Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

B N KIRPAL

219 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 201–219.

GULABRAO KESHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1995 INSC 8251 December 1995Dismissed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of land near Surat railway station under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after filing objections to the notification. The Revenue Department advised that, considering the objections and a revenue circular, the acquisition could not be sanctioned, while the Urban Development Dep

BAWA NIHAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, FARIDKOT.

1995 INSC 6641 November 1995Disposed off

The appellant, Bawa Nihal Singh, filed a civil miscellaneous petition but failed to pay the required deficit process fee and to file the necessary applications despite multiple notices from the court. The court issued several reminders on 15 May 1993, 13 June 1994, 15 July 1994, and 6 August 1994, each time attaching a

PAPANNA AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

1995 INSC 6651 November 1995Dismissed

The appellants filed Civil Appeals Nos. 6258‑59 of 1983 challenging the validity of a notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The decree sought to be challenged was common to all appellants and was indivisible. The court had earlier directed the senior‑advocate‑designated counsel to inform t

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBABU GOVIND GAVATE ETC.

1995 INSC 6661 November 1995Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra acquired land for an electricity sub‑station under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, awarding Rs 5,000 per acre but deducting one‑third of the amount as interest per a 1972 government circular. The landowner challenged this deduction, and while the appellate court upheld it, the Bombay High Court

CENTRAL BANK OF !NOIAversusM/S. MADAN LAL AND BROTHERS AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6671 November 1995Disposed off

The Central Bank of India obtained a decree against M/s. Madan Lal and Brothers for a debt and directed execution against a hypothecated factory premises. The respondents contended that the property should be sold at its market value, with the proceeds applied to the decree, and that any shortfall could be recovered fr

SMT. INDUMATI CHITALEYversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR.

1995 INSC 6681 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Government acquired 17.57 acres of land within Nagpur municipal limits for a grain godown under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition officer paid compensation based on a per‑square‑foot market value, while the reference court and the High Court used differing methods, leading to a dispute over th

SMT. JAYAMMA AND ANR.versusSMT. THIMMAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS.

1995 INSC 6691 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, daughters of Doddahanumegowda, filed a suit seeking exclusive possession of his coparcenary property, asserting that as the sole surviving coparcener D could bequeath the entire estate to them. The appellants, daughters of D’s predeceased son Chikhanumegowda, claimed a right to a share under the Hindu

MARWARI PANCHAYAT, AMRITSAR ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6701 November 1995Dismissed

The appellant challenged the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated by Khanna Improvement Trust under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was filed belatedly, having been filed in 1988 despite the notification of acquisition being published

YADU NANDAN GARGversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6711 November 1995Dismissed

The appellant purchased land in 1970 and built a house after a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 had been issued in 1963 for the planned development of Jaipur. The declaration under Section 6 was only published in 1991, and the appellant’s applications for exemption

SHRI JAGDISH SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6721 November 1995Dismissed

The case concerned Jagdish Singh's challenge to the compensation awarded for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition officer initially fixed different rates for two blocks, which were later consolidated by the reference court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court to a uniform rate of Rs 10 per

RAJ KUMARversusRAMESHCHAND AND ORS.

1999 INSC 4531 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Raj Kumar, a mentally retarded owner of premises, filed an eviction petition through his father who was appointed as his guardian and next friend under Order 32, Rule 1 read with Rule 15 of the CPC. The rent‑control authority dismissed the petition and the appellant sought a civil revision. The High Court set aside the

SHEEL CHANDversusPRAKASH CHAND

1998 INSC 3361 September 1998Case Allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant claiming a bona‑fide personal need for the premises to start a general‑store business. The trial court, after evaluating evidence, held that the landlord's need was not genuine and dismissed the suit; the appellate court affirmed this finding. The landlord then fil

STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC.

1998 INSC 3371 September 1998Disposed off

The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation sought permits for routes covered by an exclusive scheme and was told by the Regional Transport Authority that, under Section 58(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the permits had to be renewed every three years. The corporation challenged this, arguing that Rule 10(4) of t

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, DASUYAversusCHAJJU RAM AND ORS.

2000 INSC 3661 August 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank sued Chajju Ram and others for a principal sum of Rs 6,19,250. The trial court decreed the amount with interest, totalling Rs 12,91,398, and the bank filed an execution application. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force and a Debts Recovery Tr

NAIR AND ORS .versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2391 May 2001Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by circus owners challenging a 1998 notification issued under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 that prohibited the exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions. The petitioners argued that the notification was arbitrary, that Sect

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2701 May 2000Disposed off

The Supreme Court had constituted a High Power Committee (HPC) to fix recovery norms for veneer extraction from timber and to levy penalties on units exceeding those norms. Units were required to submit their production records by 15 January 1998, but questions arose whether the HPC could impose a penalty larger than t

I. VIKHESHE SEMAversusHOKISHE SEMA

1996 INSC 6011 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1993 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election for Dimapur Constituency No.1, Vikheshe Sema was declared winner by a margin of 137 votes over Hokishe Sema. The respondent filed an election petition alleging that duplicate entries in the electoral roll had allowed some voters to cast more than one vote, thereby mate

GUJARAT UNIVERSITYversusRAJIV GOPINATH BHATT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 5961 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Gujarat University prescribed a rule for admission to its limited super‑speciality (M.Ch./D.M.) courses giving first preference to its own graduates, second preference to other Gujarat‑state university graduates, and leaving any remaining vacancies unfilled. Rajiv G. Bhatt, not a Gujarat University graduate, was denied

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusARADHANA TRADING CO. AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1741 April 2002Dismissed

The Union of India entered into supply contracts with respondents and, after disputes, arbitrators were appointed by the Calcutta High Court. The arbitrators filed their award in the Calcutta High Court, and the court made the award a rule of court despite the Union’s claim that it should have been filed in the Asansol

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