Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 1996

1,520 judgments, newest first — showing 801–1,000.

Y. H. PAWARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 38514 March 1996Dismissed

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

KAHANDU DAULAT DANGDEversusJAY WANTRAO YADAVRAO KHARADE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 24114 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 24214 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

K. NANDAKUMARversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAI PERIYAR TRANSPORT CORPN.

1996 INSC 24514 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

MUKHTIAR AHMEDversusSMT. HUSAN BANO AND ORS.

1996 INSC 24614 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 24714 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 24914 February 1996Dismissed

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

J.R. JANI AND ORS.versusAHMED EBRAHIM OF RANGOON

1996 INSC 25014 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a claim by Ahmed Ebrahim, a Burmese citizen, that he had purchased six lakh shares of Khatiawad Industries Ltd., a company declared an evacuee property in 1959, and that the declaration was illegal because notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, ha

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

1996 INSC 25114 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

SANT SINGHversusTHE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANSI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 25214 February 1996Dismissed

Sant Singh appealed against a notice issued under Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, contending that a sale of 10 acres 33 cents to his minor daughter before the appointed day (24 January 1971) and a transfer of 13.47 acres to a private temple after that date should be excluded from

ABDUL QADIR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSMT. MAIMOONA KHATOON (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 25314 February 1996Dismissed

Abdul Qadir, as successor of an evacuee property declared under the Custodian of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, claimed adverse possession over land and sought to be recorded as sirdar and bhumidar in two khatas. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer initially upheld his claim, but the Deputy Director reversed,

RAGHUNATHversusPOPAT LAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 25414 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The land originally owned by Lilachand Bhandari was hypothecated to Hirachand in 1942. Hirachand leased the land to respondents No.2 and No.3 in 1947‑48, making them tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Respondent No.2 purchased the equity of redemption on 27 December 1949, thereby becomin

SHRI JAI KISHANversusSHRI KESHA V RAM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147813 December 1996Dismissed

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

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusRAMA RANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147913 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

SHER SINGH AND ORS.versusGAMDOOR SINGH

1996 INSC 148013 December 1996Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit in 1978 seeking a declaration that they owned five‑sixths of an agricultural plot, asserting that the land was ancestral joint Hindu family property. The defendant in that suit admitted the property was joint family property and a decree was passed accordingly. The respondent, Gamdoor Singh,

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

1996 INSC 148113 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

M.C. MEHTAversusKAMAL NATH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148213 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta challenging the lease of forest land on the banks of the River Beas to Span Motels Private Limited, a company linked to former Environment Minister Kamal Nath. The petition alleged that the motel had encroached on protected

SUNDER DAS AND ORSversusGAJANANRAO AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148413 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

MAHENDRA RAIversusMITHILESH RAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 148513 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF U.P.versusRAGHUBIR SINGH

1996 INSC 148613 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

JAHAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 104913 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

SAHIB SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1996 INSC 105013 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Sahib Singh was arrested on suspicion and a police search recovered a revolver with six live cartridges from his bag. He was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. On appeal, he argued that the prosecution failed to produce any i

DEVINDERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1996 INSC 105113 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 105213 September 1996Dismissed

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

KESHUB MAHINDRAversusSTATE OF M.P.

1996 INSC 105313 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

SANKALCHAN JAYCHANDBHAI PATEL AND ORS.versusVITHALBHAI JAYCHANDBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 105413 September 1996Dismissed

The appellants and respondent were co‑owners of a property that had been partitioned and subsequently mutated in revenue records. The respondent filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, which was dismissed, after which the appellants instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and a

JUDHISTIR MOHANTYversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 105513 September 1996Dismissed

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

DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAOversusMR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 87313 August 1996Dismissed

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

SH. V.K RAMAMURTHYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 87413 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a railway employee who retired in July 1972, was given several opportunities to switch from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme to the Railway Pension Scheme but consistently chose to remain in the CPF and received the lump‑sum settlement on retirement. After a lapse of 24 years he filed a writ

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

1996 INSC 87513 August 1996Dismissed

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

SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAMversusMOTI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 87613 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

GOLA PULLANNA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1996 INSC 87713 August 1996Dismissed

The case involved a fatal assault on Sivarami Reddi (Sivanna) by a group of accused persons amid a long-standing enmity. Three eye‑witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, filed a written complaint and identified the assailants; the trial court convicted several accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IP

NIRLON SYNTHETIC FIBRES AND CHEMICALS LTD. ETC.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF GENERAL EXCISE

1996 INSC 87813 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. manufactures nylon yarn from caprolactam and recycles waste poly‑caprolactam to recover caprolactam in molten form. The Excise authorities treated this recycling as a separate manufacturing process and levied excise duty on the recovered caprolactam. The appellant sought a refun

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTYL. JEEVANLAL LTD.

1996 INSC 87913 August 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 88013 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF U.P.versusRAMESH PRASAD MISRA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 88113 August 1996Case Partly allowed

The case concerned the murder of Urmila Devi, aged 19, who was strangulated and her body subsequently burnt. The trial court convicted her husband, Ramesh Prasad Misra, under IPC sections 302, 201 and 498‑A and sentenced him to death, while his mother was convicted under sections 201 and 498‑A; the Allahabad High Court

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

1996 INSC 88213 August 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 88313 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 37613 March 1996Dismissed

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

GOPALAN KRISHNAN KUTTYversusKUNJAMMA PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA & ORS.

1996 INSC 37513 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 37713 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONGversusJAI PRAKASH SINGH

1996 INSC 37813 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased B.N. Singh had not filed income‑tax returns for three assessment years and died leaving ten legal representatives. His eldest son, Jai Prakash Singh, filed the returns and the Income Tax Officer issued notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) only to him, not to the other nine representatives, and proceede

RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

1996 INSC 37913 March 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Balwant Singh and the assault on Santokh Singh (PW‑6) by five accused who formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons. The trial court had convicted all five under Section 148 IPC for the assault, while Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh were also convicted under Section 302 I

RAM JANAMversusRADHAKRISHNA CHAUBE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 38013 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 38113 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKHversusDISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

1996 INSC 23613 February 1996Case Allowed

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

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 23713 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 23313 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIAversusVICTORY PLASTIC PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 23813 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 23513 February 1996Disposed off

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

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

1996 INSC 23913 February 1996Dismissed

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

A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIYARversusSMT. LOKANAYAKAMMA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 24013 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 147512 December 1996Dismissed

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

G.S.I.C KARMACHARI UNION AND ORS.versusGUJARAT SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147612 December 1996Disposed off

The G.S.I.C. Karmachari Union filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Gujarat Small Industries Corporation's resolution of 29 August 1987 that sought to implement a roster system for reservation in promotions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees retrospectively from 1 January 1976. The petiti

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

1996 INSC 147712 December 1996Disposed off

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

THE CANTONMENT BOARD,MATHURAversusKRISHNA BRICKS AND LIME FACTORY

1996 INSC 104712 September 1996Dismissed

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

AKHIL BHARTIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 104812 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, a railway employees’ union, challenged the promotion of a reserved‑category clerk, Shri A.S. Rana, to the D.S.K.–1 post, arguing that the promotion was made on the basis of accelerated seniority and therefore could not be granted to a post meant for the general category. The Central Administrative Trib

GAJRAJ SINGH ETCversusSTATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 104312 September 1996Disposed off

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

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

1996 INSC 104412 September 1996Dismissed

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusD.R. LAXMI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 104512 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan acquired 31.28 acres of land for defence purposes, publishing a Section 4(1) notification in the Gazette on 23 March 1977 and taking possession on 19 May 1977. The High Court quashed the notification and the Section 6 declaration, holding that the notice failed to specify whether the land was was

BASANT KUMAR ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA ETC.

1996 INSC 104612 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 86912 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

THE AMALAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.versusU. SIMHADRI

1996 INSC 87012 August 1996Dismissed

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

SH. BAU NATH GUPTAversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 87112 August 1996Disposed off

Sh. Bau Nath Gupta was appointed on a temporary basis as Assistant Master in the Government of Uttar Pradesh in December 1955 and served for about four years before being recruited by the Bihar Public Service Commission and joining the Bihar Government in January 1959, where he retired in December 1982. He claimed a pr

PARWATBAIversusSONABAI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 87212 August 1996Dismissed

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

C. CHENGA REDDY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1996 INSC 72912 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, senior engineering officials and contractors, were convicted for alleged conspiracy, cheating and falsification of accounts in connection with jungle‑clearance projects in Nellore district, based solely on circumstantial evidence and a technical report prepared by a departmental officer during the inves

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

1996 INSC 73012 July 1996Case Partly allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 73212 July 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 73312 July 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 50812 April 1996Disposed off

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

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.versusSOM NATH THAPA ETC.

1996 INSC 50712 April 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts case, where 145 persons were charged under the IPC and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Court clarified the law on criminal conspiracy, holding that knowledge of an illegal use can be inferred when the goods (e.g., RDX) hav

UNION OF INDIAversusP.S. DHILLON

1996 INSC 50912 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 51012 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

HARYANA UNRECOGNISED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1996 INSC 51112 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 51212 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

MRS. JOYCE PRIMROSE PRESTORversusMISS VERA MARIE VAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 51312 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusDR. HARBHAJAN SINGH GREASY

1996 INSC 51412 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 51512 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION U.P. AND ANR.versusAVDESH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 51612 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Inspector General of Registration, Uttar Pradesh, against the High Court order directing the State to continue daily‑wage appointments of registration clerks and to regularise them. The petitioners sought clarification on whether the directions given in Khagesh Kumar v. Inspecto

UNION OF INDIAversusRATTAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 51712 April 1996Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against the award of compensation under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, made in favour of Rattan Singh and others. The High Court had stayed execution of the award, directing the Union to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation. The Union complied, but the respondents argued t

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

1996 INSC 51812 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 36112 March 1996Dismissed

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

JAGDJSH NARAIN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1996 INSC 36312 March 1996Dismissed

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

NAVNEET RAJAN WASANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS .

1996 INSC 36412 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Navneet Rajan Wasan, an IPS officer of the Andhra Pradesh cadre, was denied promotion to the senior scale on the ground that he had not passed the language test. He obtained a direction from the Central Administrative Tribunal ordering the Government to consider him for promotion. When the Government implemented the or

M. VENKATESWARLU ETC.versusTHE GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 36512 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

M. Venkat... (appellant), a Scheduled Caste employee in the Andhra Pradesh Revenue establishment, was promoted ad‑hoc as Deputy Tehsildar in 1984 but fell short of the service‑length requirements for regular promotion. He sought relief under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules to retrospec

SMT. ANURADHA MUKHERJEE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 36612 March 1996Disposed off

The case concerned a group of graduate clerks (Grade II) who were promoted to Grade I in the Indian Railways after a restructuring of the clerical cadres. The Railway Board had issued several letters prescribing that 20% of Grade I vacancies be filled by direct recruitment and the remainder by promotion of in‑service c

MOHANversusSMT. ANANDI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 36712 March 1996Dismissed

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

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusLOUIS SHOPPE AND ANR.

1996 INSC 36812 March 1996Disposed off

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

SH. BAKSHISH SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusARJAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 36912 March 1996Dismissed

A suit for dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts was filed by one partner against the other partners of the Modern Ice Factory. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appeal was also dismissed. While the second appeal was pending, two of the partners died and their legal representatives were

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

1996 INSC 37012 March 1996Dismissed

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

SMT. AMBEY DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

1996 INSC 37112 March 1996Dismissed

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

RAM PIARI AND ANR. ETC.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SOLAN AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 37212 March 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals by landowners against a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that reduced compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector had originally offered compensation of Rs 14,195 per bigha for Kuhal land and Rs 9,425 per bigha for Katuhal land, while the High

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

1996 INSC 37312 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

ANSARAM RAMBHAU YELVE AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1996 INSC 22112 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 22212 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 22312 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 22412 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 22512 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIAversusAJAIB SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 22612 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 22712 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF KERALAversusGEORGE JOSEPH

1996 INSC 22812 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 22912 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 23012 February 1996Dismissed

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

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

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

1996 INSC 5712 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 5812 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

SARAL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 5912 January 1996Disposed off

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

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

1996 INSC 6012 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGYversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

1996 INSC 146511 December 1996Dismissed

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

RATTAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1996 INSC 146711 December 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a former army man, was convicted of murdering Kanta Devi, who was shot in her courtyard at night. The deceased, moments before being shot, shouted that the appellant was standing with a gun. The gun was later found near the body. The appellant appealed, arguing that the omission in the FIR regarding the

MOHAN BIR SINGH CHAWLAversusPANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH AND ANR.

1996 INSC 146811 December 1996Disposed off

Mohan Bir Singh Chawla challenged Punjab University’s rule that added a ten‑percent weightage to the qualifying‑exam marks of candidates who had passed the exam from the same university for admission to its LL.B. programme. The Supreme Court examined whether such university‑wise preference violated Articles 14 and 15 o

VIKRAM SHITOLE AND ANR.versusTHE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 146911 December 1996Dismissed

The appellants, Vikram Shitole and others, held permits to operate stage carriages on the Gwalior‑Indore route, which had been notified as a frozen route under Section 68‑D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A self‑employment scheme allowed unemployed graduates to run stage carriages on such routes subject to specific

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusM/S SURINDER KUMAR AND CO. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147011 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who held licences to sell Indian-made foreign liquor in Ludhiana, had their licences cancelled by the Excise Department on grounds of illegalities. They filed writ petitions alleging that the Minister for Excise acted mala fide in the cancellation. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the responden

PATEL BHUDARBHAI MAGANBHAI AND ANR.versusPATEL KHEMABHAI AMBARAM AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147111 December 1996Dismissed

The dispute arose over a property mortgaged by widow Bai Jivi in 1911; after her death in 1955 the property passed to her daughter Hati, who filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge decreed in favour of the respondents, holding that Hati was the

SMT. CHATRO WIDOW OF NAND RAM AND ORS.versusSAHAYAK SANCHALAK CHAKBANDI, MEERUT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147211 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Jallo purchased the proprietary right of a Zamindari estate in 1933 and became the khudkhash-holder. She later inducted her husband Tunda as a tenant, who died in 1947‑48. After the enactment of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, a dispute arose over who succeeded to the estate of either Tunda or

PARBATI DEVIversusPURNA PATRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147311 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a one‑fourth share of land that had been auctioned in 1938 to Babu Suryanarayan, who obtained possession and later sold the same share to Hemamali Devi, who in turn sold it to the appellant in 1950. The appellant filed a suit for partition of that share, and the trial court and the appellate cou

FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATIONversusYADU ETC.

1996 INSC 147411 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Biharilal and Mahipal constructed shops on land owned by Ballabgarh Municipality and were served notices under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act, 1973 for unauthorized construction. They later sold the land to the respondents, who sued the Faridabad Complex Administration (successor to the municipality) for

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ANR.versusREGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI

1996 INSC 118011 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, whose security is covered by the Special Protection Group (SPG) Act, was summoned as an accused before the Tis Hazari Court. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi and the Director of the SPG sought a change of venue, arguing that the court complex could not provide the "proximate s

S.K. SATTAR SK. MOHD. CHOUDHARIversusGUNDAPPA AMABADAR BUKATE

1996 INSC 118111 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑owner of a shop, obtained a defined share of the premises through a partition among brothers. The respondent, a tenant, continued to pay rent to the elder brother and refused to pay rent to the appellant after the partition, leading to termination of his tenancy and an eviction petition under the Hy

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 117911 October 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta under Article 32, examined the earlier order that prohibited any construction within a 5 km radius of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana and mandated conversion of open areas into green belts. Municipal authorities and developers sought

THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODAversusM/S. THE GAEKWAR MILLS LTD.

1996 INSC 118211 October 1996Dismissed

Gaekwar Mills Ltd manufactured a fabric consisting of 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton. The Collector of Central Excise argued that the fabric should be classified as a cotton fabric under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, while the CEGAT held that it fell under Item 22 for man‑made fabrics. The S

SHIVSAGAR TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 118311 October 1996Disposed off

The petition challenged the 1994 allotment of 52 shops/stalls by the then Minister of Urban Development, Smt. Shiela Kaul, alleging that the allotments were made arbitrarily to her relatives, friends and staff in violation of the prescribed tender policy. The CBI report confirmed that the minister bypassed the policy a

KRISHNAN KAKKANTHversusGOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 118411 October 1996Dismissed

The Kerala government issued a circular designating RAIDCO and KAICO as the sole suppliers of pump sets to farmers in eight districts under subsidy schemes, which private dealers challenged as violating their Article 19(1)(g) right to trade and the equality clause, Article 14. The Supreme Court examined whether the res

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusDR. KRISHNA CHANDRA SAKSENA

1996 INSC 118511 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. K.C. Saksena, a medical officer, was caught in a trap for allegedly demanding a bribe. After investigation, the State Government granted sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before a challan could be filed, Saksena invoked Section 482 of the CrPC and obtained a stay; the Hig

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusTHE DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

1996 INSC 118611 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a decision that excluded lands covered by agreements to sell, but not yet transferred by sale deed, from the holding of a tenure‑holder for purposes of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The tenure‑holder argued that having parted with possession un

K. BASAVARAJAPPAversusTAX RECOVERY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

1996 INSC 118711 October 1996Dismissed

The appellant, K. Basavarajappa, had entered into an agreement to purchase land from a tax defaulter, Y.S. Devendra Murthy, and filed a suit for specific performance. The land was attached and auctioned by the Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act. Within 30 days of the auction, the appellant filed an applicati

H.M.M. LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

1996 INSC 118811 October 1996Dismissed

The appellant, H.M.M. Ltd., manufactures Horlicks at its Rajahmundry plant using barley malt (Tariff Item 68) as a dutiable input. Only a portion of the finished Horlicks is cleared at Rajahmundry, while the bulk is sent to other factories for packaging and clearance. The appellant claimed credit for the entire excise

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusNAWAB KHAN GULAB KHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 118911 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation sought to remove unauthorised hutments erected by pavement‑dwellers on a main road. The High Court stayed the removal until suitable accommodation was provided and required a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that pavements are public property intended for free pedestrian mo

KESHAV LAL THAKURversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 119011 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

A case was registered under Section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which is a non‑cognizable offence. The police filed an FIR and investigated, submitting a report seeking the appellant's discharge. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, relying on the report, took cognizance and proceeded against the appellant.

A. KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 119111 October 1996Disposed off

A. Kumar filed several writ petitions challenging a customs show‑cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, a seizure order under Section 132‑A of the Income Tax Act, and the demurrage rates of the Madras Port Trust. The customs authorities had found that the imported stainless‑steel circles, declared as "defec

GORAKHNATHversusSTATE OF UTIAR PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 119211 October 1996Dismissed

The dispute concerned the grant of an FL‑16 excise licence in Varanasi. The fifth respondent, Mohd. Khalil, held a temporary licence which was cancelled on 3 July 1993 by the District Excise Officer. Assuming a vacancy, a notification was issued and the appellant, Gorakhnath, was granted a licence. The fifth respondent

PRATIBHA PROCESSORS AND ORS., ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 119311 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Pratibha Processors and others, imported polyester filament yarn under an Open General Licence, warehoused the goods and later obtained an Advance Licence under the Duty‑Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme, clearing the goods with nil duty. The Customs authorities, however, assessed the Bil

GURU BIPIN SINGHversusSH. CHONGTHAM MANIHAR SINGH AND ANR.

1996 INSC 119411 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant had earlier faced a criminal complaint in 1966 under Section 500 IPC, which was settled by an apology and compromise. In 1990 a fresh complaint was lodged alleging that the appellant, by claiming his book was based on a manuscript of King Bhagyachandra, had forged a false document, thereby cheating the pu

UNION OF INDIAversusKISHAN CHAND AND ORS.

1996 INSC 119511 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India acquired land and initially awarded compensation of Rs.2,500 per bigha under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,000 per bigha in December 1973. On further appeal, the Delhi High Court raised the compensation to Rs.12,000 per bigha and grant

THE PRESIDENT, A.P.M.C., TALUKA DARWHA, DISTRICT YAVATMAL,MAHARASHTRAversusMANIKANT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 119611 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The President of A.P.M.C. appealed to the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court's enhancement of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land, about 3 acres, was acquired for a market yard and the acquisition officer had fixed a market value of Re.0.36 per square foot, which the r

MANGLA GIRIversusREGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE VARANASI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 119711 October 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a government employee, was charged with defalcation of several sums of money and shortage of sugar as per special audit reports for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. He was given an opportunity to make good the loss but failed to deposit the required amount, after which an order of removal from service was

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSH. BALJIT SINGH

1996 INSC 119811 October 1996Dismissed

Sh. Baltit Singh, who enlisted in the Army in 1975 and was regularised in 1977, suffered a thigh injury in 1979 while in service. He was medically downgraded, later diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, and invalidated out of service in 1981. He filed a petition for disability pension under Rule 173 of the Army Pensi

UNION OF INDIAversusSH. PUNNILAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 119911 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Sh. Punnilal filed a civil suit seeking promotion from shunter to Driver 'C' and obtained a decree in 1984, which was confirmed and led to his promotion in 1986. He then applied under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for back‑wages, and the prescribed authority ordered payment of Rs. 30,220. The Union of India ap

MRS. NALINI NAVIN BHAGWATI AND ORS.versusMR. CHANDRAVADAN M. MEHTA

1996 INSC 120011 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Manvantrai Mehta died leaving property and a will of his wife Kamlaben. The sons, including Chandravadan Mehta, obtained probate of Kamlaben’s will in 1987. The other children, led by Nalini Navin Bhagwati, filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to revoke that probate. The trial court refus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAIversusM/S. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD.

1996 INSC 103511 September 1996Disposed off

M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. received deposits from customers in the ordinary course of its trade. The deposits were initially recorded as capital receipts (security deposits). When a portion of these deposits remained unclaimed for a long period, the company wrote them off to its profit and loss account. The

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION AND ANR.versusFRANCIS DE COSTA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 103711 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The employee, Francis De Costa, was injured in a road accident while riding his own bicycle to work, about one kilometre from his factory and fifteen minutes before his shift began. He claimed disablement benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and the ESIC Court allowed the claim, which was later dismi

MANCHERI PUTHUSSERI AHMED AND ORS.versusKUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER

1996 INSC 104111 September 1996Dismissed

The suit land was mortgaged in 1896 and a decree for redemption was finally passed in 1960. During execution proceedings the mortgagor deposited the mortgage money and value of improvements on 14 March 1969, after which the mortgagee's right to possession ceased. The appellants argued that Section 4A of the Kerala Land

DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINICOY AND ORS.versusNAVADIGOTHI MOHAMMED AND ORS.

1996 INSC 103811 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the South Pandaram lands of Lakshadweep, where villagers, through their Mooppans (trustees), historically enjoyed a collective right to collect coconuts but held no ownership over the land or trees. The administration, invoking the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy Regulatio

J.S. PARIHARversusGANPAT DUGGAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 103011 September 1996Dismissed

The Rajasthan High Court had earlier quashed a seniority list of engineers prepared with retrospective effect and directed a fresh list. Contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and a single judge, while considering the merits, held that the respondents had not wilfully

SH. S.K. VAISHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 103111 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, S.K. Vaish, an Assistant Engineer, was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings that culminated in compulsory retirement in 1986. On appeal, the department directed that the punishment be treated partly as suspension and partly as in‑service, leading to his reinstatement and treatment as on d

PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 103211 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a qualified candidate from a Scheduled Caste, applied for the post of Overseer/Junior Engineer (Civil) advertised by the State of Maharashtra and was appointed on probation based on a recommendation letter from the Member Secretary of the Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board. After nine months o

BABU SINGH BAINS ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 103311 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, Babu Singh Bains, owned a free‑hold plot in Chandigarh and constructed a double‑storeyed building that he used partly as a guest house, violating the city’s land‑use regulations. The Estate Officer, invoking Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952, resumed the property a

MJHEER H. MAFATLALversusMAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

[1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 111 September 1996

Mafatlal Industries Ltd (the transferee) sought to amalgamate with Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturing Co Ltd (the transferor) under a scheme of arrangement approved by a meeting of equity shareholders. The appellant, Miheer H. Mafatlal, a 5% shareholder and director of the transferor, objected under Section 391 o

COOCH BEHAR CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 104011 September 1996Dismissed

The appellants, contractors engaged in civil construction works for government departments, were assessed under Section 6‑D of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. They challenged the assessment on four grounds: denial of declaration forms allegedly violating Article 14, inclusion of the value of stores and materi

AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANILAL GORDHANDAS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 103611 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted a revised development plan under the Bombay Town Planning Act in January 1976. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 came into force on 30 January 1978, repealing the Bombay Act and establishing the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) with power

S. GOPAL REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1996 INSC 72711 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Gopal Reddy, was convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for demanding dowry in connection with a proposed marriage. He appealed, arguing that a demand made during pre‑marriage negotiations does not fall within the statutory definition of "dowry" and that the prosecution’s evidenc

MRS. MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGARversusM/S. TRADERS AND AGENCIES AND ANR.

1996 INSC 72811 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar, owner of a flat in Bombay, filed a suit for eviction of a firm and its partner, claiming she and her husband had no other residential premises and therefore required the suit premises for personal occupation. The husband had previously been a tenant of a two‑bedroom flat (Olympus) and lat

RAJA RAM YADAV AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 50511 April 1996Disposed off

Eight accused were convicted for the pre‑meditated murder of six members of a single family in Baghora village, Bihar, in May 1987, an incident that also involved arson and the killing of 26 persons in total. The conviction was based solely on the testimony of a nine‑year‑old child witness who initially identified only

DELHI ADMINISTRATIONversusTRIBHUVAN NATH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 50611 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the 1984 Delhi riots in which a mob killed Himmat Singh and Wazir Singh. The trial court convicted three accused, Tribhuvan Nath, Raju and Sita Ram, under IPC sections 302 and 149, among others, based on eyewitness testimony that they participated in the murderous mob. The Delhi High Court acquitted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA (CENTRAL)versusMIS PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS PVT. LTD.

1996 INSC 35311 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta appealed against the Settlement Commission’s order that dropped penalty proceedings for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The assessee, Paharpar Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd., had filed a settlement application under Section 245‑C of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 1975-76,

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

IN RE M.P. DWIVEDI AND ORS.versus.

1996 INSC 4811 January 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the handcuffing of under‑trial prisoners, members of the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath, while being transferred between jail and court, which was done without written authorisation from a magistrate as required by Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation 465. Earlier Supreme Court judgments (Prem Sha

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA

1996 INSC 4911 January 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered applications filed by the revenue challenging certain observations made in its earlier judgment in the appeals of Kerala Financial Corporation and others. The contested observations (paras 9‑15) held that when advances are written off and become bad debts, the assessee could claim a refund

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

SULTANA BEGUMversusPREM CHAND JAIN

1996 INSC 145510 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The landlady Sultana Begum obtained a decree for eviction of her tenant Prem Chand Jain. The tenant claimed that possession had been handed over to the landlady's attorney, who then allowed him to remain as a licencee on payment of a licence fee, arguing that this amounted to an adjustment of the decree and rendered it

M.C. MEHTAversusSTATE OF.TAMIL NADU

1996 INSC 145410 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by M.C. Mehta challenging the employment of children below fourteen in hazardous factories and mines in Sivakasi and elsewhere, alleging violation of the fundamental right under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Court examined the constitutional mandate under

BALARAM PRASAD AGRAWALversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1996 INSC 145610 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, father of Kiran Devi, alleged that his daughter was subjected to continuous cruelty by her husband, mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law, culminating in her suicide by jumping into a well. The trial court acquitted the accused of murder (Sec. 302) and the High Court upheld that acquittal. On appeal, the Supr

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

1996 INSC 145710 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

KULDEEP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONversusINCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

1996 INSC 145810 December 1996Dismissed

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

STATE OF GUJARATversusSUHRID GEIGY LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 145910 December 1996Dismissed

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

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

1996 INSC 146010 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 146110 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 146210 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

1996 INSC 146410 December 1996Dismissed

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

VIJAY SINGH ETC. ETC.versusVIJAYLAKSHMI AMMAL

1996 INSC 117410 October 1996Disposed off

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

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