Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

FAIZAN UDDIN

101 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

SANJAY KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 52131 August 1995Dismissed

The appellants purchased 75.51 acres of land belonging to Jagdish Chander in an auction sale ordered by a civil court in 1975 to satisfy money suits. The land was later declared surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the prescribed authority refused to set aside the surplu

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTHIRUKKURAL PERUMAL

1995 INSC 8731 January 1995Appeal(s) allowed

A first information report (FIR) was lodged against the respondent alleging offences under several IPC sections. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the FIR. The Madras High Court quashed the FIR, relying on evidence collected by the investigating agency

MUTHUSWAMI NADAR AND ORS.versusRAMAKRISHNAN NADAR AND ORS.

1995 INSC 81130 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a partition suit based on three sale deeds executed by Rosammal and Mariammal in their favour. The respondents challenged the deeds, arguing that the vendors' mother, Kochammal, could not inherit her son Kumaraswami's share because she was allegedly a Christian, rendering the deeds invalid. The tri

ABUBAKAR ABDUL INAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusHARUN ABDUL INAMDAR AND ORS.

1995 INSC 51830 August 1995Dismissed

The case concerned two properties of the deceased Syed Abdul Inamdar: agricultural lands that were Inams and a dwelling unit. The Inams, originally impartible and vested in the eldest son Abubakar by primogeniture, were re‑granted to him after the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955,

KASMIRI LAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1996 INSC 96629 August 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by four men convicted for the murder of Gurbachan Singh and assault on his family. The appellants claimed they acted in private defence, alleging the incident occurred on the ground floor of their house where they were the victims. Evidence showed the assault took place on the first

STATE OF U.P.versusM/S MODI DISTILLERY ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 50929 August 1995Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to levy excise duty on various categories of wastage arising in the manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL): (A) wastage exported outside the State, (B) wastage during transport of high‑strength spirit, (C) loss due to obscuration in rum production, and (D) pipeline loss. The

ASSOCIATED POWER CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1995 INSC 79428 November 1995Disposed off

Associated Power Co. Ltd., an electricity generation and distribution company, appropriated Rs 46,460 to a Contingency Reserve as required by the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and claimed it as a deduction for the assessment year 1973‑74. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim; the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

UNION OF INDIAversusGHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWANI

1994 INSC 42028 September 1994Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against the quashing of a detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 against Ghamandiram Kewalji Gowani, who died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant sought substitution of the deceased’s heirs, arguing that

GULABCHANDversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1995 INSC 22828 March 1995Dismissed

Gulab Chand and co‑accused were charged with criminal conspiracy, murder and robbery of Kapuriyabai's ornaments. The trial court acquitted them of the murder and robbery charges, convicting only under section 380, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed this, convicting Gulab Chand under sections 302, 394 and 397 an

R.K. SETHI AND ANOTHER ETC.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

1997 INSC 7528 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the merger of Telex Operators into the Assistant Grade‑II (AG‑II) cadre of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) and the consequent seniority and promotion issues. The Telex Operators were redesignated as AG‑II employees on 25 April 1980 and placed en bloc below regular AG‑II staff, with

M/S. PONDS INDIA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

1997 INSC 6127 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Ponds India Ltd. challenged the collection of special excise duty on goods that were manufactured before 28 February 1988 but cleared after 1 March 1988. The Revenue argued that Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made the goods liable to the duty levied under the Finance Act 1988. The Court held that specia

J.K JAIN AND ORS.versusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

1995 INSC 59926 September 1995Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) invited tenders for steel bars and accepted a tender from J.K. Jain and others for 10,000 metric tonnes. The parties executed a formal agreement that incorporated the tender form and expressly stated that the terms and conditions of the tender form would be binding. Clause 14 of th

KASHIBAI W/O LACHIRAM AND ANR.versusPARWATIBAI W/O LACHIRAM AND ANR.

1995 INSC 59725 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, the first wife Kashi Bai and her daughter Sunita, sued for a half share in the property of their deceased husband Lachiram, alleging he was the sole owner at his death. The defendants, the second wife Parwati Bai, her daughter Meena and grandson Purshottam, contended that Lachiram had adopted Purshottam

INDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1995 INSC 13323 February 1995Dismissed

Inder Singh was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for the killing of his nephew, Amar Singh. The prosecution proved that Singh, armed with a barchha, lay in wait and delivered a fatal blow to the victim's neck after a series of assaults on the victim and his family members. The defence argued that Singh

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS AND ANR.versusP.R. SRIRAMULU AND ANR.

1995 INSC 76822 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents challenged the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which levied court fees at a flat ad‑valorem rate of 7.5% without any upper limit, arguing that the levy was arbitrary, excessive and in reality a tax, violating Entry 3 of List II of the Constitution. The Madras High Court struck down

ANSHAD AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

1994 INSC 16822 April 1994

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of five accused (Al, A2, A3, A4, A5) for the murders of Savitri Devi and her grandson Sunil and related robbery. The Sessions Court had sentenced them to life imprisonment, but the Karnataka High Court enhanced the sentences of Al, A2 and A3 to death. The Court held that the H

DR. RANBIR SINGHversusASHARFI LAL

1995 INSC 59221 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dr. Ranbir Singh, purchased a property from Shri Hemant Singh, the adopted son of the late Maharaja of Dholpur, and served notice to the tenant, Asharfi Lal, for rent default. The trial court and first appellate court upheld the eviction, finding a landlord‑tenant relationship and greater hardship to the

TALLURRI VENKAIAH NAIDU AND ANR. ETC.versusPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1996 INSC 91221 August 1996Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Pallamareddi Ramanareddi by bombs allegedly hurled by Tallurri Venkaiah Naidu (appellant) and co‑accused. The trial court acquitted several accused but convicted the appellant under sections 120‑B/302 IPC and related provisions. The High Court set aside the trial court's acquittals and

L/NK. MEHARAJ SINGH/KALUversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1994 INSC 16321 April 1994

The case concerned the murder of Laxman Singh on 3 November 1977, for which Kalu, Meharaj Singh and others were charged under Section 302 IPC. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the First Information Report (FIR) to be ante‑timed and the eyewitness testimony unreliable, especially in view of contradictory m

KUMUD LATA DASversusINDU PRASAD

1996 INSC 107619 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a daughter-in-law, was in possession of a property when her mother‑in‑law filed a suit for possession. The appellant was set ex parte and sought restoration of the decree. The Delhi High Court ordered that the appellant deposit mesne profits of Rs 2,000 per month from the date of the ex‑parte decree as a

P.A.THOMAS AND ANR.versusM. MOHAMMED TAJUDDIN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 107719 September 1996Dismissed

The appellant, P.A. Thomas, was let an open land under a lease and later converted his sole proprietorship into a partnership named 'P.A. Thomas and Co.' with his son and another partner. The Supreme Court examined whether, under Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922, the appellant remained a

DR. CHIITARANJAN SHARMA AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

1996 INSC 107819 September 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the absorption of staff from the H.I.M. Ayurvedic Degree College, which had been taken over by the Himachal Pradesh government. The college employees were to be regularised only if they satisfied qualifications, age, and were appointed before the takeover, as per the agreement and a screening

MOHMED SALEEMLIAS CHUHO MOHMED SHAKOORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1994 INSC 27019 July 1994Disposed off

The appellant, Mohammed Saleem, was tried for assault with a knife that caused injuries to the complainant, and was charged under IPC Section 324, TADA Section 3(1), and the Bombay Police Act Section 135(1). The trial court acquitted him of the Bombay Police Act charge, but convicted him under IPC 324 and TADA 3(1). On

A.K. KAUL AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA

1995 INSC 27819 April 1995Dismissed

The appellants, senior officers of the Intelligence Bureau, were dismissed under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution on the President’s satisfaction that an inquiry was not expedient in the interest of State security. They challenged the dismissal, arguing that the President’s satisfa

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMAHAVIR HOUSING CO-OP., SOCIETY, JAIPUR ETC.

1996 INSC 106918 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Jaipur Development Authority acquired land for an urban development scheme under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs 5,000 per bigha to Jai Ambe Co‑op Housing Society and Rs 7,500 per bigha to Mahavir Co‑op Housing Society. The civil court enha

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusMADHAV S/0. GAJANAN CHAUBAL AND ANR.

1996 INSC 107018 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Government created a single post of Secretary in the National Savings Scheme Service and applied a 40‑point roster and rule of rotation to reserve vacancies for Scheduled Tribes. When a vacancy at point No. 4 arose, a Scheduled Tribe candidate was to be promoted from the Superintendents, but the Central Administrat

REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., REGARDING ENQUIRY AND REPORT ON THE ALLEGATIONSversusAGAINST SH M. MEGHA CHANDRA SINGH, CHAIRMAN, MANIPUR SERVICE COMMISSION.

1994 INSC 7918 February 1994Disposed off

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, seeking an inquiry into allegations of misbehaviour against Shri M. Megha Chandra Singh, Chairman of the Manipur Public Service Commission, including tampering with examination papers and taking a bribe. While the re

BHALINDER SINGH @ RAJUversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1993 INSC 39416 December 1993Appeal(s) allowed

Bhalinder Singh was convicted of murder, kidnapping and abetment of suicide based solely on circumstantial evidence, including a claim that he was last seen with the deceased, the recovery of the victim's shoes, an extra‑judicial confession to the village sarpanch, and a false explanation to the victim's father. The Su

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.versusSRI DAMODAR DAS

1995 INSC 90415 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa appealed against the appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by contractor Sri Damodar Das. The Supreme Court examined whether Clause 25 of the water‑supply contracts, which made the decision of the Public Health Engineer final, amounted to an arbitra

UNION OF INDIA (RAILWAY BOARD) AND OTHERSversusJ.V. SUBHAIAH AND OTHERS ETC.

1995 INSC 90515 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, employed by Railway Employees' Consumer Co-operative Stores registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, sought declaration from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that they were regular railway employees in Class‑III posts entitled to salary, promotions and other benefi

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusA. JAGANATHAN

1996 INSC 73615 July 1996Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed against the Madras High Court’s order that suspended the convictions and sentences of four public servants, including A. Jaganathan, who had been convicted under IPC sections 392, 218, 466 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court had relied on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, h

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MADRAS AND ANR.versusF.X. FERNANDO

1994 INSC 7115 February 1994

The Registrar of Co‑operative Societies (appellant) was directed by the Tamil Nadu Government to discipline Joint Registrar F.X. Fernando (respondent) for alleged irregularities. The vigilance department delayed its inquiry, after which the Government amended Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Con

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.versusRADHEYSHYAM MEHER AND ORS.

1994 INSC 61014 December 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa decided to open 24‑hour medical stores within hospital campuses to ensure patients could obtain medicines at any time. The Superintendent of the Sub‑Divisional Hospital, Patnagarh, advertised for applications, prompting nearby private medical store owners to file a writ petition challenging the adve

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KERALAversusM/S P. KESAVAN AND CO .

1995 INSC 72714 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, sellers of Caristrap Rayon Cord Strapping, claimed exemption from sales tax under Entry 7 of Schedule III of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, contending that the strapping was a rayon fabric. The Assessing Authority rejected the claim and the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court. T

ARJUN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1994 INSC 25714 July 1994

The case involved four appellants (Arjun, Rampal, Bhagwan Singh and Mukhoram) convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for the killing of Jyoti Ram. The prosecution relied on five eye‑witnesses, who were relatives or associates of the deceased, to identify the appellants as the assailants. The four co‑accused were acq

GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AND ANR.versusHARJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

1994 INSC 25414 July 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were found to have copied answers verbatim from incriminating material during a B.A. examination, and the university's standing committee disqualified them for two years under its Ordinances 10, 11 and 13. The respondents challenged the disciplinary action in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which qua

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

SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1994 INSC 24613 July 1994Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Urshia Bahri and her two children, for which Suresh Chandra Bahri, Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma were convicted under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an approver, Ram Sagar Vishwakarma, whose statement was found trustworthy

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

S.R. BHAGWAT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MYSORE

1995 INSC 55912 September 1995Case Allowed

The petitioners, senior civil servants allotted to the State of Mysore, obtained deemed promotion dates and related financial benefits from a final High Court mandamus. The State subsequently enacted the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, whose Section 11(2) and certain

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusBABUL NATH

1994 INSC 31512 August 1994

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Babul Nath with rape of a five‑year‑old girl. The trial court convicted him based on an eye‑witness who saw the victim bleeding and the accused fleeing, and on a medical report showing a torn hymen, lacerations and other injuries indicating sexual intercourse. The Allahabad High Court

MUKRI GOPALANversusCHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER

1995 INSC 39012 July 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant Mukrigopalan appealed an eviction order of the Rent Control Court under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. The appeal was filed after the statutory 30‑day period, and the District Judge acting as appellate authority dismissed it as time‑barred, holding that he was a "persona designata" an

HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1994 INSC 23712 July 1994

The case arose from the murder of Suresh Narsinh Dubey in 1989, for which Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others were arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). After a series of investigations, the accused sought bail on the ground that the prosecution had failed to file a charge‑

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

SURAJ PAL ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

1994 INSC 51411 November 1994Dismissed

The appellants Suraj Pal, Nathi and Puran were convicted under IPC sections 395, 396, 397 and 412 for a dacoity that resulted in two murders. The prosecution sought a test identification parade, but the accused voluntarily refused to appear, claiming they had already been shown to the witnesses. The trial and High Cour

MRS. R.D. BHATIAversusSMT. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 101910 September 1996Disposed off

The appellant, an advocate, was suspended for two years by the Bar Council of India on a complaint that she colluded with the opposing party and other lawyers to set aside an ex‑parte decree, allegedly acting as a mediator and misappropriating Rs. 3,500. The disciplinary committee relied on the complainant's affidavit,

SHATRUGHNA PRASAD SINHAversusRAJBHAU SURAJMAL RATHI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 102010 September 1996Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Shatrughna Prasad Sinha, was charged after an interview published in Stardust magazine allegedly outraged the religious feelings of the Marwari community and defamed them as a class. Complaints were filed in the magistrate courts of Pune and Nasik. The High Court held that the Pune complaint did not disc

NANDATAIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 102110 September 1996Dismissed

The petition arose from a land acquisition proceeding where a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published and notice under Rule 1 was served on the father‑in‑law, who was the recorded owner of the land at the time. The petitioner, who had obtained the land through a divorce settlemen

NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKERversusPRANJIVANDAS MANGANLAL THAKKER AND ORS

1996 INSC 102310 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Motilal Gopalji owned a property and executed a gift deed on 15 May 1965 in favour of the first respondent, reserving his right to retain possession and collect rents during his lifetime. Within a month he executed a cancellation deed on 9 June 1965, stating that the conditional gift had not been accepted and that poss

NATWARBHAI MAGAINBHAI PATELversusCOLLECTOR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 66410 May 1996Dismissed

Natwarbhai Magajnbhai Patel filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Gujarat High Court order that vested excess vacant land, surrendered under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in the State. The petitioner argued that compensation should be paid before the government could utilize

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATIONversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67510 May 1996

The case arose from the abduction and alleged murder of Advocate Kulwant Singh, his wife and their two‑year‑old child, for which the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association sought an independent inquiry. The High Court declined to intervene, prompting a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dir

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67610 May 1996Disposed off

M.C. Mehta filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking control of air and noise pollution from stone‑crushers, pulverisers and mining operations near the tourist resorts of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana. The Haryana Pollution Control Board and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67710 May 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which mandates the relocation of hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries from Delhi and the subsequent use of the land vacated. Various committees (Alphons, Jain, Khanna) submitted schemes on how the land should be utilized. The Court held that the land

JASWANT SINGHversusVIRENDER SINGH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 5069 November 1994

The appellant Jaswant Singh and the respondent Virender Singh contested the 1991 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, with the respondent declared elected. The appellant filed an election petition under Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging irregularities, tampering of vote counts

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6519 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Kamla Devi was appointed on an ad‑hoc basis under the U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975 and was repeatedly absent from duty. The State terminated her service on 23 September 1980 under Rule 14(a), which allows termination with one month’s notice or pay in lieu. She sought reinstatement and back wages, but

SCINDIA EMPLOYEES UNIONversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6529 May 1996Dismissed

The SCINDIA Employees Union challenged the acquisition of land on which its workshop stood, arguing that the acquisition for the expansion of a dockyard for defence purposes was not a public purpose and that the Union was a "person interested" under Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, entitled to notice and

DEVI LAL AND ANR.versusMOHAN PRASAD AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6539 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners sought to have a six‑month contempt sentence imposed by this Court recalled on the ground that their counsel had not informed them of the order and that they had not received dasti notice of the contempt proceedings. The Court noted that it is normal practice for counsel appearing for a party to communi

BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANYversusDHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD.

1996 INSC 6549 May 1996Dismissed

Bharathi Knitting Co. contracted DHL Worldwide Express to transport a cover containing export documents, which failed to reach the consignee in time, causing the buyer to pay a reduced amount and the appellant to claim a loss of Rs.4,29,392.60. The courier’s consignment note contained a limitation clause restricting li

SUPREME CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETYversusM/S. H.S. NAG AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.

1996 INSC 6559 May 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Co‑operative Group Housing Society entered into a construction contract with H.S. Nag & Associates that contained an arbitration clause (clause 32). After additional towers were awarded, a dispute arose and the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer the matter

P.T.R EXPORTS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6569 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, exporters of readymade garments, challenged the Government’s amendment to the export policy effective 1 January 1996, which abolished the Manufacturer Export Entitlement (MEE) and Non‑quota Exporter (NQE) quotas and introduced a system based on Past Performance Entitlement (PPE) and First‑Come‑First‑Se

CH. RAMA RAOversusTHE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6579 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners challenged interim orders issued by the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta that suspended and transferred them without prior notice or hearing, alleging violation of natural justice and the unconstitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the AP Lokayukta & U.P. Lokayukta Act, 1983. The Supreme Court examined th

SUSHIL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1994 INSC 5038 November 1994

Three accused—Sushil Kumar, Tapeshwar and Ram Niwas—were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the murder of Jai Prakash. The appellants challenged the conviction on three grounds: (i) a one‑day delay in dispatching the FIR under Section 157 CrPC, (ii) the alleged bias of witnesses who were relatives of the decea

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7058 July 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Master Plan (2001) under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which categorises hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries (H‑a and H‑b) as prohibited in Delhi and mandates their relocation within three years. The Court found that 168 such industries continued to operate illegally,

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusRAM CHANDRA DAS

1996 INSC 6438 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Chandra Das, an Assistant Conservator of Forests, was compulsorily retired under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. He challenged the retirement before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the retirement on three grounds: that he had crossed the efficiency bar, that his promotion erased adverse r

B.R. VEERABASAVARADHYAversusTHE DEVOTEES OF LINGADGUDI MUTT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6448 May 1996Dismissed

In OS No. 22/62, the appellant (defendant 1) entered into a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, and a decree was passed based on that compromise, granting him continued occupation as manager, possession of shops, and refunds. The suit was later remanded to consider defendants 2‑4, and after their own compromis

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusROADWAYS MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSOCIATION U.P. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6458 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Rule 8(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts & Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982, which dealt with pension and gratuity liabilities when government employees on deputation were deemed absorbed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp

BISWA RAN.JAN SAHOO AND ORS.versusSUSHANTA KUMAR DLNDA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6468 May 1996Dismissed

The case concerned the selection of six Chargemen ‘B’ Grade posts in the Mechanical and Electrical Division of Indian Railways under advertisement No. 6/92. The petitioners alleged massive irregularities, including alteration of answer‑book marks and interview scores, leading to wrongful appointments. The Central Admin

P.R. SINHA AND ORS.versusINDER KRISHAN RAINA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 8527 December 1995Disposed off

The respondents filed a writ petition in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court seeking a direction that Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. release coal for which they had paid, alleging that the deposited money had been attached by the Income Tax Department. The High Court issued an ex parte interim order on 27 August 1990 directing the

PUSHPAGIRI MATHversusKOPPARAJU VEERABHADRA RAO

1996 INSC 6277 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

BRITISH INDIAN CORPORATION LTD.versusMIS RASHTRACO FREIGHT CARRIERS

1996 INSC 6287 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

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

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusRAVINDRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6297 May 1996

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

P. VENKATARAJUversusSPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)

1995 INSC 8496 December 1995Dismissed

The appellant's land was acquired for the Vengalarayasagar Project under a notification issued on 20 September 1979 pursuant to section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 10,000 per acre, but the Subordinate Judge, on reference under section 18(1), en

SANJAY INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING COMPANYversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1995 INSC 8506 December 1995Dismissed

The appellant, Sanjay Industrial and Engineering Co., challenged a decision of the State Government before the Supreme Court, raising two main points. First, it contended that a letter dated 5 July 1979 should be treated as an integral part of an agreement dated 17 July 1979, thereby creating an obligation to pay Rs. 4

PATEL NATWARLAL RUPJIversusSHRI KONDH GROUP KHETI VISHAYAK AND ANR

1995 INSC 8516 December 1995Dismissed

The petitioner sought a declaration and injunction to prevent the attachment and sale of land that had been attached to satisfy a monetary award against the respondent society. He relied on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming that an agreement of sale executed after the attachment but before judgment

HARI SHANKER ETCversusSTATE OF U.P. ETC.

1996 INSC 6226 May 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Parshadi Lal, in which Hari Shanker fired a licensed 12‑bore gun belonging to Shiam Behari, killing the victim while the motorcycle was being pushed. The Court held that the medical evidence of blackening and a cork wad indicated a firing distance of roughly three feet to two ya

STATE OF ORISSAversusBANSIDHAR SINGH

1995 INSC 8435 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Santush Kumar Nayak was admitted with severe burns and, on his deathbed, gave a dying declaration to Dr. P.K. Sahu that his brother‑in‑law Bansidhar Singh had poured kerosene on him. The police initially registered a case under Section 309 IPC (attempted suicide) based on an FIR from the respondent's son, but after the

ABDUL MANNAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

1995 INSC 8375 December 1995Dismissed

The appellants, eleven persons charged with offences including murder under s.302 IPC, were juveniles at the time of the alleged crime and were therefore required to be tried by a Juvenile Court under the West Bengal Children Act, 1959. No Juvenile Court had been constituted, and the trial was conducted by an Additiona

SMT. VIRAJ KUNWAR AND ORS.versusII ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.

1995 INSC 8385 December 1995Dismissed

The husband, a tenure‑holder under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, surrendered surplus agricultural land. His wife, who had been judicially separated from him since 1973, claimed that she and their minor children should be treated as a separate holding, allowing her to retain more land. Th

NARENDRA NATH SINHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 8395 December 1995Disposed off

The appellant, a senior Assistant Engineer in the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, was promoted ad‑hoc to Executive Engineer on 12 July 1979 and regularised on 30 June 1980. He filed a writ petition on 29 September 1980 challenging the seniority list of Assistant Engineers. The Allahabad High Court held that any

DINAversusTHE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

1995 INSC 8405 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, was ordered to be evicted under Section 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Second Amendment) 1956 after the three‑year minimum tenancy period expired. The lower tribunals held that expiry alone gave the landlord a right to eject. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 8 conf

SUKHPALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1994 INSC 4435 October 1994Dismissed

The appellant Sukhpal was apprehended in a notified area with a .315 bore rifle and 109 live cartridges, without any licence, and was charged under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution relied on the testimony of police of

BHAGWAN SHUKLA S/O SH. SARABJIT SHUKLAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1994 INSC 2995 August 1994Disposed off

The appellant, a railway employee promoted to Guard, had his basic pay fixed at Rs.190 per month in 1970. In July 1991 the Railway administration issued an order reducing his basic pay to Rs.181 per month, retrospectively effective from 18 December 1970, without issuing a show‑cause notice or granting a hearing. The ap

COMMON CAUSE A REGD. SOCIETYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 12744 November 1996

The Supreme Court examined the arbitrary allotment of fifteen petrol pumps by the then Minister of Petroleum, Capt. Satish Sharma, finding that the allocations were made without any official application, advertisement, or criteria, and favoured relatives and associates, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

REVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPAversusTHAKUBAI MADHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9964 September 1996Dismissed

The first respondent entered into an agreement on 11 March 1983 to purchase 3 acres 28 gunthas of land for Rs.12,000, paying Rs.2,000 as earnest money. The petitioner‑second defendant subsequently bought the same land on 8 July 1983 for Rs.6,000 and registered the sale deed. The first respondent sued for specific perfo

E. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9974 September 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, appointed as ad‑hoc field workers in Kerala's Filaria Department between 1981 and 1985, sought regularisation of their services after more than fourteen years. The Kerala High Court dismissed their writ petitions and directed the government to fill thirty vacancies through the Public Service Commission

SHYAM BAHADUR TRIPATHIversusU.P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9984 September 1996Dismissed

Shyam Bahadur Tripathi, a conductor with the U.P. Road Transport Corporation, was charged with misconduct for failing to issue tickets to 34 of 53 passengers on a bus. An enquiry was ordered, a charge‑sheet was served, and after a show‑cause notice and his explanation, he was removed from service on 8 December 1989, a

SHROMANI GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEEversusJASWANT SINGH

1996 INSC 9994 September 1996Dismissed

The respondent, Jaswant Singh, filed a suit seeking declaration of title and possession of a parcel of land. The petitioner, Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, initially denied any title of the alleged owner, Isher Singh, in its first written statement. After trial, the petitioner sought to amend its written stat

DR. S.K. KACKERversusALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10004 September 1996Dismissed

Dr. S.K. Kacker, a Professor and Head of the ENT Department at AIIMS, was appointed Director of the Institute for a five‑year tenure (Oct 1990‑Oct 1995). After his tenure ended, he filed a writ petition seeking to revert to his earlier post until his superannuation in July 1998. The Delhi High Court held that he could

MUNICIPAL BOARD, HAPUR ETC.versusJASSA SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 10014 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Board of Hapur had set up a bus stand and, by resolution, increased the daily fee for its use from Rs 0.50 to Rs 0.75. Transport operators (the respondents) challenged the fee, arguing that the municipality lacked authority to levy it and that the increase was ultra vires. The Allahabad High Court struck

BHERU SINGH S/0 KALYAN SINGHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1994 INSC 444 February 1994Dismissed

Bheru Singh was convicted of murdering his wife and five children. He lodged a first information report (FIR) admitting motive and describing the killings, and later gave a judicial confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which he later retracted. The Supreme Court examined whether the FIR could be used as evidence despi

SH BENOY MAZUMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF CACHAR

1996 INSC 9923 September 1996Dismissed

The appellant's 60 bighas of land, requisitioned in 1959 under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for settlement of Bangladesh refugees, was compensated at Rs. 300 per bigha under Section 7(1A). The appellant argued that the land, originally granted in 1872 for "special cultivation," should attract

SMT. WINKY DILAWARI AND ANR.versusAMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR

1996 INSC 9933 September 1996Dismissed

The Amritsar Improvement Trust framed a scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 to create a passage to Guru Nanak Stadium and, after statutory publication and government approval, began acquiring land for the scheme. The appellants, who purchased a vacant site after the scheme’s approval but before personal

SURINDERversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

1994 INSC 1863 May 1994

During interrogation in a dacoity case, the appellant disclosed the location of a pistol and two cartridges, which were subsequently recovered. The armourer's report confirmed the pistol was functional but said nothing about the cartridges, which were not sealed. The Designated Court convicted the appellant under Secti

M/S VIJAY TRADERSversusM/S BAJAJ AUTO LTD.

1995 INSC 6631 November 1995Dismissed

Mysore Traders, a partnership firm, were appointed by Bajaj Auto Ltd as sole distributors of Vespa scooters and auto‑rickshaws in Ahmednagar. The firm claimed that the appointment created an agency coupled with interest, making the termination of the distributorship without reasonable notice wrongful under Section 206

HOUSING BOARD HARYANAversusHOUSING BOARD COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

1995 INSC 5241 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Housing Board of Haryana issued additional price demands to allottee families after a land price escalation, which the allottee association contested before the District Consumer Forum. The Forum quashed the Board's demand and the Board appealed to the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal as time‑barred und

M/S P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATESversusSUNANDA ROY

1996 INSC 3471 March 1996Disposed off

The appellant, owner of a plot in South Calcutta, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent for Rs 9 lakhs, requiring an initial payment of Rs 25,000 and a further Rs 4 lakhs within five months, the latter being essential for the appellant to obtain alternative accommodation. The respondent failed to pay the Rs

BALWANT SINGH AND ANRversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1995 INSC 1511 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Balwant Singh and Bhupinder Singh, two government employees, were arrested in Chandigarh on 31 October 1984 for shouting slogans such as "Khalistan Zindabad" and "Raj Karega Khalsa" on the day Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated. They were convicted under Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity) o

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