Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 1996

1,535 judgments, newest first — showing 1,001–1,200.

M/S. BRIJ MOHAN DAS LAXMAN DASversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

1996 INSC 145710 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a partnership firm, paid interest to a partner who was also the Karta representing his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) on deposits made in his individual capacity. The Income Tax Officer added this interest back to the firm's income under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating it as a disallowe

KULDEEP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONversusINCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

1996 INSC 145810 December 1996Dismissed

Kuldeep Industrial Corporation, a partnership firm, claimed to be a manufacturer of stainless steel utensils and filed tax returns showing losses for AY 1977-78 and 1978-79 and a small profit for AY 1979-80. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) discovered that no manufacturing activity took place, issued notices adding income,

STATE OF GUJARATversusSUHRID GEIGY LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 145910 December 1996Dismissed

The State of Gujarat issued demand notices for excise duty on Xylocaine and other medicinal preparations containing Xylocaine, invoking the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. The assessees challenged the notices and the Gujarat High Court quashed them. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whe

M/S APPOLLO TYRES LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANR.

1996 INSC 146010 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Appollo Tyres Ltd., while setting up a tyre manufacturing plant, entered into an agreement with General Tyre International Company to act as its purchasing agent for equipment. The agreement required the appellant to pay a 3% commission on the FOB value of each item procured. Customs assessed duty on the invoice va

SHEOJI MAHTO AND ORS.versusTHE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 146110 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were raiyats holding land adjoining a parcel sold by the respondents, filed an application for pre-emption under Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Lands Ceiling Act within three months of the sale deed's registration. The Collector rejected the application, and the Patna High Court dismissed the appella

MAJOR YOGENDERA NARAIN YADAV ETC.versusSHRI BINDESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 146210 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Major Yogendra Narain Yadav, a demobilised short‑commissioned army officer, was appointed a permanent Assistant Engineer in the Bihar Roads and Buildings Department with seniority back‑dated to 15 April 1963 under a 1969 Government circular. Several respondents, initially appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers and

MAJOR SINGHversusRATTAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 146410 December 1996Dismissed

Daulat Singh executed a Will in 1974 bequeathing his property to his brother Rattan Singh, who died shortly thereafter. The appellant, a sister, challenged the Will and the respondents filed a suit for declaration based on it. The trial court dismissed the suit, a first appellate court affirmed, but the Punjab & Haryan

VIJAY SINGH ETC. ETC.versusVIJAYLAKSHMI AMMAL

1996 INSC 117410 October 1996Disposed off

The landlady (respondent) sought eviction of the tenants (appellants) under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming she needed to demolish an old building to erect a new shopping complex. The Rent Controller found the landlord's requirement bona‑fide and ordered evictio

INDER MANI AND ORS.versusMATHEHWARI PRASAD AND ORS.

1996 INSC 117510 October 1996Disposed off

The petitioners filed a writ in the Allahabad High Court which was initially listed before Justice A.P. Singh. On 22 December 1995 the Chief Justice reconstituted a Division Bench comprising Justice V.N. Khare and Justice A.P. Singh, but Justice Singh refused to sit on the bench and instead heard the matter singly, gra

KARAN SINGHversusSTATE (DELHI ADMN.)

1996 INSC 117610 October 1996Dismissed

Karan Singh was arrested in 1988 for possessing an unauthorised country‑made pistol and three live cartridges within a TADA‑notified area. The case was initially filed under the Arms Act, but the Metropolitan Magistrate transferred it to a Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusJAORA SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 117710 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought recovery of unpaid sugarcane prices and interest from Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. and other factories under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 and the M.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act. The growers and factories had, in 1976, orally

INDER SINGH AND ANR.versusTHE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS.

1996 INSC 117810 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, tenants of agricultural land, applied under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 in 1960 but were rejected for not having twelve years' continuous possession. A second application in 1965 was allowed, and the Financial Commissioner confirmed the order. The Punjab and Haryana

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusM.NEETHI CHANDRA, ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 102410 September 1996Disposed off

The State of Bihar issued a resolution (No.20) that candidates from reserved categories who qualified on merit would not be adjusted against the reserved quota, leading to grievances that such candidates were denied their preferred courses. The Patna High Court devised a seat‑allocation scheme whereby reserved seats we

GURSHARAM SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1996 INSC 102510 September 1996

Gursharan Singh demanded Rs. 2 lakh from Nirmal Singh for terrorist activities, threatening death. After a meeting where a revolver‑wielding accomplice threatened the victim, a reduced sum of Rs. 70,000 was agreed, of which only Rs. 50,000 was paid. The trial court convicted Singh under IPC Sections 387 (extortion) and

DILIP KUMAR TRIPATHY AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 102610 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa advertised for Sepoy recruitment and prepared a first list of 225 candidates, appointing all except six reserved‑category candidates. To fill remaining vacancies, a second list of about 200 candidates, drawn from earlier test‑takers, was prepared, but only 16 were provisionally appointed despite vac

ANUGRAH NARAIN SINGH AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 102710 September 1996Case Partly allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh failed to hold municipal elections for nearly a decade, prompting former legislator Anugrah Narain Singh to obtain a High Court direction to conduct elections by May 1994, later extended to November 1995. After the State issued a notification on 11 October 1995 for elections, several writ pet

MRS. R.D. BHATIAversusSMT. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 101910 September 1996Disposed off

The appellant, an advocate, was suspended for two years by the Bar Council of India on a complaint that she colluded with the opposing party and other lawyers to set aside an ex‑parte decree, allegedly acting as a mediator and misappropriating Rs. 3,500. The disciplinary committee relied on the complainant's affidavit,

M/S. RANADEY MICRONUTRIENTS ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

1996 INSC 102810 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, manufacturers of micronutrients, challenged the classification of their products for excise duty. An earlier Board circular (June 1990) classified micronutrients as "plant growth regulators" under heading 38.08, while a later circular (November 1994) re‑classified them as "other fertilisers" under headi

DR. DILIP KUMAR DEKA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ANR .

1996 INSC 102910 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. D.K. Deka and Dr. P.K. Baruah, doctors at Mahendra Mohan Choudhary Hospital, were accused by a Guwahati High Court judge of manipulating medical reports to keep accused Geeta Kalita in hospital, thereby thwarting a court order to produce her in police custody. The judge, relying on a medical board’s report that fou

SHATRUGHNA PRASAD SINHAversusRAJBHAU SURAJMAL RATHI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 102010 September 1996Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Shatrughna Prasad Sinha, was charged after an interview published in Stardust magazine allegedly outraged the religious feelings of the Marwari community and defamed them as a class. Complaints were filed in the magistrate courts of Pune and Nasik. The High Court held that the Pune complaint did not disc

NANDATAIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 102110 September 1996Dismissed

The petition arose from a land acquisition proceeding where a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published and notice under Rule 1 was served on the father‑in‑law, who was the recorded owner of the land at the time. The petitioner, who had obtained the land through a divorce settlemen

NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKERversusPRANJIVANDAS MANGANLAL THAKKER AND ORS

1996 INSC 102310 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Motilal Gopalji owned a property and executed a gift deed on 15 May 1965 in favour of the first respondent, reserving his right to retain possession and collect rents during his lifetime. Within a month he executed a cancellation deed on 9 June 1965, stating that the conditional gift had not been accepted and that poss

PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 72510 July 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, appointed as LT Grade teachers in a government‑aided private college, challenged the legality of their ad‑hoc appointments, alleging that the college had not complied with the procedure prescribed in Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 a

SMT. MAQBOOL FATMA AND ORS.versusDEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 72610 July 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, heirs of evacuee Ashfaq Hussain, claimed rights over property vested in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950. An order of the Assistant Custodian dated June 22, 1961 was communicated to shareholders, but a revision application under Section 27 was filed only on August

NATWARBHAI MAGAINBHAI PATELversusCOLLECTOR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 66410 May 1996Dismissed

Natwarbhai Magajnbhai Patel filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Gujarat High Court order that vested excess vacant land, surrendered under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in the State. The petitioner argued that compensation should be paid before the government could utilize

POONAM VERMAversusASHWIN PATEL & ORS.

1996 INSC 66910 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Poonam Verma, sued Dr. Ashwin Patel (a registered homoeopathic practitioner) and Dr. Rajeev Warty for negligence after her husband died following treatment with allopathic medicines prescribed by Dr. Patel, who was not qualified to practice allopathy. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission d

PRADEEP KRISHENversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 66510 May 1996Disposed off

Pradeep Krishen, an environmentalist, filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a Madhya Pradesh Forest Department order that allowed villagers around sanctuaries and national parks to collect tendu leaves. He argued that the order was ultra‑violet to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and violated Articles

GAN GAD HARANversusJANARDHANA MALLAN AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 66610 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a joint‑family property from the father of the respondents when the latter were minors, for Rs 9,000. After the father's death, the respondents filed a partition suit alleging that the sale was for inadequate consideration, that there was no legal necessity, and that most of the alleged antecede

SH. ASHOK V. DAVIDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67010 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, direct recruits to the Karnataka Administrative Service, completed their probation on 14 July 1976 but were not formally confirmed until 1 January 1986, a delay of nearly ten years. Because of this undue delay, they were excluded from the 1983 select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Servi

MR. A TREHANversusM/S. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES AND ANR.

1996 INSC 67110 May 1996Dismissed

Mr. A. Trehan, an employee of M/s. Associated Electrical Agencies, suffered a serious eye injury while repairing a television. As an insured person under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, he received benefits from the ESI Corporation and later filed a claim for additional compensation under the Workmen's

STATE OF MANIPURversusTHINGUJAM BROJEN MEETI

1996 INSC 67210 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Manipur issued a "Die‑in‑Harness" compassionate appointment scheme for dependents of government servants who died in service, later revising it to exclude ad‑hoc, off‑iciating, work‑charged and casual appointees. The dependents of two confirmed work‑charged employees sought appointments under the scheme; t

TAGIN LITIN ETC.versusSTATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

1996 INSC 67310 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the appointment of the Head Gaonburah of Simong village in Arunachal Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner approved the petitioner's appointment on 31 January 1994 and issued a WT message on 15 February 1994 directing that the petitioner be informed. No actual communication of the appointment to the pe

HASHMATTULLAHversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 66710 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a butcher, challenged the 1991 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act that imposed an absolute ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks, alleging it violated his fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) and was not a reasonable restriction in the public interest. The

SH. P.K. DAVEversusPEOPLES UNION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (DELHI) AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67410 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, Peoples Union of Civil Liberties and others, filed a public‑interest writ seeking the suspension and criminal prosecution of Dr. Khalilullah, Director of G.B. Pant Hospital, alleging massive financial irregularities. The Delhi Health Secretary recommended his suspension, the Chief Secretary suggested h

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATIONversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67510 May 1996

The case arose from the abduction and alleged murder of Advocate Kulwant Singh, his wife and their two‑year‑old child, for which the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association sought an independent inquiry. The High Court declined to intervene, prompting a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dir

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67610 May 1996Disposed off

M.C. Mehta filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking control of air and noise pollution from stone‑crushers, pulverisers and mining operations near the tourist resorts of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana. The Haryana Pollution Control Board and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67710 May 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which mandates the relocation of hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries from Delhi and the subsequent use of the land vacated. Various committees (Alphons, Jain, Khanna) submitted schemes on how the land should be utilized. The Court held that the land

CYCLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusT.I. RALEIGH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 66810 May 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Cycle Corporation of India Ltd., sought rectification of the trade mark ‘Raleigh’ owned by the respondent, T.I. Raleigh Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the proprietor had not used the mark bonafide for a continuous period of five years and that neither the respondent nor any registered user was using

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRversusSHAM LAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67810 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State discovered a large embezzlement by employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and filed an FIR under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Ranbir Penal Code. The accused filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and obtain

NARINDRA KUMAR JAINversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1996 INSC 67910 May 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Narindra Kumar Jain, served as manager of Kisan Rice Mills and was responsible for large stocks of paddy. During his tenure, 1,500 quintals of paddy were found missing, leading to charges under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted him, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusSLBARAM BARAL (SIMARAM BARAI)

1996 INSC 68010 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa filed a suit for Rs.1,46,820 against S. Baram Baral, which was decreed ex parte. The appellant sought relief under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the trial court set aside the ex parte decree subject to a payment of Rs.50. On revision, the Orissa High Court set aside the t

K.V. KRISHNAMANIversusLALIT ACADEMY

1996 INSC 68110 May 1996Dismissed

The appellant was initially appointed on an ad‑hoc basis and later placed on probation with a view to regularise his services. During the probation period his performance was deemed unsatisfactory and his services were terminated on 1 December 1989. He challenged the termination by filing a writ petition, arguing that

M/S ATIABIRA REGULATED MARKET COMMITIEEversusM/S GANESH RICE MILLS

1996 INSC 68210 May 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Mis Attiabira Regulated Market Committee, appealed against Mis Ganesh Rice Mills challenging the High Court's decision that the villages of Saharatikira and Bheden were outside the notified market area under the Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956. The central issue was whether these villages fe

M/S. SHIV SHAKTI GOLD FINGERversusASSTI. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAIPUR

1996 INSC 68310 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Shiv Shakti Gold Finger applied for exemption from Rajasthan sales tax on its Gole Papad, a circular snack made of maida, salt, starch, papad soda, alum and food colour, invoking a 1970 notification that exempted "Papad and Badi (Mangori)". The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, holding that the exemption did n

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMIS. SHARMA COAL CO.

1996 INSC 68410 May 1996Disposed off

The Union of India (Railways) appealed a Guwahati High Court order that directed the Railways to allocate unutilised wagons to non‑priority articles after the exhaustion of all priority categories under its Preferential Traffic Scheme (PTS). The original PTS classified sponsored coal in Category C and non‑sponsored coa

DAULATRAMversusSAROOP RAM AND ANR.

1996 INSC 68510 May 1996Dismissed

Daulat Ram filed a suit seeking declaration and possession of land, alleging that a private partition had allotted the property to him and that he had singly redeemed the mortgage, thereby becoming a mortgagee by subrogation. The trial court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the mortgage was redeemed jointl

RAMCHANDRA DAYARAM GAWANDEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 68610 May 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a State Police Service officer promoted to Superintendent in 1976, was placed on the select list in 1977 and given seniority from April 30, 1978. He claimed a year of allotment of 1972 under the seniority rules, which the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected. The Supreme Court examined whether the fa

SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS.versusBRIJ PAL SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 68710 May 1996Dismissed

The first petitioner purchased land from the respondent under a 1975 sale deed that included a reconveyance agreement. The respondent sued for specific performance, alleging the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed despite the respondent’s readiness and attendance at the Sub‑Registrar’s office on 9 March 1977, w

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JODHPURversusGOKUL NARAIN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 50210 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Urban Improvement Trust (Jodhpur) acquired land of Gokul Narain under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and paid compensation. The High Court later enhanced the compensation and, applying the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended), awarded solatium, interest and additional amount, whi

RAM NATH MAHTOversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 50310 April 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Ram Nath Mahato, was alleged to have participated in a night robbery on a train, during which a passenger was killed and others injured. A witness (PW 6) identified Mahato in a test identification parade conducted by Judicial Magistrate PW 7, but at trial PW 6 refused to recognize him, claiming fear. The

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMAHBOOB S. ALLIBHOY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 50410 April 1996Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra appealed to the Supreme Court against a Bombay High Court order that dropped contempt proceedings initiated against respondents in a customs refund dispute. The respondents had filed a writ seeking refund of duty, which the Customs Department alleged was obtained on the basis of forged document

STANDARD GAMES ETC.versusSTATE OF UP. AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 50010 April 1996Dismissed

The appellant installed a coin‑operated video‑game machine that lights up and starts a game when a coin is inserted. The issue before the Court was whether such a machine falls within the definition of "entertainment" under Section 2(g) of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Act, 1979 and consequently attracts the enter

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusMD. KALIMUDDIN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4510 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar prepared a panel of 273 candidates for Assistant Teacher posts under the 1975 Bihar Government Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement Appointment and Transfer Rules. While 98 candidates were appointed (91 joined), the remaining candidates were placed on a waiting list. The High Court, by interim orde

THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusTHE TELUGU CHURCH COUNCIL

1996 INSC 4610 January 1996Dismissed

The Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) claimed that the Telugu Church Council (TCC) had merged into the Church of South India in 1947 and therefore the properties transferred to CSITA were held in trust. TCC contested the merger and sought declaration of its continued existence. Earlier suits decided by th

KARUMANDA GOUNDERversusMUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4710 January 1996Dismissed

Karumanda Gounder appealed against a High Court order that upheld the sale of a parcel of land originally gifted by his brother Komaraswamy Gounder to a third party and then sold to Muthuswamy Gounder. Karumanda claimed the land was joint family property and that his brother, being a "mild lunatic," lacked capacity to

RADHEY SHYAM SINGH AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14449 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of India, via a 1975 resolution, created a Subordinate Services Commission to recruit non‑technical Class III posts and issued a 1993 advertisement stipulating zone‑wise recruitment with separate merit lists for each of 15 zones. Applicants who scored higher marks than some selected candidates challenged

FAG PRECISION BEARINGSversusSALES TAX OFFICER (I) AND ANR.

1996 INSC 14459 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax stayed the appellant's assessments for the period 1 September 1976 to 31 August 1984, citing that the assessment was still in progress and would not be completed within the statutory time limit. The appellant challenged the stay, arguing that no show‑cause notice was served and that

HARI SHAMRAO HIMJE AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14479 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were promoted from Data Processing Assistants to Data Processing Supervisors, were placed in the entry‑level Grade ‘A’ (pay Rs.1600‑2600) instead of the higher promotional Grade ‘B’ (pay Rs.2000‑3300). They contended that this classification was unjust and sought to be fitted into Grade ‘B’ with the

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusA.J. FABIAN

1996 INSC 14489 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a retired railway chief inspector, was given six opportunities to switch from the Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme but never exercised the option. In 1993 he applied to be allowed to opt for the pension scheme; the Government rejected the request and he filed a petition before the Central Adm

DHIRENDER SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14499 December 1996Dismissed

The appellants, police officers, were promoted on an ad‑hoc basis under the sports quota by the Superintendent of Police on 16 January 1990, without the required approval of the DIG. The promotion order stipulated that the officers could be reverted at any time without notice and without seniority rights. The appellant

DR. BALJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1996 INSC 14509 December 1996Dismissed

Dr. Baljit Singh, a H.C.M.S.-II officer, gave a three‑month notice of voluntary retirement under Rule 5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules on 20 September 1993 and handed over his charge on 11 February 1994 without the government's acceptance. The Government declined to accept his retirement because serious crimin

SMT. SANJUKTA PATTANAIKversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14519 December 1996Dismissed

Sanjukta Pattanaik was appointed as a clerk in 1974 and later was kept in charge of a teaching post in 1990. She claimed that this temporary charge made her a teacher and filed a writ petition, obtaining provisional approval from the Director of Education in 1992. The State challenged her claim, and the High Court dire

NASIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusHARBANSLAL LAIKWANT RAJPAL AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 14529 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a scheme under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 for reserving land for stables and a road, which was later modified to reserve the same land for informal housing and stables. The original reservation was deleted and a corrigendum restored the status quo ante with a slight modificati

DR. NARINDER SINGH POONIAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14539 December 1996Disposed off

Dr. Narinder Singh Poonia, a researcher, was conducting a DST‑funded project titled "Chemical, Physico‑Chemical, Structural and theoretical investigations of alkali and alkaline earth cation systems…". The Department of Science and Technology (DST) terminated the grant under condition XIII, which reserves the right to

MIS. PILIBHIT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. (P) LTD. AND ANR.versusSPECIAL OFFICER (ELECTRICITY) AND ANR.

1996 INSC 11709 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pilibhit Electric Supply Co., held a licence to generate electricity which was revoked and its undertaking was taken over by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board on 1 December 1975. The Special Officer, under Section 7‑A of the Indian Electricity Act (as amended by U.P. Act 14 of 1976), fixed the co

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.versusSMT. A. RADHIKA THIRUMALAI

1996 INSC 11719 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), a public sector undertaking, had rules permitting compassionate appointments of dependents of deceased employees, subject to vacancy availability (Rule 78.3). After her husband, a Senior Inspector, died in 1987, the respondent applied for such an appointment and was placed on a waiting

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusCHARANJI LAL GOEL

1996 INSC 11729 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Charanji Lal Goel, a Punjab government employee, joined the army in 1963 and was released in 1969. After release he was appointed Taxation Inspector in 1970 and was granted seniority from his army entry date under Rule 4 of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. In 1972 he was directly recru

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusKESHAB LAL ROY AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 10089 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, former employees of the privately owned ASL Railways which voluntarily liquidated in 1978, were appointed as "fresh entrants" in Indian Railways under a Ministry of Railways letter dated 17 March 1978. They sought to have their service with ASL Railways counted towards the ten‑year qualifying period fo

ALLAHABAD BANKversusSHRI PREM SINGH

1996 INSC 10099 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Allahabad Bank appointed Shri Prem Singh as a temporary cashier for one day at a time through successive letters, each stating that his service would automatically terminate at the end of the day. After four days of such employment (14-17 June 1977), the bank did not offer further work. The respondent filed an industri

TEJKUMAR BALAKRISHNA RUIAversusA.K. MENON AND ANOTHER

1996 INSC 10109 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tej Kumar Balakrishna Rui, was declared a notified person under Section 3(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Section 3(3) of the Act provides that any property of a notified person stands attached from the date of notification. After being notifi

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusGARWARE NYLONS LTD. ETC.

1996 INSC 10119 September 1996Dismissed

Garware Nylon Ltd. manufactured nylon yarn and nylon twine. Until 1977 the twine was cleared under Item 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which allowed a partial exemption for fishing‑net use. After the introduction of Item 68 in 1977, the revenue re‑classified the twine under Item 68 and demanded duty, whic

COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOWversusM/S. GIRJA SHANKER AWANISH KUMAR

1996 INSC 10129 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Sales Tax appealed against a High Court order that had accepted the turnover disclosed in the assessee's account books despite the assessee's failure to maintain a stock register as required under Section 12(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee, a manufacturer of silver ornament

F.B. TARAPORAWALA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusBAYER INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10159 September 1996Disposed off

Builders sought permission to construct buildings in an area where chemical factories operated, prompting the Bombay High Court to prohibit any construction within a 1 km radius of the factories. The chemical manufacturers appealed, arguing that the prohibition infringed the residents' right to reside and that the High

UNION OF INDIAversusMOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10169 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent claimed freedom‑fighter status and applied for a pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, relying primarily on a certificate from an MLA and a co‑prisoner as proof of six months' imprisonment. The Government examined the documents and concluded that they were insufficient to establish th

SREEDAM CHANDRA GHOSHversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10179 September 1996Dismissed

S.C. Ghosh, an Assistant Graduate Teacher, was appointed to officiate as Headmaster of Kahilipara High School after the retirement of the regular headmaster. When a regular headmaster, Mukul Chandra Roy, was transferred to that post, Ghosh challenged the transfer, claiming he had been promoted to a regular headmaster u

M/S. VICTORIAN GRANITES (P) LTD.versusP. RAMA RAO AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10189 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Victorian Granites (P) Ltd, challenged the Government’s order setting aside the assignment of mining leasehold rights by the original lessee, P. Rama Rao, to Magam Inc. The lease, granted under the Andhra Pradesh Mines & Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, was transferred exactly two years after its gran

NALANIKANT RAMADAS GUJJARversusTULASIBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8589 August 1996Dismissed

The plaintiff's ancestor leased a vacant plot of land to Binny Company in 1889, which then constructed a building and installed ginning and pressing machines before the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947 came into force. The lease was subsequently transferred to the appellant, who was late

T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC

1996 INSC 8609 August 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing numerous interlocutory applications in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation matter, clarified that the fee structures it had fixed for the academic years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 are confined to those years only and are not refundable. It ordered that the fee order of 11 August 1995, applicable to 1

JYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAHversusRESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

1996 INSC 8599 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, a charitable society and a trust, challenged the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978, claiming that the Act extinguished their property rights in high‑denomination notes without compensation, violated Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and 31(2) of the Constitution, imposed unreasonable ti

INDIAN BANKversusM/S. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

1996 INSC 8619 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Indian Bank forwarded Bills of Exchange to a French bank on behalf of the respondent M/s. Satyam Fibres, which later went into liquidation. The respondent claimed the bank was negligent for not securing co‑acceptance of the bills, relying on a covering letter (letter No. 2776) that allegedly instructed th

SH. NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8629 August 1996Disposed off

The appellant, a Police Inspector, was transferred and ordered to vacate his residential quarter after a senior police officer filed a false report alleging misconduct during a raid on a hotel that was operating beyond permitted hours. The senior officer’s report led to departmental proceedings, a fine, and the appella

PUNE CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANR.versusM.P.J. BUILDERS AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8639 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute where M.P.J. Builders had been granted a building sanction under the Cantonments Act, 1924, but failed to commence construction within the stipulated period and later sought extensions of time after the sanction had lapsed and after new building bye‑law restrictions were imposed. Th

RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS.versusDELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8649 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Three police constables were dismissed after a departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution for allegedly extorting money, but were later acquitted by a Sessions Court. They sought reinstatement and back wages before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which annulled their dismissals on the ground that the puni

HARI OM VERMAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8659 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a senior stenographer who was appointed as an Assistant on 29 April 1977, claimed seniority over two respondents who had been appointed as Assistants in September 1975 and had continuously served in that post. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Public Work

LOURDU MARI DAVID AND ORS.versusLOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8669 August 1996Dismissed

Petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of a 1976 sale agreement for two doors, claiming they had paid part consideration and were ready to perform, while respondents 1 and 2 delayed execution. The trial court found breach by respondents but denied specific performance, holding that respondent 3 was a bona‑fi

STATE OF AP. AND ORS.versusIND. NATALI GRANITE LTD.

1996 INSC 8679 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others challenged the writ filed by Ind. Natali Granite Ltd., which questioned the State Government's competence to levy a cess on mining leases. The High Court initially held the amendment to the District Boards Act, 1955, which sought to levy the cess, ultra vires, and subsequently aff

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKAversusV. HARISHBABU

1996 INSC 7109 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Secretary to the Government of Karnataka (appellant) contracted V. Harishbabu for canal work, but disputes led to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award on 22‑April‑1993 and the respondent filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 23‑April‑1993, attaching a copy of the award. Th

BANI SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

1996 INSC 7099 July 1996

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 366 and 368 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. They appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which admitted the appeal, stayed the sentence, and granted bail, but later dismissed the appeal for non‑prosecution because the appellant and his coun

SAMSUDDIN RAHMAN AND ORS.versusBIHARI DAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7119 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a parcel of land covered by a patta, claimed that land had gradually accreted to their estate as the Barak river receded over 15‑16 years. They sought a declaration of title over the accreted land, which was also claimed by the respondents under an annual patta granted by the Deputy Commission

THE STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAJASTHAN AGRICULTURE INPUT DEALERS ASSOCIATION

1996 INSC 7129 July 1996Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan sought licences for dealers selling Bajra seeds that had been coated with insecticides, invoking the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The respondents, seed dealers, contended that such processed seeds were not "agricultural produce" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) and the S

THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD AND ANR.versusSYED FATIMA NACHI

1996 INSC 7139 July 1996Dismissed

Syed Fatima Nachi, a divorced Muslim woman, filed a petition under Section 4(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 seeking maintenance from the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, alleging that her children, parents and other relatives were unable to pay. The Wakf Board appealed to the High Court to qua

SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANR.versusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7149 July 1996Dismissed

Shangrila Food Products Ltd., a sub‑tenant of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), was evicted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and an order for damages of about Rs 12 lakhs was made by the Estate Officer. The City Civil Court upheld the eviction but set aside the damages a

SMT. MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR.versusTHAKUR SHEO SARAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7159 July 1996Dismissed

The dispute concerned the succession to the Partapner Raj estate, an ancient impartible zamindari governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. After the death of the minor adopted heir Raja Maha, competing claims arose: Kalka Singh of the senior branch asserted his right to the impartible estate (Lists A and C) while

HARISH KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

1996 INSC 7169 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Harish Kumar and Ram Sharan were convicted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Sec. 307 IPC) after a trial court had acquitted them. They pleaded private defence of person, claiming that earlier hostile incidents and injuries to their father and themselves created a genuine

BHAIYA BAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1996 INSC 7179 July 1996Dismissed

Bhaiya Bahadur Singh, a government school teacher, drove his tractor onto a disputed boundary and allegedly trampled a portion of the victim's wheat field. Angered, he fetched a licensed single‑barrel gun, returned, and fired two shots, injuring two persons and killing a third. He pleaded that the shooting was in self‑

PATTAM KHADER KHANversusPATTAM SARDAR KHAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7189 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit, a house was auctioned and the sale was confirmed by the court on 7 August 1984. The auction purchaser obtained a sale certificate only on 9 November 1989 and filed an application for delivery of possession on the same day. The appellant contended that the application was barred by the one‑year limi

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADUversusD. SUBRAMANYAM RAJADEVAN

1996 INSC 7219 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Vigilance investigated corruption complaints against D. Subramanyam RataDev, a Superintendent of Police, and sent a report to the Tamil Nadu Government. The Government referred the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955,

HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD.versusTARAPORE AND CO. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7229 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (HSCL) awarded a construction contract to Tarapore & Co. (the contractor) and obtained fourteen unconditional bank guarantees from Bank of India, each stipulating that HSCL was the sole judge on breach and loss. After the contractor failed to complete the work, HSCL rescinded the

JAI JAI RAM AND ORS.versusTHE U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LUCKNOW AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7239 July 1996Dismissed

The appellants, drivers and conductors originally employed by the Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways, were deemed on deputation to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation when it was created on 1 June 1972. While on deputation, several of them were terminated or suspended by officers of the Corporation who we

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusSURJEET SINGH

1996 INSC 7249 July 1996Disposed off

Surjeet Singh, a heavy‑vehicle driver appointed in 1986, was medically declared unfit in 1993 due to a deficiency in sight and was compulsorily retired. He sought a compassionate appointment for his son as a clerk under Government of Haryana instructions dated 22 February 1991 and 28 August 1992. The Government rejecte

M/S. WILH, WILHELMSENversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL-I

1996 INSC 6949 June 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a Norwegian shipping company, was assessed for AY 1958‑59 on the basis of separate Indian‑trade accounts. The Income Tax Officer, following Central Board instructions issued under Rule 33 and Section 5(8) of the Income Tax Act, disallowed depreciation on eight ships that had been in the fleet for more th

THE SECRETARY, HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6589 May 1996Disposed off

The Hailakandi Bar Association filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that Superintendent of Police A.K. Sinha Cashyap submitted a false report and affidavit to the Supreme Court to conceal police brutality that led to the death of under‑trial prisoner Nurul Haque. The Court examined the CBI investigation, med

H.U.D.A. AND ANRversusKEWAL KRISHAN GOEL AND OTHER ETC.

1996 INSC 6599 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) advertised residential plots requiring a 10% earnest‑money deposit with the application. Allottees accepted the allotment, paid the earnest money and further deposits amounting to 25% of the price, and were to pay the balance in lump sum or six instalments. After paying so

T. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA CHARI ETC.versusHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.

1996 INSC 6509 May 1996Disposed off

The appellant, a District Munsif who had been temporarily promoted to Subordinate Judge, was removed from service by the Andhra Pradesh High Court after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of misconduct. He appealed to the Governor under Rule 21(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and A

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODAversusMIS. M.M. KHAMBHATWALA

1996 INSC 6609 May 1996Dismissed

The respondents, M.M. Khambhatwala, manufactured certain excisable goods in their factory and claimed exemption under Notification 80/80-CE. They also obtained agarbatti, amla podi and dhup from household ladies who worked outside the factory without power, for which the respondents paid piece‑rate wages. The revenue a

NAMAD HASSAN BHAGAD AND ORS.versusSTATE OFGUJARAT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6619 May 1996Disposed off

During a TADA investigation, the police attached seven ships under Section 7A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, alleging the vessels were purchased with proceeds of terrorist activity. The owners challenged the attachment, arguing that the ships were bought before the Act came into force and

UNION OF INDIAversusSH. AB. SHAH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6629 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India filed a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 alleging that Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. and its officials violated conditions 3 and 6 of the permission to split pillars with hydraulic sand stowing. The trial court and the High Court acquitted the respondents, holding that the alleged breach wa

P.S. RAJYAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 6639 May 1996

P.S. Rajya, an Income‑Tax Officer, was charged under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to his income. A departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission, and later concurred by the UPSC and the President, exonerated him of the cha

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6519 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Kamla Devi was appointed on an ad‑hoc basis under the U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975 and was repeatedly absent from duty. The State terminated her service on 23 September 1980 under Rule 14(a), which allows termination with one month’s notice or pay in lieu. She sought reinstatement and back wages, but

SCINDIA EMPLOYEES UNIONversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6529 May 1996Dismissed

The SCINDIA Employees Union challenged the acquisition of land on which its workshop stood, arguing that the acquisition for the expansion of a dockyard for defence purposes was not a public purpose and that the Union was a "person interested" under Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, entitled to notice and

DEVI LAL AND ANR.versusMOHAN PRASAD AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6539 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners sought to have a six‑month contempt sentence imposed by this Court recalled on the ground that their counsel had not informed them of the order and that they had not received dasti notice of the contempt proceedings. The Court noted that it is normal practice for counsel appearing for a party to communi

BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANYversusDHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD.

1996 INSC 6549 May 1996Dismissed

Bharathi Knitting Co. contracted DHL Worldwide Express to transport a cover containing export documents, which failed to reach the consignee in time, causing the buyer to pay a reduced amount and the appellant to claim a loss of Rs.4,29,392.60. The courier’s consignment note contained a limitation clause restricting li

SUPREME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETYversusM/S. H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.

1996 INSC 6559 May 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Co‑operative Group Housing Society entered into a construction contract with H.S. Nag & Associates that contained an arbitration clause (clause 32). After additional towers were awarded, a dispute arose and the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer the matter

P.T.R EXPORTS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6569 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, exporters of readymade garments, challenged the Government’s amendment to the export policy effective 1 January 1996, which abolished the Manufacturer Export Entitlement (MEE) and Non‑quota Exporter (NQE) quotas and introduced a system based on Past Performance Entitlement (PPE) and First‑Come‑First‑Se

CH. RAMA RAOversusTHE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6579 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners challenged interim orders issued by the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta that suspended and transferred them without prior notice or hearing, alleging violation of natural justice and the unconstitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the AP Lokayukta & U.P. Lokayukta Act, 1983. The Supreme Court examined th

RAKESH SINGHA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 4969 April 1996Dismissed

The case arose from a violent incident on 10 May 1978 at a marriage venue in Simla, where a group of youths armed with hockey sticks, iron rods and other weapons attacked the gathering in retaliation for a prior altercation involving a parked jeep. The assault resulted in injuries to several persons and the death of Su

HARDIAL SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1996 INSC 4979 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Hardial Singh, Uttam Singh and Gurnam Singh were charged with murder, grievous hurt and rioting for firing on members of an informant party who were cultivating land belonging to Khazan Singh. The incident occurred when the accused, armed with guns and rifles, confronted the cultivators who were ploughin

DR. H. MUKHERJEEversusS.K. BHARGAWA

1996 INSC 4989 April 1996Dismissed

Dr. H. Mukherjee, a Central Government employee, filed a civil suit seeking Rs. 2 lakh in damages against his superior, S.K. Bhargava, alleging that the latter deliberately issued vindictive orders and tampered with official records to harass him and block his appointment as Chief Controller. The defendant contended th

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusSARVOTAM VEGETABLE PRODUCT ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 4999 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, dealers in edible oils and stainless steel, made numerous inter‑state sales and furnished C‑forms obtained from their purchasers in their tax assessments. A survey revealed many of these C‑forms to be invalid or spurious, leading the tax authorities to issue notices for additional tax and penalty. The

SADASIVAMversusK. DORAISAMY

1996 INSC 2149 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sadasivam sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by his father Marappa in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was a sham and that his interest in the joint family property remained unaffected. The lower courts had held the sale deed valid and the will of the grandfather Karuppanna, bequeathing half

G. RAMASWAMY@ SURYAPRAKASA RAOversusLANKA SUBBARAO PATRUDU AND OTHERS.

1996 INSC 2159 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The grandfather, Gulla Kondala Rao, executed a deed of gift in 1947 in favour of his second wife, Narasamma, and she later bequeathed the same properties to the plaintiffs by a registered will in 1964. The adopted son, Ramarao, later sold the properties claiming they were joint family assets, but the plaintiffs challen

THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANR.versusSHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL ETC.

1996 INSC 2179 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Government acquired land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) made an award under Section 11 on 28‑02‑1989. The respondents, who were present at the award, filed an application for reference under Section 18 on 10‑06‑1989, exceeding the six‑week period prescribed

STATE OF BIHARversusSHRI K. M. ZUBEI AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 2129 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar appealed a Patna High Court order that had upheld a Board of Revenue decision allowing a land holder, governed by Mohammedan law, to claim an additional unit of land for his adult son. The land holder had been shown to hold surplus land under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acqui

U. P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.versusINDURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 2139 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd (appellant) and Indure Pvt Ltd (respondent) were negotiating a joint tender for the U.P. State Electricity Board. The appellant sent a draft agreement which it did not sign; the respondent returned a counter‑proposal deleting clause 10 and materially altering clause 12. No consensus ad

GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 2189 February 1996Dismissed

Gurbachan Singh and another filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a Supreme Court order passed under Article 136 that set aside a High Court and arbitrator award of enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 (as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984) in respect of

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARDversusA. VISWAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

1996 INSC 2199 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board acquired 339 acres of land, including a one‑acre parcel earmarked for a public park, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original owners, represented by A. Viswam (deceased), claimed they remained in possession and sought a perpetual injunction against the Board. The Board argued that

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. AGRO ENGINEERING (MP). PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 2209 February 1996Disposed off

The petition concerned applications for a government subsidy filed on or before 30 September 1988 that substantially complied with the scheme’s guidelines. The petitioners contended that such applications should be considered for grant of subsidy, while the respondents opposed the claim. The Supreme Court examined the

UNION OF INDIAversusS.S. UPPAL AND ANR.

1996 INSC 349 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

S.S. Uppal, a State civil servant, was selected for absorption into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) against a non‑state quota. Although his name appeared in a panel for a vacancy that arose on 1‑Feb‑1989, he was actually appointed on 15‑Feb‑1989, after the seniority rules were amended on 3‑Feb‑1989. Uppal chall

PATEL MOT!BHAI NARANBHAI AND ANR.versusDINUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 359 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned ownership of certain properties and was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award on 26 February 1986. Neither party applied to file the award in court within the 30‑day period prescribed by Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Six years later, the arbitrator himself filed the award and s

SYAM SUNDER AGARWAL AND CO.versusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 369 January 1996Dismissed

Syam Sunder Agarwal & Co. entered into a contract with the Union of India, which later gave rise to an arbitration award of Rs. 6,72,645.56 in favour of the appellant. The award was made a rule of court by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, and the Union of India appealed the award under Section 39 of

BEHARI PRASAD ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 379 January 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by four accused convicted of murder, rioting and related offences under the IPC and Arms Act. The prosecution case rested on eye‑witness testimony of close relatives of the deceased, who were present at the scene when the accused allegedly assaulted the victim and, after being urged b

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONversusSTATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

1996 INSC 389 January 1996Case Allowed

The National Human Rights Commission filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of about 65,000 Chakma refugees settled in Arunachal Pradesh, alleging persecution, quit notices and threats of eviction by the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union. The Chakmas had applied for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(a)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusM/S. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BOMBAY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 399 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra entered into a construction contract with National Construction Co. and obtained a performance guarantee from the Central Bank of India. When the contractor abandoned the work, the State sued the bank alone for the guaranteed amount; the suit was dismissed for non‑joinder of the contractor and

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusKAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.

1996 INSC 409 January 1996Disposed off

The Union of India leased a site in a reserved forest in the Union Territory of Daman to Kamath Holiday Resorts for a snack bar and restaurant. The Conservator of Forests objected, invoking Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which restricts de‑reservation or non‑forest use of forest land without prior Ce

MIS NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.versusRAJ KISHORE @ SAHU JENA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 419 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mis National Aluminium Co. Ltd., sought to enforce its right as a beneficiary of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in pending proceedings before the Sub‑Judge of Angul. The respondents, Raj Kishore @ Sahu Jena and others, were served notice but failed to appear. The legal question was wh

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusJAN KALYAN SAMITI, SHEOPURI, GHAZIABAD AND ANR.

1996 INSC 429 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) acquired land by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25‑02‑1986 and a declaration under Section 6 on 26‑02‑1986, both of which were published together on 10‑04‑1986. The respondents challenged the acquisition, arguing that the notifica

PREETAM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 439 January 1996Remitted to Lower Court

The dispute involved Bhoomidari rights over 38.25 acres in a village undergoing consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, where the Gaon Sabha objected to the appellants' entries in revenue records. The Consolidation Officer ordered expunction of the appellants' names, and the Settlement Officer reman

KING PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13118 November 1996Dismissed

The appellants, former zamindars, challenged the vesting of their estates in the State of Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which they claimed left their rights to work mines intact. The Collector issued notices to stop mining and offered leases governed by the U.P. Minor Mine

EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. CALCUTTAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

1996 INSC 13128 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

East India Hotels Ltd., an approved hotel, claimed both the extra depreciation allowance under clause (iii) and the extra shift depreciation allowance under clause (iv) of Item III of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules for AY 1977-78. The Revenue argued that an approved hotel could claim only the extra depreciation all

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTSversusB. RAVINDRAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 13138 November 1996Dismissed

The case concerned ex‑servicemen who retired before age 55 and were re‑employed in the civil service. Their pay was fixed at the minimum scale, and they claimed advance increments where the total of pay plus pension was less than the pay drawn at retirement, invoking Office Memoranda (OM) of 1958 and 1983. The Governme

SHIV SAGAR TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13148 November 1996

The Supreme Court examined a public interest writ petition challenging the allotment of 52 shops and stalls by the then Minister of Urban Development, Smt. Sheila Kaul. The Court found that the allotments were made without public notice, contrary to the policy she herself had framed in 1994, and were granted to her rel

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRASversusMADRAS CORPORATION TEACHERS MANDRAM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13158 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Corporation of Madras adopted a dual policy for appointing Education Officers, upgrading the post to Deputy Director and seeking to fill it by transferring a Government officer. The Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram challenged this action before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Corporat

M/S. KILPEST PVT. LTD.versusSHEKHAR MEHRA

1996 INSC 11598 October 1996Dismissed

Mehra and Dubey, the original promoters of Kilpest Pvt. Ltd., fell out and Mehra was removed as director and denied notice of meetings that led to share allotments favoring Dubey. Mehra filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement, which the High Court tri

K.K. SIDHARTHANversusT.P. PRAVEENA CHANDRAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 11608 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the appellant had issued two post‑dated cheques which were presented and returned unpaid with the endorsement "Payment countermanded by the drawer" and purportedly for insufficient funds. The appellant contended

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSAMAR SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 11618 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an IAS officer of the 1962 batch, was promoted to Additional Secretary but was not empanelled for the post of Secretary. He challenged the non‑inclusion before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the Special Committee had acted arbitrarily by not recording reasons for his exclusion and

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusSH. KESHAV RAM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 11628 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against a decree that had declared the respondents, Sh. Kesha v Ram and others, as owners in possession of a disputed land parcel (Khasra No. 153/1). The respondents had relied on an alleged order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing a correction in the revenue register,

SMT. YALLAWWversusSMT. SHANTAVVA

1996 INSC 11638 October 1996Disposed off

Basappa filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i‑b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained an ex‑parte decree on 15‑12‑1989. Basappa died on 26‑05‑1990; the wife, Shantavva, claimed she only learned of the decree on 31‑03‑1990 and was not properly served, filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set as

HARIBHAU DAGDU TANDALEversusINDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 11648 October 1996Dismissed

The Registrar, invoking Section 102(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, issued an interim winding‑up order against Industrial Co‑operative Association Ltd and appointed a special liquidator. The society appealed to the State Government under Section 104, but while the appeal was pending the liqui

M/S. LIPTON INDIA LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 11658 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Lipton India Ltd., challenged a Karnataka High Court judgment that was based on an affidavit filed by the State Government asserting that a sales‑tax Government Order had not been published in the Official Gazette nor laid before the Legislature. The affidavit, verified by Deputy Commissioner R. Krishna

STATE OF ORISSAversusSHARAT CHANDRA SAHU AND ANR.

1996 INSC 11668 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The wife lodged a written complaint with the Women’s Commission alleging that her husband had contracted a second marriage (offence under IPC 494) and was harassing her for dowry (offence under IPC 498A). The Commission forwarded the complaint to the police, who investigated both offences and filed a charge‑sheet; the

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 11678 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., sued State Bank of India (SBI) and an exporter for payment under letters of credit (LC) issued by SBI. The trial court held SBI not liable because the ore supplied did not meet the quality specifications stipulated in the LC, but the High Court reversed this, holding SBI liabl

CHIEF COMMISSIONER, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARHversusJANGI LAL JAIN AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 11688 October 1996Dismissed

The case arose from a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision that the delegation of power to levy property tax to the Chief Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (as amended) exceeded legislative competence and violated the Constitution. The

DR. ABDUL HAMEED FAZLI AND ANR .versusADAM MALIK KHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 11698 October 1996Dismissed

The petition challenged the appointment of a temporary lecturer at Aligarh Muslim University, alleging that the University's practice of preparing a reserve select list and filling vacancies from it without fresh advertisement violated Section 29(2)(a) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. The High Court held the

DEVCHAND KALYAN TANDELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8498 August 1996Dismissed

The appellants, Devchand Kalyan Tandel and Jayantilal, were charged under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for transporting ten silver ingots without a transport voucher in a notified area under Section 11‑K. The prosecution recovered the ingots from a secret compartment of an ambassador car and established t

RAJENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8508 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a licensee of several liquor shops under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, failed to pay licence fees for July and August 1994. The authorities issued a show‑cause notice, gave him a date to appear, and later published a notification of cancellation and re‑auction, which was subsequently held. The appellant

STATE OF BIHARversusRATAN LAL SAHU AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 8518 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar acquired 20.40 acres of land for the Getalsud Dam project under a 1972 notification. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs 1,59,505 at Rs 2,266 per acre, while the reference court increased the rate to Rs 10,000 per acre and granted a separate sum for a tank and well, plus an additi

KALLATHIL SREEDHARAN AND ANR.versusKOMATH PANDYALA PRASANNA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8528 August 1996Dismissed

In a partition suit, a cinema theatre was allotted to a woman and her minor son subject to payment of Rs.1,55,000 each. Unable to pay, the theatre was auctioned. The appellant advanced Rs.2,10,391 to the woman to set aside the sale, on the condition that she would sell the theatre to him for Rs.7,44,000. The appellant

THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ETC.versusDEVRAJBHAL CHHAGANBHAL AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 8538 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against a compensation agreement entered into under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which fixed compensation at Rs. 140 per guntha, an additional 20% for land development, a 15% solatium and interest at 4.5% as of the agreement date. The issue was whether the parties could

M/S. AVIJIT TEA CO. PVT. LTD.versusM/S. TERAI TEA CO. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8548 August 1996Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from an agreement for the sale of green tea leaves in which Avijit Tea Co. advanced Rs. 20 lakh, later deposited with a court receiver. Avijit Tea filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, and the Bench ordered a refund of Rs. 19,33,873.

THE STATE OF BIHARversusMADHESHWAR PRASAD

1996 INSC 8558 August 1996Case Partly allowed

The State of Bihar acquired 3.17 acres of agricultural land for the Suvarnarekha Project under a 1981 notification, and the Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs. 14,445 per acre, later enhanced to Rs. 15,055 per acre by a Subordinate Judge. Both the State and the claimants appealed, and the Pat

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusJAIN SHUDH VANASPATI LTD. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8568 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents imported 13,500 metric tonnes of RBD palm oil in stainless‑steel containers, which are a prohibited item, but the containers were painted to appear as mild‑steel. Customs issued show‑cause notices under Section 28 (duty not levied or short‑levied) and Section 124 (confiscation) of the Customs Act. The D

AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES' HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETYversusTHE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8578 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Aircraft Employees' Housing Co‑operative Society sought acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under s.4(1) was published on 24‑Nov‑1981 and objections under s.5‑A were filed, but the respondents failed to appear for the hearing on 30‑Nov‑1981. The Government issued a declaration u

USHA SUBBARAOversusB.E. VISHVESWARIAH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6978 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Usha Subbarao, the widow of B.N. Subbarao (one of five sons of Dr. N.S. Nanjundiah), claimed a one‑fifth share in the properties left by her father‑in‑law under a 1935 will. The will divided the estate into Schedules A, B, C and D, gave management rights to the testator’s wife, and stipulated that sons could demand par

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6988 July 1996Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC to investigate alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) by Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, who was accused of purchasing property and incurring expenses abroad without RBI approval. The Chief Judicial Magistrat

SASA MUSA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 6998 July 1996Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of Sections 4A, 4B and 33M inserted by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Acts of 1992‑1993 and the power of the State Government to add or delete items from the Schedule of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 using Section 39. The sugar mills argued that inc

STATE OF U.P.versusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6968 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring 22.11 acres of land a reserved forest. The respondents, recorded as Sirdari holders, claimed they had acquired ownership under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and therefore the forest no

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, JAIPURversusM/S. NARAINI UDYOG AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7018 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned two companies, M/s Naraini Udyog and M/s Modern Steels, which were separately registered under the Companies Act but shared a common head office, branch, telephone facilities, clerical staff and other operational resources, indicating functional unity. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held th

UNION OF INDIAversusSWARAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7028 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a compensation award made in 1978 and a decree confirming the award in 1981, which became final. After the 1984 amendment to the Act increased the solatium to 30% and interest rates, the respondents filed applications under CPC sections 151 and

SUSHILA NARAHARI AND ORS.versusNANDA KUMAR AND ANR.

1996 INSC 7038 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale, which was decreed ex‑parte against the appellants after their advocate withdrew his vakalatnama without notifying them. The appellants filed an application to set aside the ex‑parte decree, seeking condonation of a 40‑day delay caused by the advocate

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusRAJ SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 7048 July 1996Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan acquired land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 and the Land Acquisition Court awarded compensation by an award and decree dated 28 July 1992. The respondents applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree; the judgment copy was supplied and an appeal under Section 54 of the

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7058 July 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Master Plan (2001) under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which categorises hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries (H‑a and H‑b) as prohibited in Delhi and mandates their relocation within three years. The Court found that 168 such industries continued to operate illegally,

DIRECTOR GENERAL, ESI AND ANR.versusT. ABDUL RAZAK ETC.

1996 INSC 7068 July 1996Disposed off

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against two employees of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The Regional Director of Karnataka initiated proceedings, and the Director General later imposed a penalty. The respondents challenged the memoranda initiating the proceedings and the Director General

JAS INTER COLLEGE KHURJA, U.P. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7078 July 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the appointment of teachers at J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja. The Court had earlier directed the State to appoint 18 teachers as required by the petition. The U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission selected eight teachers, one of whom did not join

STATE OF RATASTHANversusMANGILAL PINDWAL

1996 INSC 7088 July 1996Disposed off

Mangilal Pindwal, an Upper Division Clerk of the Rajasthan Government, was compulsorily retired on 31 March 1973 under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, with payment of three months' salary. He challenged the order, and the Rajasthan High Court set aside the retirement on the ground that th

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRASversusTHE LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD. KARUR

1996 INSC 6478 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Lakshmi Vilas Bank, in the ordinary course of its banking business, purchased securities on behalf of its customers and required a margin money deposit. When the customers failed to pay the balance, the bank forfeited the margin and adjusted it against the purchase price of the securities, treating the reduced amount a

MAJOR R.S. BUDHWARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6488 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved Major R.S. Budhwar and two other soldiers who were convicted by a General Court Martial for abetment and commission of murders of senior army officers under Sections 302, 34 and 109 of the IPC read with Section 69 of the Army Act. The appellants challenged the convictions on the ground that the eviden

GAYA BAKSH YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6428 May 1996Disposed off

The case concerned the method of preparing an All‑India seniority list for officers of the Customs Appraisers Service, Class II. The Government had issued a circular in 1986 that placed promotee appraisers together based on continuous service and direct recruits based on UPSC ranking, then merged the two lists in a 1:1

SMT. SWATI AND ORS.versusSH. DAMODAR ANANT KARANDIKAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6498 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Bombay Port Trust fixed reservation percentages for promotional posts at 15% for Scheduled Castes (SC) and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes (ST), matching the All‑India policy, whereas the State of Maharashtra prescribed 7% for SC and 9% for ST at the time of initial recruitment. The Bombay High Court held that the Trust

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusRAM CHANDRA DAS

1996 INSC 6438 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Chandra Das, an Assistant Conservator of Forests, was compulsorily retired under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. He challenged the retirement before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the retirement on three grounds: that he had crossed the efficiency bar, that his promotion erased adverse r

B.R. VEERABASAVARADHYAversusTHE DEVOTEES OF LINGADGUDI MUTT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6448 May 1996Dismissed

In OS No. 22/62, the appellant (defendant 1) entered into a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, and a decree was passed based on that compromise, granting him continued occupation as manager, possession of shops, and refunds. The suit was later remanded to consider defendants 2‑4, and after their own compromis

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusROADWAYS MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSOCIATION U.P. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6458 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Rule 8(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts & Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982, which dealt with pension and gratuity liabilities when government employees on deputation were deemed absorbed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp

BISWA RAN.JAN SAHOO AND ORS.versusSUSHANTA KUMAR DLNDA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6468 May 1996Dismissed

The case concerned the selection of six Chargemen ‘B’ Grade posts in the Mechanical and Electrical Division of Indian Railways under advertisement No. 6/92. The petitioners alleged massive irregularities, including alteration of answer‑book marks and interview scores, leading to wrongful appointments. The Central Admin

T.R. THANDURversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4908 April 1996Disposed off

The petitioner booked a flat in a building constructed on excess vacant land that had been exempted under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The promoter refused to transfer the flat and the land share, citing a Karnataka High Court order based on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. V

DR. HANIRAJ L. CHULANIversusBAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA

1996 INSC 4918 April 1996Dismissed

Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani, a practising surgeon, applied for enrollment as an advocate but was rejected by the Maharashtra and Goa State Bar Council under Rule 1, which bars persons engaged in any other profession from being enrolled. He challenged the rule on grounds of excessive delegation of legislative power and viola

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusDEEP NARAIN TRIPATHI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4928 April 1996Dismissed

The respondent was appointed as an ad‑hoc lecturer in 1985 at a college affiliated to Purvanchal University (formerly Gorakhpur University) after selection by a committee and approval by the Vice‑Chancellor. The 1991 Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Ordinance introduced Section 31‑C, allow

L.M. MAHURKARversusTHE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 4938 April 1996Dismissed

L.M. Mahurkar, a sales tax practitioner with only a matriculation qualification, was denied enrollment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra after the Advocates Act, 1961 came into force. He claimed that his prior right to appear before the Bombay Sales Tax Authority, exercised under the Bombay Sales Tax Act

BIHAR STATE UNEMPLOYED CIVIL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SH. RANJIT RANA AND ORS. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4948 April 1996Dismissed

The Bihar State Unemployed Civil Engineers Association filed a writ petition seeking that the State of Bihar fill vacancies for Assistant Engineers (Civil) from a waiting list prepared by the Public Service Commission. The Patna High Court directed the State to identify vacancies existing as on 31 December 1987 and to

M/S. TARAKNATH AND ANR.versusSUSHIL CHANDRA DEY BY LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4958 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The property of the late Syed Md. Mahibullah passed to his widow, five daughters and five sons. After the widow's death, the five sisters relinquished their shares in favour of their five brothers, an oral gift that the Supreme Court held to be valid under Muslim personal law with constructive delivery deemed sufficien

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