Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

A VARADARAJAN

6 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)versusPURAN MAL

1985 INSC 6826 March 1985Dismissed

The Delhi Administration prosecuted Puranmal for alleged adulteration of jal mirchi powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after a public analyst reported nine live meal worms in a sample taken from his shop. The trial court held that the prosecution had not proved the powder was adulterated and acq

PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1984 INSC 15022 August 1984Case Allowed

The petitioners, members of the Scheduled Caste, challenged their exclusion from appointment as Sub‑Judges in the Delhi Judicial Service despite being on the merit list of the 1980 competitive examination. The High Court had fixed the number of reserved vacancies based on the number of candidates qualifying for general

SHAMBHU CHARAN SHUKLAversusTHAKUR LADLI RADHA CHANDRA MADAN GOPALJI MAHARAJ & ANR

1985 INSC 6319 March 1985Dismissed

The case concerned a Hindu religious endowment where the founder, Purushottam Lal, dedicated his property to the deity Gopalji and appointed his wife, Asharfi Devi, as shebait (temple manager) without a power to alienate the property. After Asharfi Devi's death, the appellant, Shambhu Charan Shukla, claimed possession

BISHNU RAM BORAH & ANR.versusPARAG SAIKIA & ORS.

1983 INSC 17716 November 1983Disposed off

The dispute concerned the grant of a liquor licence for Jorhat Country Spirit Shop No. I under the Assam Excise Rules, which give preference to "educated unemployed youth". The Board of Revenue upheld the licence in favour of the appellants, Bishnu Ram Borah and Bipin Chand Borah, rejecting the claims of respondents Pa

RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC.versusKALYAN MAL

1984 INSC 19010 October 1984Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide need to demolish the building and construct a gold and silver ornaments factory. The lower courts upheld the eviction, citing sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h), and the tenants contended that if the ev

V. S. TALWARversusPREM CHANDRA SHARMA

1984 INSC 501 March 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging that the premises were let for a composite residential and office purpose, which would disqualify the tenancy from protection. The lease deed contained a clause stating the premises were to be used for "Resid

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