Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

G B PATTANAIK

713 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 401–600.

DAVLNDER BHATIA AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 23112 May 1998Dismissed

The appellants, who had been working as Junior Commercial Clerks, were appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as Enquiry‑cum‑Reservation Clerks between 1978 and 1982 after the Railway Board changed its policy to fill the post by selection, favouring women candidates. When the railway later regularised the appellants' positions t

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusANJAN SANYAL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 20512 April 2001Dismissed

The respondent, Anjan Sanyal, a probationary officer of the State Bank of India (SBI), was transferred several times, including to the bank's Central Office in Mumbai, but repeatedly refused to join the postings and filed representations seeking cancellation. The Calcutta High Court, both a Single Judge and a Division

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

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.versusS.D. GUPTA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 23112 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were promotee Extra Assistant Directors in the Central Water Commission Engineering Class‑I Service, challenged the seniority list prepared by the Union of India which placed them below direct recruits appointed later. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the 1965 Service Rules (Rules 5, 6

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

PARAS YADAV AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1999 INSC 612 January 1999Case Partly allowed

The deceased Sambhu Yadav was attacked by three accused and, while gravely injured but conscious, gave a statement to witnesses and a police Sub‑Inspector that identified Paras Yadav as the one who stabbed him. The Sub‑Inspector recorded this statement as a routine FIR, not expressly as a dying declaration. The Supreme

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

R.C. CHAWLAversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6112 January 1996Disposed off

The appellant, R.C. Chawla, was allotted a residential plot by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on the condition that it not be used for commercial purposes. He allegedly used the premises for commercial activity, prompting HUDA to issue a resumption order. The appellant submitted an affidavit claiming th

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

CHARAN LAL SAHUversusDR. APJ ABDUL KALAM AND ORS.

2002 INSC 52911 December 2002Dismissed

Charan Lal Sahu, an advocate, filed an election petition and a special leave petition challenging the election of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as President of India, alleging that his own nomination was wrongly rejected and that certain provisions of the Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections Act, 1952 were unconstitut

HARDEO SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2000 INSC 31811 May 2000Dismissed

Hardeo Singh, a contractor, obtained overdraft facilities totalling Rs 21.5 lakh from the Birpur branch of Central Bank of India, facilities that were beyond the authorised limit of the branch manager, S.K. Roy, who was alleged to habitually receive illegal gratification from a third party. Although the FIR named only

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURversusM/S. RAGHUVAR (INDIA) LTD.

2000 INSC 31511 May 2000

The respondent, a manufacturer of vegetable products, filed a MODVAT declaration on 10‑Mar‑1987 but had wrongly availed credit from 1‑Mar‑1987. The Excise authorities issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, invoking the six‑month limitation period to recover the wrongly t

M/S. AVTAR SINGH & CO. PVT. LTD.versusM/S. S.S. ENTERPRISES AND ORS.

1996 INSC 35411 March 1996Disposed off

The parties were involved in two distribution agreements for the film 'Aag Ka Dariya', one dated 28 February 1985 with R. Venkatraman and a later one dated 7 October 1993 with M/s. Avtar Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Three suits arose: a Bombay suit by Venkatraman seeking cancellation of the 1985 agreement, a Madras High Court

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusJASWANT RAI KOCHHAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 35511 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for a housing scheme. The government later intended to use the land for a District Centre, a commercial purpose, and the High Court quashed the notification on the ground that the change of user violated the pu

DURGA PRASADversusNAVEEN CHANDRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 35611 March 1996Dismissed

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which culminated in a decree on 14 January 1994. Respondent No.2 and others filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, while the appellant moved a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of those applications. The trial court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusSHRI PRABHAKAR BHIKAJI INGLE

1996 INSC 35711 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a police officer, was removed from service by the Commissioner of Police under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and challenged the removal before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which confirmed the removal on March 6, 1995. He filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136, w

B. SHANKARANANDversusCOMMON CAUSE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 35811 March 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 4(e) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, concerning the composition of the institute's supreme body. The question was whether the five persons to be nominated by the Central Government must all be scientists, or whether only one must be a no

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusNAND KISHORE SHUKLA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 35911 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Nano Kishore Shukla, a clerk in the Uttar Pradesh government, was removed from service after a disciplinary enquiry found five charges of selling and purchasing property without prior authority proved. The respondent did not cooperate with the enquiry, refusing to cross‑examine witnesses on several charges. The enquiry

STATE OF KERALAversusK. MOIDEENKUTTY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 36011 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Kerala appealed against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kozhikode, which had first declared that declarant K. Moideenkutty possessed 3,171.53 acres of excess land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Board later reopened the case and, on the basis that 877 tenants occupied 1,726.90 acres and tha

STATE OF KERALAversusPUTTUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI ETC.

1999 INSC 5711 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, an employee of Western India Plywoods, was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by an Additional Sessions Judge for offences under IPC sections 408, 468 and 477A, involving misappropriation of empty barrels and forgery of documents. He filed a revision before the Kerala High Court, which set asi

RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE ETC.versusUTTAM AND ANOTHER

1999 INSC 5811 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that the accused had made a false complaint to a Treasury Officer, accusing him of being drunk and abusive, thereby invoking criminal defamation provisions. The magistrate, after directing an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, issued summons against the accused. The Sessions Judge, in revisi

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusTARACHAND AND ORS.

1997 INSC 13011 February 1997Dismissed

The petitioners challenged their promotions on the ground that their service records were not "outstanding" throughout the period considered, invoking Rule 28‑B of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The State argued that an amendment to Rule 28‑B made on 30‑Nov‑1991, which clarified the requirement, shou

RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.versusSHAKTI RAJ AND ORS. ETC.

1997 INSC 13111 February 1997Directions issued

The case concerned the recruitment of Canal Patwaris (Class III posts) in Haryana's Irrigation Department. The 1955 Patwaris Rules were amended by a 1970 notification requiring selection through the Subordinate Service Selection Board (SSSB). The Government, however, conducted examinations under the 1955 Rules, then ex

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRversusDR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 5111 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jammu & Kashmir appealed against a High Court order that had refused to condone a three‑month delay in filing an appeal against a promotion order for certain lecturers. The lecturers had been appointed on a regular basis but had not completed the seven years of regular service required under G.O. No. 517‑H

SH.MULKRAJversusSH. SUNDER DAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 5211 January 1996Disposed off

The appellant, who had obtained possession of certain plots in New Delhi, filed a suit for a mandatory injunction against the third respondent, which became final. Subsequently, the appellant and the first two respondents each purchased a one‑third share of the property, leading to a partition suit that resulted in a f

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.versusB.S. NANJUNDAIAH

1996 INSC 5311 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka filed a land acquisition proceeding against B.S. Nanjundaiah under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on 6 December 1973 and a declaration under Section 6 on 3 February 1975, but the respondent challenged them for lack of an enquiry under Section 5‑A.

NARANBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL AND ANR.versusSULEMAN ISUBJI DADABHAI

1996 INSC 5411 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Naranbhai Patel and another, became deemed purchasers of agricultural land under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, effective 1 April 1957. The respondent, the former landowner, executed a trust deed and registered it under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 without giving

SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 5511 January 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, private bus operators, sought to ply their vehicles on routes intersecting notified routes, invoking a modification under Section 102(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that relaxes the distance restriction to 25 kilometres. The State Government had issued a notification allowing such relaxation but pr

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.versusDR. RAMESH PRASAD

1996 INSC 5611 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Ramesh Prasad, a teacher at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College (a college maintained by the Uttar Pradesh Government), filed a writ petition seeking to remain in service until the age of 60, the superannuation age prescribed for university teachers under the U.P. State University Act. The Allahabad High Court ordered t

V. VIJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF KERALA

1999 INSC 55010 December 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State alleged that a watchman was murdered after a quarrel with accused No.1 and that five accused conspired to kill and hang him. The trial court convicted them under IPC sections 302, 34, 201 and 120‑B based solely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged presence of blood in the guard room, a lungi used as

PRAVEEN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2000 INSC 51510 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) conducted a competitive examination for 44 Block Development and Panchayat Officer posts, comprising a written test (400 marks) and a viva‑voce test (50 marks). After the written test, 130 candidates were shortlisted for the viva‑voce, and the final merit list was prepared so

GOA FOUNDATION, GOAversusDIKSHA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 51610 November 2000Dismissed

The Goa Foundation challenged the permission granted to Diksha Holdings for constructing a beach‑resort hotel on a plot in Nagorcem, Goa, alleging that the land fell within Coastal Regulation Zone‑I (CRZ‑I) where construction is prohibited and that the clearance violated the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The High C

DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 71710 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The landlady, Smt. Swaran Lata, sought eviction of her tenant Dev Kumar under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 alleging sub‑letting of the premises to three respondents. The Rent Controller, relying on a local commissioner’s report, concluded sub‑letting and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority rev

STATE OF U.P.versusMIS RAM NATH INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

1995 INSC 71810 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh entered into a construction contract with Ram Nath International for dam works, but design changes caused a substantial increase in the quantity of work. The contractor claimed a higher rate for the extra work, which the arbitrator accepted and awarded, also directing that work done after 30

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM.C. DESAI AND ORS.

1995 INSC 61110 October 1995Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Union of India against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had awarded death‑cum‑retirement gratuity (DCRG) and ad‑hoc relief to High Court judges who retired before 1 October 1974. The High Court had extended the benefit to all such judges, including those who had serve

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

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

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

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusLALITA S. RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2001 INSC 19810 April 2001Disposed off

The case concerned the determination of inter se seniority among Indian Railway medical officers who were either directly recruited through the UPSC or initially appointed on an ad‑hoc basis and later regularised. The Supreme Court examined whether periods of service rendered before regularisation could be counted for

SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. ETC. ETC.versusC.L. JAIN WOOLLEN MILLS AND ORS.

2001 INSC 19910 April 2001

The importer C.L. Jain Woolen Mills brought polyester filament yarn from Korea, which was seized by customs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court quashed the seizure and ordered release of the goods without demurrage, a decision that became final after the Revenue's special leave petition was di

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ORS.versusBATARA BEHERA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 9610 March 1999Dismissed

The case concerned a 2.133-acre agricultural plot on the periphery of Cuttack town that had been sold by persons alleged to belong to the Scheduled Caste to non‑Scheduled Caste buyers. Respondent No.1, a co‑sharer of the vendors, invoked Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, claiming the transfer was void un

E.S. RAJARAM AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 1410 January 2001Dismissed

The case concerned Traffic Apprentices recruited by Indian Railways before 15‑May‑1987 who claimed entitlement to the higher pay scale (Rs 1600‑2660) introduced for post‑cut‑off recruits. The Supreme Court had earlier, in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, upheld the Railway Board's memorandum limiting the higher scale to p

UNION OF INDIAversusELPLLLNSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

2001 INSC 1510 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed

In 1983 the Government of India, responding to a prolonged textile strike, promulgated an Ordinance and later an Act to take over the management of thirteen textile mills pending their nationalisation. Three Bombay mills – Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving, Jam Manufacturing and New City – challenged the legislation, alle

ISHWAR CHAND JAINversusHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 1710 January 2001Dismissed

Ishwar Chand Jain, a direct‑recruit Additional District & Sessions Judge appointed on 2‑May‑1983, was terminated after an extended probation but later reinstated and confirmed by the Supreme Court with effect from 2‑May‑1985. The High Court later fixed his seniority based on a 1990 notification that used the date of co

BHURI NATH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

1997 INSC 1410 January 1997Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Jammu & Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, which transferred management of the shrine and its endowments to a statutory Board and extinguished the hereditary rights of Baridars to receive offerings. The Baridars argued that the Board was a "controlle

PADMAversusHIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA & ORS.

2002 INSC 3719 September 2002Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ filed by Padma challenging CIDCO's bulk sale of developable land in Aurangabad. The High Court had held that the allotments to several private entities were made without Board approval, at prices below the reserve price, and in violation of Section 115 of the Maharashtr

RAJIV BHATIA ETC.versusGOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

1999 INSC 3869 September 1999Dismissed

The natural mother, Priyanka, filed habeas corpus petitions in both the Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts seeking the production of her daughter Akansha, alleging the child was illegally held by her brother‑in‑law after a purported adoption. The Delhi High Court examined the legality of the registered adoption deed, foun

RAMASHISH YADAV AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1999 INSC 3879 September 1999Dismissed

The case arose from a land dispute in which thirteen accused, some armed with guns, gandasa, knives and lathis, attacked members of the complainant's party, resulting in two deaths and several injuries. The trial court convicted all accused under sections 302 and 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while the

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

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

CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS.versusSHAKUNTALA SHUKLA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2769 May 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the promotion of Sub‑Inspectors of the Uttar Pradesh police to the rank of Inspector. The Selection Committee had used the criteria laid down in the Government Order of 5 November 1965, a special rule under the Police Act, rather than the Uttar Pradesh Government Service (Criteria for Recruitment by

SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY AND ORS.versusST ATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2779 May 2002Dismissed

The petitioners, who are police ministerial officers working in district offices, sought parity of pay scales and other emoluments with their counterparts in the headquarters (DIG, IG, DGP) based on a 1974 Government of Orissa resolution that created a separate cadre of police ministerial officers. The issue before the

NIRANJAN PRASAD SINHA AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2709 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, originally appointed as cleaners and later promoted to Fireman Grade A under Railway Board Circular dated 25‑June‑1985, challenged a seniority list that placed later promotees—selected through written examinations—above them. The respondents argued that the promotees, having qualified under an earlier 1

SWAPAN KUMAR PAL AND ORS. ETC.versusSAMITABHAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2719 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of railway employees promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. Some respondents had been promoted on an ad hoc basis because a suitability test could not be held, while the appellants received regular promotion after a suitability test. The Central Administrative Tribunal had held

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR.versusM. SAMBA SIVA RAO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 3059 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate issued summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to M. Samba Siva Rao and others, who refused to comply with the directions. The Delhi High Court held that such refusal did not attract Section 56 of the Act and dismissed the complaints. On appeal, the Supreme Cour

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

DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSHYAM SUNDER GANERIWALLA AND ANR.

1999 INSC 1729 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Delta International Ltd., the successor to Dewar's Garage, entered into a 1970 leave‑and‑license deed with ESSO allowing Shyam Sunder Ganeriwalla to operate a petrol station on premises it leased from Mallika Investment Co. The deed expressly stated it was a licence and not a lease, and any sub‑lease required the landl

PREM DASSversusINCOME TAX OFFICER

1999 INSC 519 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Prem Dass was convicted under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act for filing an incorrect return and allegedly withholding books of account. The Sessions Judge acquitted him, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to prove the requisite mens rea and noting that the penalty imposed earlier had been reduce

STATE OF M.P.versusJ.S. BANSAL AND ANR.

1998 INSC 759 February 1998Appeal(s) allowed

J.S. Bansal, a Superintending Engineer, challenged a charge‑sheet issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government, alleging it was stale and issued to block his promotion. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (MPAT) allowed his challenge, ordered a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting and later directed the Sta

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

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusASSN. OF COURT STENOS, P.A., P.S. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 109 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Court stenographers, personal assistants and personal secretaries of the Bombay High Court claimed that their pay should be equal to that of senior personal assistants to the Chief Secretary after the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Bombay High Court, invoking the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under its wri

GORIE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) AND ANR.versusTHANDROTHU BODEMMA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 129 January 1997Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal filed by the heirs of a defendant challenging a Division Bench judgment that declared four deeds of gift executed by Gowramma void. The earlier suit before a Subordinate Judge and the subsequent High Court appeal had held those deeds invalid under Hindu law. The appellants arg

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

AJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1999 INSC 5468 December 1999Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined review petitions that sought to overturn the view that Article 16(4) of the Constitution creates a fundamental right to reservation in public employment. The petitions relied on observations in Indira Sawhney that the reservation power was justified as a reasonable classification. The Court r

VAIJANATH AND ORS.versusGURAMMA AND ANR.

1998 INSC 4158 November 1998Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the heirs of Veerappa challenging a partition order that gave the widow of Ramshetti a share in the joint family agricultural land. The issue was whether the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, as applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, covered agricultural land, an

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

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

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

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 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

MANOJ@ BHAU AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1999 INSC 1668 April 1999Dismissed

Six men were tried for assaulting and killing Raju amid a political rivalry. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and, using various weapons, repeatedly struck the victim, leading to his death. Eye‑witness testimony of the victim's parents identified A1 as wielding a gupti and delivering

UNITED BANK OF INDIAversusTHE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

1999 INSC 1678 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

United Bank of India filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court for recovery of a debt from one defendant and ancillary relief against two others. While the suit was pending, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force and, under Section 31, the suit was transferred to a Debts R

SMT. GURNAM KAUR AND ANR.versusPURAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 2108 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned whether the appellant, a daughter of Ram Singh and Gurnam Kaur, was a legitimate child despite Gurnam Kaur's earlier marriage not being legally dissolved. Earlier courts had held the child illegitimate because the prior marriage was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant arg

STATE BANK OF INDIA ETC.versusKASHINATH KHER AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 2118 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the State Bank of India's policy of promoting Middle Management Grade Scale II officers who had not completed the statutory two‑year line assignment and three‑year rural/semi‑urban service, by placing them in a provisional List B and later promoting them after they fulfilled the condi

THE MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.versusTHE MYSORE PAPER MILLS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

2002 INSC 48 January 2002Dismissed

Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., a government company incorporated under the Companies Act, transferred a senior employee to Calcutta. The employee challenged the transfer as being vitiated by malafides and argued that the company was not a "State" within Article 12, thus the writ petition was not maintainable. The High Court

KAMALNATHversusSUDESH VERMA

2002 INSC 68 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Kamalnath, who was elected from the Chhindwara Lok Sabha constituency, was challenged by Sudesh Verma through an election petition alleging a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for exceeding the prescribed expenditure ceiling. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck several

KESHABO AND ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 318 January 1996Dismissed

The appellants purchased Bhumiswami rights of tribal land from Somu Gond in 1960. Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code requires prior permission from a Collector before such alienation to a non‑tribal person, and no permission was obtained. The Board of Revenue held the sale void, a decision affirmed by th

RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARI AND ANR.versusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW AND ORS.

1996 INSC 328 January 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Ramesh Chandra Tiwar and another against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad concerning land acquisition under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The key issue was whether Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 1984 Amendment Act applied to such acqui

A.J. JOSEPHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 338 January 1996Dismissed

A.J. Joseph, a Head Compounder posted in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, appealed against the Government's refusal to grant him a higher scale of pay under Fundamental Rule 9(25) clause 7(iii). The Central Administrative Tribunal had held that prescribing a higher pay scale was a policy decision beyond its jurisdiction.

HITECH ELECTROTHERMICS AND HYDROPOWER LTD.versusST ATE OE KERALA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5247 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Hitech Electrothermics & HydroPower Ltd set up a ferro‑alloy plant in Kerala after the State Government issued an industrial policy (1992) offering a five‑year concessional electricity tariff to new units that commenced commercial production between 1 Jan 1992 and 31 Dec 1996. The Kerala State Electricity Board allocat

EX. CAPT. HARISH UPPALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 5237 December 2002Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple writ petitions challenging the legality of lawyers striking or calling for a boycott of courts. It held that advocates, as officers of the Court, have no right to strike or boycott court proceedings; such actions interfere with the administration of justice and constitute professiona

S. RAMANATHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5797 December 2000Disposed off

The appellants, State Police Service officers promoted to the Indian Police Service (IPS), claimed that the Central Government failed to carry out the triennial review of IPS cadre strength required by Rule 4(2) of the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954. The review, due in 1987, was only initiated in 1989 and completed in 1991, cau

V. JAGANNADHA RAO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 5637 November 2001Dismissed

The appellants, senior assistants of the Factories and Boilers Department, challenged Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 that allowed their transfer to higher posts in the Labour Department. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had declared those Rules void for violating the Presidential Order is

NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5067 November 2000Dismissed

The appellants, appointed as Assistant Teachers in Assam primary schools, were hired without complying with the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. The State cancelled these appointments after issuing show‑cause notices, and the High Court upheld the cancellations. The appellants contended that

SHEAPUJAN BHAGATversusTHAKUR HEMBROM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13087 November 1996Disposed off

The village headman Hari Hembrom resigned voluntarily, rendering the village a 'Khas village' under Section 4(ix) of the Santai Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. An election was held and the appellant, Sheapujan Bhaghat, was declared the winner, which the respondent, Thakur Hembrom, contested on th

EMPLOYEE'S STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusM/S. F. FIBRE BANGALORE (P) LTD.

1996 INSC 13097 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) sought recovery of employer contributions from M/S F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., which disputed the liability and quantum of the contribution. The dispute centered on whether, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the corporation or the employer m

SMT. TULSA BAIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13107 November 1996Dismissed

Sm. Tulsabai filed a suit seeking declaration of title and an injunction against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, asserting that she purchased a plot and built a house using her own funds. The State contended that the house was held in her name as a benami transaction to shield her husband, a businessman, from s

SRI KANT TRIPATHI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4337 September 2001Disposed off

The case concerned multiple recruitments to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service where the Allahabad High Court had fixed the direct‑recruitment quota on the basis of a percentage of total cadre strength rather than on the actual vacancies and those likely to arise in the next two years as required by Rules 6 and

THE STATE OF M.P. ETC.versusHARISHANKAR GOEL AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 8387 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired 33 bighas 15 biswas of agricultural land in 1964 for industrial purposes. The Collector initially awarded Rs 3,150 per bigha, which was later enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs 1 per square foot with statutory benefits. The High Court judges varied the compensation, ran

UPENDRA NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 8397 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant claimed a patta (title deed) for land in Muzaffarpur that he said was granted by the Zamindar on 11 August 1950. The Collector, exercising powers under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, investigated and concluded that the patta was a fraudulent transfer intended to evade the Act, and there

GANAPATHI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOLversusM. DURAI KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8407 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ganapathi National Middle School, an aided institution established in 1929 and occupying rented premises, faced eviction by its landlord. The school sought acquisition of the land by the State, leading to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was later challenged in a writ petit

BALDEV SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR

1996 INSC 8417 August 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Baldev Singh and others challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reduction of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector had fixed Rs 16,000 per acre, the Additional District Judge raised it to Rs 30,000 per acre, and the High Court re

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.versusM.N. SANKARA NARAYANAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8427 August 1996Disposed off

The State of Kerala challenged a notification issued under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 that prohibited felling of all trees on a 60‑acre parcel which the Supreme Court had earlier declared not to be a private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The respondents, who

CHINTAMAN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8437 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the award of compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra for a spinning mill near Nagpur. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed compensation at Rs 5,000, Rs 3,000 and Rs 2,000 per acre for three categories of land. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs 0.40 per sq

DURGA DASversusTHE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8447 August 1996Dismissed

Durga Das purchased a share of land from Kewal Krishan, a member of a family that owned 14 cannals 18 marlas of land. The government acquired part of this land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the appellant claimed compensation as a tenant in occupation, relying on a mutation entry that listed him as a qualify

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALOREversusBELEKAL KRISHNA BHAT

1996 INSC 8457 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired 11 cents of land for a post office. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 2,50,000 per acre, which the Civil Judge enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000 per acre. The High Court further raised it to Rs. 6,00,000 per acre, relying on a sale deed (Exhibit P‑9) that showed a price of Rs. 48,000 for

KARAN SINGH AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 8467 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant's land, acquired under a notification issued pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was awarded compensation of Rs.10 per square yard by the Reference Court, relying on a Delhi High Court decision in A.N. Bialdari v. Union of India. The High Court had based its award on a market value

JHANDOO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 8477 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant’s land, measuring one bigha and 14 biswas, was acquired under a 1957 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court awarded compensation at Rs 10 per square yard, relying on the decision in A.N. Bhandari v. Union of India, which the High Court affirmed. The appellant argued that the m

THE NEW DATAR TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD.versusSMT. RADHABAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8487 August 1996Dismissed

The case concerned a collision between a jeep driven by Shantaram Patki and a passenger bus, resulting in the death of R.J. Kulkarni. The trial court dismissed the claim for damages, deeming the accident inevitable, but the Bombay High Court reversed this, finding the bus driver negligent and upholding a compensation a

PUNJAB DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. ETC.versusKALA SINGH ETC

1997 INSC 4897 May 1997Case Partly allowed

The respondent, a dairy helper, was dismissed for inflating milk supply and fat content. The domestic enquiry was held defective by the Labour Court, which then allowed both parties to present fresh evidence; the Court found the misconduct proved and the dismissal justified. The High Court altered the Labour Court's aw

MIS. R.S. REKHCHAND MOHOTA SPINNIKG AND WEAVING MILLS LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1997 INSC 4907 May 1997Disposed off

The appellant, a spinning and weaving mill, installed pumps in 1989 to draw water from the river Wana for industrial use. The Maharashtra Government, under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, issued a resolution fixing rates of water cess for non‑agricultural purposes, and the Tehsildar levied cess o

PANJKAJESHversusTULSI GRAMIN BANK AND ANR.

1997 INSC 4917 May 1997Dismissed

The petitioner, a bank official of Tulsi Gramin Bank, was charged under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 for dereliction of duty and, after a disciplinary inquiry, three salary increments were withheld cumulatively. On appeal, the appellate authority ordered that "one increment is released" and warned th

MURLIDHAR JALAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.versusSTATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4927 May 1997Dismissed

Murlidhar Jalan, the appellant, claimed title to a parcel of government land on the basis that he had originally obtained a 99‑year lease which expired in 1965. Although the lease was not formally renewed, a government officer continued to accept rent from the appellant. The appellant sought a declaration that he was t

UITAM NAMDEO MAHALEversusVITHAL DEO AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4937 May 1997Dismissed

The respondent, who owned a parcel of land, served a notice to the appellant to vacate and obtained a final order of eviction, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Execution proceedings were later initiated, but the appellant objected, arguing that more than twelve years had elapsed and the order could not be enfo

ANIL BAPURAO KANASEversusKRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. AND ANR.

1997 INSC 4947 May 1997Dismissed

Anil Bapurao Kanase, a seasonal worker in the chemistry section of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., was terminated after the sugar crushing season ended. He claimed that the termination amounted to retrenchment under Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sought a reference before the Industrial T

Y.R VEERANNAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4957 May 1997Dismissed

The petitioner, Y.R. Veeranna, claimed occupancy‑tenant rights over 13 acres 24 gunthas in K.R. Nagar Taluk under Sections 44 and 48‑A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, filing a Form‑7 application. The Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court rejected his claim because he was not personally cultivating the land; his sons

PUSHPAGIRI MATHversusKOPPARAJU VEERABHADRA RAO

1996 INSC 6277 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Pushpagiri Math, claimed ownership of a parcel of land that had been granted as a Bhatavarthi inam to the great‑grandfather of the respondent, Kopparaju Veerabhadra Rao, for services rendered. The respondent asserted title by prescription after the Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 ca

BRITISH INDIAN CORPORATION LTD.versusMIS RASHTRACO FREIGHT CARRIERS

1996 INSC 6287 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

British Indian Corporation Ltd entrusted 147 bales of raw wool to Rashtaco Freight Carriers for transport. The carrier detained the goods and sued the owner for an injunction, claiming arrears of Rs 13,48,817.13 in transport charges. The owner filed a separate suit for recovery of the detained goods. The carrier applie

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusRAVINDRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6297 May 1996

The Central Bank of India sought clarification on the meaning of the expression "the principal sum adjudged" in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly whether it includes interest that has merged with the principal. The Attorney General, appearing for the bank, relied on earlier Supreme Court dec

RAJENDER SINGH AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2000 INSC 2027 April 2000Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Kameshwar Singh, where appellants Rajendra Singh and Triloki Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34, 307 and 324 of the IPC. The appellants challenged the conviction on five grounds: (1) the prosecution’s failure to explain a grievous injury sustained by Rajendra Singh; (2)

JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1747 April 1998Dismissed

The appellants, directly recruited Assistant Engineers appointed in 1980 against vacancies of 1978, claimed seniority over promotee Assistant Engineers appointed in 1979‑80, invoking Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. The respondents filed a review and a separate original application before the Sta

A.I. REG. RURAL BANK OFFICERS FED. AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1267 March 2002Disposed off

The A.I. Regional Rural Bank Officers Federation filed a contempt petition alleging that the Government of India's 11‑April‑2001 notification on pay scales for Regional Rural Bank (RRB) employees contravened the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2218/1999. The notification granted parity of pay with

FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusNIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 1297 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State Government sought to acquire premises for a medical college and, after two earlier notifications were quashed by the Calcutta High Court, issued a third notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5‑A on the ground of urgency. The Hig

UNION OF INDIAversusBHAGWATI PRASAD (D) AND ORS.

2001 INSC 1377 March 2001Dismissed

A taxi collided with a passenger train at a railway crossing, causing deaths and injuries. The claimants filed applications under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for compensation against the taxi insurer and the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration argued that the Motor Accidents Claims Trib

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.versusWEST BENGAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS.

2002 INSC 17 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal revised the pay scales of its government employees effective 1 January 1986 under the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay & Allowances) Rules, 1990, and issued a memorandum in 1990 to compute pension for retirees on the basis of the notionally revised scales. Pre‑1986 retirees, represented by

MD. ISRAILS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 27 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were direct recruits appointed as Employment Officers in West Bengal between 1976 and 1982, while respondents 6‑30 were promoted on an adhoc basis in 1978‑79 with a six‑month tenure and a clause that the promotion was subject to West Bengal Public Service Commission (PSC) approval. The PSC approved their

K.P.A. VELLAYAPPA NADAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusBHAGIRATHI AMMAL AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 12966 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K.P.A. Vellayappa Nadar, was a partner in a firm formed in 1954. In February 1970, due to his old age, the partners mutually dissolved that firm and settled accounts, and a new partnership was created on 15 February 1970 without the appellant. After the death of one partner in 1972, the respondents filed

SHRI TULSIversusSMT. PARO (DEAD)

1996 INSC 12976 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Paro, sued Tulsi for possession of agricultural land, alleging Tulsi was merely a licensee who cultivated the land on her behalf. Tulsi contended he was a tenant at will, a status reflected in revenue records from 1951‑52 to 1971‑72 where he was listed as "Gar Marusi" and he had enjoyed uninterrupted po

JAI DAYAL AND ORS.versusKRISHAN LAL GARG AND ANR.

1996 INSC 12986 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Jai Dayal sued Krishan Lal Garg for a perpetual and mandatory injunction to keep a 5‑ft passage between their houses free from obstruction. The trial court granted the injunction in 1964, which was confirmed on appeal. After the obstruction was initially removed, Garg later built a shop that completely blocked the pass

VIJAY KUMAR NIGAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 12996 November 1996Dismissed

V.K. Nigam, a Sub‑Inspector, was found to have received illegal gratification from a gambling organiser and was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry. He challenged the dismissal, contending that he was not furnished with the preliminary inquiry report, violating natural justice, and that the statement of

INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ETC.versusEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION ETC.

1996 INSC 13006 November 1996Dismissed

The appellants, employers, had their regular employees perform overtime work and paid them overtime wages as per an agreement. The question before the Supreme Court was whether such overtime remuneration falls within the definition of "wages" under Section 2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, especially wh

N. RAJARATHINAMversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

1996 INSC 10036 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, N. Rajarathinam, an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, was charged with demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a taxpayer (PW‑1). He was suspended and an enquiry was conducted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which, after finding that the pre‑ponderance of evidence – chiefly

CHOUDHARY GOUTAM KUMAR SARANversusDIRECTOR OF SPORTS AND YOUTH SERVICES ORISSA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10046 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, an ad‑hoc employee, applied for the post of Senior Auditor under the Orissa Auditors Service Rules, 1987. Three candidates were shortlisted, and the Selection Board awarded extra marks for post‑graduation and honours qualifications, resulting in S. Sahu being selected. The petitioner challenged the awar

HANUMAN PRASADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 10056 September 1996Dismissed

The case concerned the cancellation of a select list of 106 candidates for Ticket Collector posts after a CBI preliminary report indicated that examination papers had been leaked and mass copying occurred. The candidates challenged the cancellation, contending that the Divisional Manager lacked authority, that the orde

MOHAMMADversusMOHAMMED BEKE

1996 INSC 10066 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant transferred one acre and 65 cents of land with a building to his father for his lifetime enjoyment, stipulating that after the father's death the property would be used as a Muslim Jamat mosque. While the father was still alive, the appellant executed a second deed cancelling the earlier provision. The ce

GUMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF RATASTHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10076 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a lessee of sand stone in Rajasthan, failed to file the required returns under the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, prompting the Assessing Authority to make a best‑judgment assessment under Rule 38(3) based on a government circular of 17 October 1987. A random weighment of a truck revealed 12

THE NAIHATI MUNICIPALITY AND ORS.versusCHINMOYEE MUKHERJEE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8326 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Naihati Municipality resolved to rehabilitate hawkers by acquiring land, but lacked funds, so the hawkers' union contributed Rs 3,90,000 which was deposited with the municipal commissioner and became part of the municipality’s funds. The Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Ac

AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8336 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of 3,470 acres in Naraina village for the "planned development of Delhi" on the grounds that the land was not required for a public purpose and that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had not been properly published in the lo

MRS. MANJU BHATIA AND ANRversusNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.

1997 INSC 4836 May 1997Disposed off

The builder constructed an eight‑storey building called "White House" in Delhi, delivering flats to purchasers including the appellants. It was later discovered that the top four floors were built in violation of municipal regulations, leading the New Delhi Municipal Council to demolish those floors. The flat owners su

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusSRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6246 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal and others directed the appellant to grant registration and subsidy under the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, a direction issued by a single High Court judge under Article 226. While the appeal against that direction was pending, contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant

SIKANDER @MOHD. SAFIQversusTHE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

1999 INSC 1576 April 1999Dismissed

The appellant, Sikander (Mohammad Shafiq), was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing his step‑mother Zohra Bi and step‑sister Guizar to death during a family property dispute. He appealed, contending that the killings occurred in a sudden fight and heat of passion, thereby falling under Exce

RAHUL SUBODH WINDOORS LTD.versusA.K. MENON AND ANR.

1999 INSC 1596 April 1999Dismissed

Rahul Subodh Windoor Ltd received a Rs 20 lakh cheque from A.K. Menon (respondent No. 2) for purchase of shares. The Custodian (respondent No. 1), appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, informed the company that the money was liable to be attached as prop

IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY - CONTEMNORversus-

2002 INSC 1236 March 2002Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo‑motu criminal contempt petition, examined statements made by writer Arundhati Roy in an affidavit that alleged the Court was acting with bias, silencing dissent and damaging its reputation. The Court held that such statements scandalised the authority of the Supreme Court and amounted t

SRI SHIBU CHANDRA DHARversusSRI PASUPATI NATH AUDDYA

2002 INSC 1216 March 2002Disposed off

Shibu Chandra Dhar, a tenant who purchased the landlord's building, sued Pasupati Nath Auddya for non‑payment of rent and for possession of shop premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. After the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent was dismissed, the respondent applied under Section

CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM AND ORS.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD AND ANR.

2002 INSC 656 February 2002Dismissed

Workmen of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were dismissed and filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court challenging the termination. The civil court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and the Gujarat High Court affirmed that the dispute falls within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, making civil

INDERMANI KIRTIPALversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1896 February 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a former semi‑skilled workman who later became an Assistant Store Keeper, claimed that he was unfairly excluded from promotion to the OEP Section, alleging a violation of his right to consideration. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application through a single‑member bench. He cha

SMT. FIRDOSH FATIMA (SINCE DEAD) ETC.versusSMT. FIRDOSH BEGUM (DEAD) AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 1906 February 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act 33 of 1972, which abolished letters‑patent appeals from judgments of a single High Court judge in writ jurisdiction concerning revenue and tenancy matters. The petitioners challenged the amendment on the ground that i

K.P.O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJEEversusPAPPU MANJOORAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 1916 February 1996Dismissed

The appellant‑defendant challenged the trial and Kerala High Court judgments that upheld a suit for recovery of Rs 1.5 lakhs on a promissory note (Ex A) executed for the transfer of 3 acres 44 cents of land and a building. The appellant contended that the note was purportedly for cash consideration, that the underlying

STATE OF U.P.versusO.P. SHARMA

1996 INSC 1926 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of U.P. filed an FIR against O.P. Sharma, manager of Modi Paints and Varnish Works, for storing large quantities of edible oils without a licence under the U.P. Oil‑seeds and Oil‑seeds Products Control Order, 1966 and the Edible Oil‑seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977. The High Court quashed t

K. THIMMAPPA AND ORS.versusCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BD. OF DIRS. SBI AND ANR.

2000 INSC 5705 December 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the State Bank of India's 1979 Conditions of Service Order, which placed Grade I officers confirmed before 31‑12‑1972 in Middle Management Grade Scale II and those confirmed after that date in Junior Management Grade Scale I. Petitioners argued that this bifurcation was arbitrary, amounted to

UNION OF INDIA AND ORSversusC.N. PONNAPPAN

1995 INSC 8445 December 1995Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered three appeals challenging decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on whether an employee transferred on compassionate grounds, and placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new unit, could have his service in the former unit counted as experience for promotion in the

STATE OF GOA AND ANR.versusHIRABHAI SOMABHAI TANDEL, NANI, DAMAN

1997 INSC 7185 November 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa detained the step‑father of the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and later, under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), ordered forfeiture of the respondent's pr

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. POPULAR CONSTRUCTION CO.

2001 INSC 4875 October 2001Dismissed

An arbitral award dated 29 August 1998 was forwarded to the Union of India with a request to file it in the Bombay High Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Union filed the award on 29 March 1999 and challenged it on 19 April 1999, initially invoking sections of the 1940 Act, later amending the petition to refer

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSMT. SATYABHAMA BA! AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 8195 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Indore Development Authority acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awarded compensation of Rs. 44,000 per hectare. The claimants later obtained enhanced compensation from the civil court and the High Court, the latter relying on certified copies of sale deeds marked under Section 51-A of the Act. T

MOHAMMAD KHA,LILversusKAMARUDDIN

1996 INSC 8215 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, one of four defendants in a suit for specific performance, challenged a decree of the appellate court before the Allahabad High Court. While three appellants were represented by counsel who appeared, the appellant had changed his advocate, and the new counsel failed to appear on the scheduled hearing dat

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHRI BALAKRISHNA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8225 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Indore Development Authority sought to acquire 4.85 acres of land under Town Improvement Scheme No. 54 framed under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. The Government sanctioned the scheme and a notification under Section 71(2) of the Act was published on 22 August 1973, which, according to the Sup

SRI CHOWDEGOWDA @ DORJI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusC. NEGARAJU AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8235 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sri Chowdegowda, claimed to be the legitimate son of the deceased, Machine Chowdegowda, and sought his share in a partition of ten acres of wet land, five point three acres of dry land and thirty gunthas of house site. The dispute centered on whether a customary Kuduvali marriage that allegedly took plac

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS.versusBABULAL AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 8245 August 1996Disposed off

The case arose from a fatal roof collapse in the South Govindpur Colliery on 30 June 1989, which killed five miners and injured two. The senior mining engineer, Babular, and the manager, Maheshwari Sharma, were alleged to have been absent and to have failed to take safety precautions, leading a fact‑finding committee t

RAMESHWAR DUBEY AND ORS.versusMASOMAT ASHA KAUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8255 August 1996Dismissed

Rameshwar Dubey and others filed a suit on 15 February 1973 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act seeking declaration that two sale deeds (dated 12 July 1966 and 14 December 1970) were void because fraud had been perpetrated on the plaintiff. The trial court and the Patna High Court held that the fraud rendered t

TUNGABHADRAINDUS. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2885 May 2000Dismissed

Tungabhadra Indus Ltd., a manufacturer of hydrogenated oil, had accumulated money credit under two separate Central Excise notifications – one issued in 1987 and later rescinded, and another issued in 1989. The company claimed it could utilise the credits from both notifications simultaneously for payment of excise dut

GURMESH PRAKASH BISHNOIversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 2185 May 1998Case Allowed

Gurmush Prakash Bishnoj was appointed a member of the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) on 4 March 1980 and served until 28 August 1984, after which he became Chairman of the HPSC until 27 August 1990. He received a pension of Rs.1,800 per month for his service as Chairman and claimed an additional pension for h

ASOKANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS

2000 INSC 1905 April 2000Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Porkodi, who was manually strangulated in her in-laws' house, and the related dowry death allegations. The trial court had acquitted Balasubramaniam (A-2) for lack of evidence of his participation, while convicting Rajammal (A-1) and Murugesan (A-3) for murder and dowry offences

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