Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

V BALAKRISHNA ERADI

28 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

CANTONMENT BOARD, DEHU ROAD & ANR.versusMAHINDRA OWEN LTD. & ANR.

1986 INSC 5231 March 1986Dismissed

The Bombay Cantonment Board sought octroi duty on trailers and water tankers supplied by Mahindra Owen Ltd. to the Defence Department under a 1959 notification. The Board claimed the items fell within items 3, 11, 14 and 16(b) of the First Schedule of the notification, making them chargeable. The Supreme Court held tha

GOPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1986 INSC 1130 January 1986Dismissed

The case arose from a violent clash between local Harijan labourers and migrant workers hired by mirasdars during a paddy harvest dispute. On 25 December 1968, the deceased Packiriswami Pillai was attacked and fatally cut on the head and neck by the accused Gopal (A‑1) and others, as witnessed by several eye‑witnesses

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusRAJA VASIREDDY KOMALLAVALLI KAMBA & OTHERS

1984 INSC 7127 March 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased had submitted a life insurance proposal for Rs.50,000 on 27‑December‑1960 and paid two cheques as the first premium, which were encashed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The deceased died on 12‑January‑1961 before the Divisional Manager formally accepted the proposal. The respondents claim

SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGALversusUSHA RANJAN ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR.

1986 INSC 12621 May 1986Dismissed

Three Army officers were charged with offences under Section 52 of the Army Act, 1950, which can be tried either by an ordinary criminal court or a court‑martial. They were tried before a Special Judge of the Fourth Additional Special Court, Calcutta, but the trial judge did not follow the Criminal Courts and Court Mar

E. MAHBOOB SAHEBversusN. SUBBARAYAN CHOWDHARY & ORS.

1981 INSC 20818 December 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, daughter of Moola Narayanaswamy, claimed ownership of a half share in a property sold in insolvency proceedings and alleged a partition in 1952 that allotted her the southern half. The first defendant, Nagappa, contested, alleging the transactions were benami and that no partition occurred. The trial cou

ANANT KIBE & ORS.versusPURUSHOTTAM RAO & ORS

1984 INSC 8317 April 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a family dispute over a 15.62‑acre inam garden granted in 1837, which had become part of the joint Hindu family estate. After the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into force, the inam holder became a bhumiswami under s.158(1)(b), and the question arose whether this conversion gave him excl

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

BISWANATH GHOSHversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

1987 INSC 4616 February 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, convicted under IPC sections 148, 302 and 149, appealed to the Calcutta High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal but, without receiving the Sessions Court records or fixing a hearing date, acquitted the respondents based on an alleged concession by the public prosecutor. The complainant filed a S

BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABIversusM.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS.

1986 INSC 13315 July 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Bajrang Gopilal Gajabi, who contested the assessment of central excise duty on cloth manufactured in private powerlooms. The lower authorities had found that yarn supplied by an agent on behalf of the appellant was used in powerlooms owned by others who received only labour cha

BANSI LAL & ORS.versusLAXMAN SINGH

1986 INSC 13515 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Bansi Lal and others were acquitted by an Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The victim's son filed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Delhi High Court Single Judge set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial. The appellants appealed to the S

RADHU K. KAKDE OF BOMBAY INHABITANT, BOMBAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1985 INSC 24711 December 1985Dismissed

The appellant challenged the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 to employees of the Canteen Stores Department (India), arguing that the department was not an "establishment" engaged in an industry under a Central Government department and thus should not fall within the exemption of Section 32(iv). The Cou

CHHAGANLAL KESHAVLAL MEHTAversusPATEL NARANDAS HARIBHAI

1981 INSC 20411 December 1981Dismissed

Motibhai created two mortgages on his property; after his death the mortgagor's heirs and successive mortgagees transferred their interests, and the plaintiff, Narandas Haribhai Patel, purchased the equity of redemption from the heir Taralaxmibai and sued the mortgagees for redemption. The issues were whether a co‑mort

MRS. ELIZABETH DINSHAWversusARVAND M. DINSHAW AND ANR.

1986 INSC 23011 November 1986Disposed off

The petitioner, a U.S. citizen, obtained a Michigan Circuit Court decree granting her sole custody of her son and limited visitation to the father, who was an Indian citizen. The father, exploiting his weekend visitation rights, abducted the child to India without court permission, violating the decree and prompting ar

NIRANJAN PATNAIKversusSASHIBHUSAN KAR & ANR.

1986 INSC 7311 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

N. Patnaik, a mine licensee, was a prosecution witness in a case where the senior mining officer was convicted for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction but harshly described Patnaik and the manager as bribe‑givers and accomplices, even suggesting

SAKURUversusTANAJI

1985 INSC 15310 July 1985Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer declared the respondent as owner of six acres under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The appellant, instead of filing an appeal under section 90, pursued a writ petition which was dismissed, after which he filed an appeal before the Collector t

MAHARAJA KUMAR SOMENDRA CHAND NANDYversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1985 INSC 15410 July 1985Dismissed

The appellant, a descendant of Dewan Krishna Kant Nandy, claimed Jagirdari rights over 41 villages granted in 1785 for the purpose of defraying expenses of deity worship, and also held zamindari rights acquired later. When the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force, the State paid

JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETYversusTANDUR & NAYANDGI STONE QUARRIES (P) LTD.

1987 INSC 978 April 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Joint Director of Mines Safety issued a notice under Sections 17 and 22 of the Mines Act, 1952, requiring Tandur & Nayandgj Stone Quarries (P) Ltd. to appoint a qualified manager after an inspection revealed that the open‑cast mine employed more than 50 persons in a day. The quarry filed a writ petition, and the An

RAISUDDIN @ BABU TAMCHIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

1983 INSC 1507 October 1983Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the preventive detention of Raisuddin under the National Security Act, 1980, alleging that the State Government failed to forward the detainee's representation to the Advisory Board within the statutory period, thereby violating Section 10 of the Act. The Court examined whether a delay in for

INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED AND ANR. ETCversusSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1987 INSC 1536 May 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., a power‑intensive ferro‑alloy manufacturer with four furnaces, had been permitted by the Orissa State Electricity Board to club the electricity allocations of its units for efficient operation. The State Government, invoking Section 22B of the Indian Electricity Act, later denied cl

MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHAversusBENNET COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

1986 INSC 1096 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha applied to the Industrial Court for recognition under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, claiming 67% membership. The rival union (Times of India and Allied Publications Employees Union) raised objections, but after an

ANDHRA RE-ROLLING WORKS, HYDERABADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1085 May 1986Dismissed

Andhra Re‑rolling Works converted 3,000 metric tonnes of untested rails into M.S. rounds under a contract. The Central Excise authorities issued notices demanding excise duty on the rounds under Item 26AA(i) of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, invoking Rule 10‑A of the Central Excise Rules,

MAHENDRA KUMAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

1987 INSC 1464 May 1987Appeal(s) allowed

In 1976, respondents Nos. 2‑5 discovered a treasure of gold, silver ornaments and cash while renovating a house and reported it to the Collector, who issued a notification under the Indian Treasure‑Trove Act, 1878. The Collector, believing the treasure was hidden within the statutory period, adjourned the hearing and a

PRAKASH COTION MILLS PVT. LTD.versusRASHTRIYA MILLS MAZDOOR SANGH

1986 INSC 1551 August 1986Case Partly allowed

The mill of Prakash Cotton Mills was forced to shut from 24 March to 10 June 1964 because essential raw materials were detained by excise authorities. The Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh sought closure compensation for regular employees and Badli (casual) workers. The Labour Court ordered compensation at 50% of wages; the Indu

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