UNION OF INDIAversusAJAIB SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 22612 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India acquired land under the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 and offered compensation to the owners, who rejected it, leading to reference to an arbitrator under section 8(1). The arbitrator awarded higher compensation with solatium and interest, and the Punjab & Haryana Hig

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusM/S. KALYAN SUNDARAM CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 22712 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan sued Mis. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. for recovery of sums due under an agreement after three post‑dated cheques issued in 1989 bounced. Alongside civil suits for recovery, criminal complaints were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian

STATE OF KERALAversusGEORGE JOSEPH

1996 INSC 22812 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Kerala initiated acquisition proceedings against George Joseph, issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 26 September 1978. The Collector later made an award on 27 March 1981, and the respondent claimed an additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The question befor

SH. MAHESHWARI SENIOR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR.versusBHIKHA RAM SHARMA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 22912 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School, challenged the termination of Bhikha Ram Sharma, who had been appointed as a Steno‑Typist on an ad‑hoc basis on 15 July 1992. The management passed a resolution on 21 May 1994 abolishing the ad‑hoc post, and Sharma's service was terminated on 31 May 1994. The Ra

PANKAJ KUMAR SAHAversusTHE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ISLAMPUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 23012 February 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, Pankaj Kumar Saha and his brother, were issued Scheduled Caste certificates in 1982, which were later cancelled by the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioners challenged the cancellation, claiming that they belong to the Sunri Scheduled Caste, despite the Presidential notification expressly listing Sun

SAVITRI DEVIversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 23212 February 1996Disposed off

The appellant, Savitri Devi, challenged the State of Haryana after her land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for residential and commercial purposes. Although compensation had been paid and the acquisition became final, the land remained unused, and she sought a plot in lieu of her loss under a governm

DR. K.R. LAKSHMANAN ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

1996 INSC 5712 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Madras Race Club, a company that conducts horse races, challenged the Tamil Nadu Horse Races (Abolition and Wagering or Betting) Act, 1974 and the Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986. The Court held that horse racing is a game of "mere skill" under Section 49 of the Police Act and

RANGANATH PARMESWAR PANDJTRAO MALI AND ANR.versusEKNATH GAJANAN KULKARNI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 5812 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, sons of the deceased Panditrao and his alleged wife Shevantabai, sued for an injunction to protect their possession of a 3.18‑hectare property, claiming they were legal heirs. The trial court accepted the admission that Shevantabai lived with Panditrao as his wife, applied the legal presumption of a val

SARAL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 5912 January 1996Disposed off

The appellant, Saral Kumar, challenged the validity of Sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act. The High Court had already struck down Section 38, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, and Section 37 had been upheld in earlier cases. The Supreme Court clarified the requirement under Section 37(2), stating t

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSMT. SATYAWATI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6012 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by the Union of India against High Court orders directing the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The claimants had not raised any objections to the arbitrator's award within the time prescri

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.versusO.P. GUPTA ETC.

1996 INSC 6212 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, engineers of the Haryana Public Works Department, were given notional promotions based on a seniority list prepared under Rule 9 of the 1970 Service Engineers Rules, with a deemed promotion date of 1 January 1983, but they only assumed the higher posts on 1 December 1992. They filed writ petitions seek

BANK OF BARODAversusR.M. PATWA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6312 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda obtained a money decree against R.M. Patwa for Rs 55,000 with interest and filed an execution application. Patwa sought, under Section 151 CPC, to have amounts crediting a third‑party, G.K. Kakkani, adjusted against his decree debt. The Additional District Judge ordered such adjustment, and the High

SAM HIRING CO.versusA.R. BHUJBAL AND ORS .

1996 INSC 6412 January 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Sam Hiring Co., a tenant occupying a shed in City Survey No. 56, challenged the acquisition of its premises under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, arguing that the structure was an independent, non‑cess‑payable building and therefore exempt from demolition. It also contended that t

SMT. RAJNIBAI @ MANNUBAIversusSMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6512 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title to a property and simultaneously applied under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for a temporary injunction to protect his possession. The trial court granted the injunction, but the High Court reversed the order, holding that where there is no dispute as to the corpo

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGYversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

1996 INSC 146511 December 1996Dismissed

The Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET), Thapar Polytechnic and the Technological Institute of Textile & Science (TIT&S) reserved a small percentage of seats for the wards of their employees, despite being private or aided technical institutions. The affiliating university and the Punjab State Governm

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