Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

S S M QUADRI

175 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

BIRENDERA KUMAR DUBEY AND ANR.versusGIRJA NANDAN DUBEY AND ORS.

2001 INSC 41531 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a second appeal (Civil Appeal No. 6060 of 2001) filed by Birendra Kumar Dubey and another against a judgment of the Patna High Court that had set aside the first appellate court's decision and restored the trial court's decree. The High Court had entertained the second appeal without first fr

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusMANISHA DWIVEDI AND ANR.

2001 INSC 41631 August 2001Dismissed

The State of U.P. and others filed special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution against interlocutory orders of the Allahabad High Court dated 2 September 1999 and 12 January 2000. The petitions were filed more than a year after the latter order, and the petitioners could not explain the delay. The Sup

NEERAJ KAPOORversusRANBIR SINGH DAHIYA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 32731 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 3‑sq‑yard municipal plot in Sonepat leased by the Municipal Committee to Prem Kumar Sardana, who sub‑let the ground floor to Janak Raj Kapoor (now the appellant) and the first floor to the first respondent. After the Haryana Government’s 1991 policy to grant direct leases to sub‑lessees, the fir

VIJAY AMBADAS DIWARE AND ORS.versusBALKRISHNA WAMAN DANDE AND ANR.

2000 INSC 17631 March 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a monthly tenant since 1961, was ordered by a civil court to deposit his rent with the court in installments pending the settlement of a dispute with a plaintiff. The landlord alleged that the tenant was in arrears of rent for 93 months amounting to Rs. 5,766 and that he was a habitual defaulter, seeking

BHAGIRATHI JENAversusBOARD OF DIRECTORS, O.S.F.C. AND ORS.

1999 INSC 14931 March 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a long‑serving employee of the Orissa State Financial Corporation, was suspended in 1992 and a disciplinary enquiry was started under Regulation 44 of the Corporation’s Staff Regulations. The enquiry was not completed before his superannuation on 30 June 1995, yet the Corporation continued the proceeding

SMT. PREM LATA SHARMAversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 16831 March 1998Case Allowed

The petitioner, the wife of Suresh Chander Sharma, challenged his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The detenu had made a representation to the State Government within the prescribed time, which was rejected, and the representation was forwarded to the Central Government, which also rejected i

JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAMversusM/S. BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB. INDIA LTD.

2001 INSC 54230 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, John Mathai Abraham, owned a fractional undivided share in a large building in Bangalore and sought eviction of the respondent, British Physical Lab India Ltd, under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona fide need for personal residence and professional use. The Rent C

J.P. ANANDversusD.G. BAFFNA

2001 INSC 54330 October 2001Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide personal requirement for the premises. The tenant applied under Section 25B(5) for leave to contest the eviction, but the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application and ordered eviction, a decisi

KAMALA BAKSHIversusKHAIRATI LAL

2000 INSC 17330 March 2000Dismissed

The appellant, Kamala Bakshi, claimed title to premises occupied by the respondent, Khairati Lal, who had entered into a 1960 agreement presented as an employer‑employee relationship but was in fact a tenancy. After a series of litigations, the Delhi High Court in 1991 declared the respondent a tenant and fixed the ren

SHAKEELUR RAHMANversusSYED MEHDI ISPAHANI

2002 INSC 50129 November 2002Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need to demolish and rebuild the premises for better financial returns. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the petition, holding that the landlord m

KUNWAR BAHADUR SINGHversusSHEO BARAN SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 55329 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. While their appeals were pending, the High Court discovered that the trial court records were missing and directed the trial court to reconstruct the file using carbon copies of witness statements and other docu

KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJIversusGOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5329 January 2002Dismissed

The appellant claimed title to a two‑acre parcel of land in Hyderabad based on an unregistered 1954 perpetual lease and a later registered lease, asserting that he had acquired ownership by adverse possession. The State of Andhra Pradesh, asserting that the land was Government property, invoked the Andhra Pradesh Land

KIRAN GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.

2000 INSC 46828 September 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 and Rule 12(3) of the 1995 Rules, which prescribe selection of principals and headmasters solely by interview. The appellants challenged the selection process as a

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusBEHARI LAL AND ORS.

2000 INSC 41728 August 2000Dismissed

National Insurance Company Ltd. issued a motor vehicle insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was in force when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into effect. A bus insured under this policy met with an accident after the new Act commenced, resulting in a death claim. The insurer argued that the pro

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 26928 April 2000Disposed off

The Supreme Court was urged to enforce its May 10, 1996 order directing hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries in Delhi to shift and surrender surplus land to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) without compensation. The petitioners argued that the earlier order implied acquisition under Section 15 of the Del

STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusSMT. ABHA SETHI ETC.

1999 INSC 20828 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that held video games in video parlours were not liable to entertainment tax under the MP Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936. The High Court had relied on the decision in Harrish Wilson v. State of MP, reasoning that the ent

RAJNI KUMARversusSURESH KUMAR MALHOTRA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 19028 March 2003Dismissed

The landlord sued the tenant for unpaid water and electricity charges under a suit filed pursuant to Order 37 of the CPC. The trial court decreed the suit ex‑parte, deeming service of summons as effected by registered post. The tenant applied under Order 37 Rule 4 to set aside the decree, alleging special circumstances

HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANIversusBHUPENDRA N. PATEL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 11028 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Harshavardhan Chokkani, had a lease from the original landlady to occupy a shop and was permitted to run a partnership business. After the landlady sold the premises, she attorned the tenancy of the partnership firm, Brij Mohan Chokkani & Sons, to the purchasers, who thereafter received rent from the fir

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTAversusVIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL

2002 INSC 11128 February 2002Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent landlord. The landlord filed a counter‑claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of the CPC invoking Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, seeking eviction on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement. The trial court and th

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusONKAR S. KANWAR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 41127 September 2002Disposed off

The Central Excise Commissioners issued show‑cause notices to Apollo Tyres Ltd. and its directors/officers for alleged duty evasion and imposed penalties. Both the company and the officers appealed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, and while the appeals were pending, the Kar Vivad Samadh

SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ AND ORS.versusRAMESH S. HANKARE (D) BY LRS.

2001 INSC 46727 September 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords (appellants) sued the tenant (respondents) for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, alleging non‑payment of rent for the six‑month period January‑June 1978. A notice of demand was served on 14 July 1978, giving the tenant until 14 August 1978 to pay. The tena

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S. G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD., BOMBAY

2003 INSC 18627 March 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from show‑cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944 to G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and its alleged front company. A partner of the front company gave oral submissions before the Collector, who relied on those statements to pass an adverse adjudication order without

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusGURU NANAK REFRIGERATION CORPN.

2003 INSC 18727 March 2003Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corp. alleging that the cost of production of its refrigeration parts exceeded the wholesale price and sought recovery of differential excise duty. The wholesale price had been approved by the excise authorities and the buyer was not

I.T.C. LIMITEDversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

2002 INSC 49526 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed

I.T.C. Ltd. classified the 'slides' of cigarette packets under heading 4818.19 with nil duty, but the Revenue issued a show‑cause notice to reclassify them under heading 4818.90. The appellant raised the plea that 'slides' (and later 'slits') were not excisable goods only at the appellate stage, and the Collector (Appe

MARIYAM BEGUMversusBASHEERUNNISA BEGUM AND ORS.

2001 INSC 46226 September 2001Disposed off

The landlady filed three eviction petitions against the tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, alleging wilful default in rent and unauthorised sub‑letting. The tenant contended that, because an interlocutory application under Section 11 was pending, she was justified in

KIZHAKKAYIL SUHARA AND ORS.versusMANHANTAVIDA ABOOBACKER (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 46326 September 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal representatives of a deceased tenant, occupied a shop room. The landlords sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to be used by their daughter and son‑in‑law. The tenants contested, arguing that the

KALI PRASAD AND ORS.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

2000 INSC 35626 July 2000Dismissed

The case concerned a set of thirteen plots in Gorakhpur district where the appellants, Kali Prasad and others, were recorded as occupants (asamis) after the death of the last Khatedar, Smt. Partapi, in 1952. The father of respondents 3 and 4 filed civil suits for declaration of bhumidari rights and ejectment, which wer

SAYYED FAKHRUL ISLAMversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS.

2002 INSC 23226 April 2002Dismissed

The appellant, a Senior Foreman in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was temporarily promoted to Depot Manager (A) on 5 September 1994 with a condition that he would be reverted to his original post upon the availability of a direct‑sector candidate. After being considered several times by the D

V. MUTHUSAMI (DEAD) BY LRSversusANGAMMAL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 10126 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, V. Muthusami (deceased), sued for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning a suit land, asserting that Angammal, a widow, had full ownership of the land. The court examined whether Angammal possessed a pre‑existing right of maintenance under Hindu law, which would give her legal possession of

GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD.versusINCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

2002 INSC 49425 November 2002Dismissed

The appellant, GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., challenged the validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Delhi High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it premature because the appellant could raise objections in its reply to the notices. On app

HEM CHAND AND ORS.versusHARI KISHAN ROHTAGI AND ORS.

2001 INSC 46025 September 2001Dismissed

The landlords (Hem Chand and others) filed a suit under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of tenants and sub‑tenants on the ground of unauthorised sub‑letting. Only one sub‑tenant (respondent 5) was found to have been inducted without the landlord’s written consent, while six other sub‑tenants had been

BHUNESHWAR PRASAD AND ANR.versusUNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND ORS.

2000 INSC 41225 August 2000Dismissed

The owners leased premises to United Commercial Bank for five‑year terms, renewing twice, but did not renew after the lease expired on 31 March 1991. The owners demanded vacancy, yet the bank continued to pay an enhanced rent, which the owners accepted and withdrew. The dispute centered on whether the landlord’s accept

HINCH LAL TIWARIversusKAMALA DEVI AND ORS.

2001 INSC 31725 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the allotment of 15 biswas of a pond (Talab) in village Ugapur to ten members of a Scheduled Caste family for house sites under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Objections were raised, the Additional Collector cancelled the allotment, and the Commissioner upheld the cancellat

S. VENKATAPPAversusNARAYANAPPA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 22925 April 2001Disposed off

The appellant claimed occupancy rights over a parcel of land under Sections 44 and 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, relying on revenue records, rent receipts and oral testimony that he had been a tenant until 1975. The Land Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Authority accepted this evidence and granted

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2003 INSC 11725 February 2003Dismissed

The appellant, a cooperative sugar factory, claimed a rebate under Central Excise Notification No. 135/83 CE based on the average sugar production during the three preceding lean years (1979‑80, 1980‑81, 1981‑82). It had produced sugar only in 1979‑80 and nil in the other two years. The Revenue argued that the two nil‑

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.versusROAD TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, SILGURI AND ANR.

2003 INSC 11925 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal and its Commissioner of Commercial Taxes appealed against a West Bengal Taxation Tribunal order that had suspended Explanation‑I to Section 2(1a‑1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and declared sub‑sections 6 and 7 of Section 4C and Rule 48L(4) of the Sales Tax Rules unconstitutional

STATE OF U.P.versusKAMARUJJAMA @ MALVA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 9825 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s order that dismissed its appeal against the trial court’s acquittal of the accused under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 302. The High Court had rejected the appeal without providing any reasons, merely stating that there was no ground to interfere.

SATNAM OVERSEAS(EXPORT)THROUGH ITS PARTNER ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2002 INSC 44024 October 2002Leave Granted & Disposed off

Satnam Overseas, a miller‑exporter, bought paddy in Haryana and Punjab, milled it into rice and exported the rice. The assessing authorities initially granted exemption under Section 9(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, but later revised the assessments on the ground of retrospective amendments to Sectio

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusMAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED

2002 INSC 40524 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the Tribunal’s order granting Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd. exemption from excise duty under Notification 109/1986 as amended. The company manufactures high‑fur fabrics (heading 60.01) and dries them by passing the fabric through a hot‑air stenter. The proviso of the noti

KALLIKATT KUNHUversusSTATE OF KERALA

2000 INSC 10024 February 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the deceased with a dagger. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony that the appellant drew a dagger and inflicted fatal injuries, while the defence argued that the dagger was found enclosed in a sheath and bore no bloodstains, makin

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. CHOWGULE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 3424 January 2003Dismissed

The Union of India appealed a High Court order that quashed the rejection of Chowgule & Co.'s claim for an additional export licence (Exim Scrip/REP) and directed payment of a 20% premium under Circular 11/93. Chowgule, a recognised trading house, had exported processed iron ore during April 1989‑March 1990 under the o

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusPESTICIDES MANUFACTURING & FORMULATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

2002 INSC 43723 October 2002Dismissed

The dispute concerned the classification of technical grade pesticides (TGP) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Prior to 1996, TGP and insecticides in bulk were placed in tariff heading 38.08. Amendments to Chapter 38 in 1996 and 1997 and a 1997 circular directed that such chemicals be classified under Chapters

REAL OPTICAL CO.versusAPPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANR.

2001 INSC 11523 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Real Optical Co. imported Rough Ophthalmic Blanks, which are glass articles used specifically for manufacturing spectacle lenses. The Customs authorities levied counter‑vailing duty on the basis that the blanks fell under Tariff Item 23‑A(4) ("other glass, glassware including tableware"), which carries a higher rate th

SAU. SARASWATIBAI TRIMABAK GAIKWADversusDAMODHAR D. MOTIWALE AND ORS.

2002 INSC 17022 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sau. Saraswati Bai Trimabak Gaikwad, cultivated land that she had leased from Tarabai, who held a limited right to possess the land under a 1927 settlement deed. Although a consent decree had earlier restrained Tarabai from leasing the land, the appellant filed an application under Section 32‑O of the Bo

OM SHANKAR BIYANIversusBOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 9722 February 2002Disposed off

The appellant imported a consignment of bearings and, after customs seized the goods, sought to clear them without paying the port charges and demurrage claimed by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta. The High Court allowed removal of the goods without payment, but the Board exercised its statutory lien under

BALKRISHANversusSATYAPRAKASH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 3922 January 2001Dismissed

The appellant, Balkrishan, purchased agricultural land in 1960 that was under attachment and later auctioned to a minor son of Mohan Singh. Rajendra Singh, the minor's predecessor, filed an application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code seeking restoration of possession, and the Tehsildar ordered

DUGAR ELECTRONICSversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

2002 INSC 48821 November 2002Disposed off

Dugar Electronics, a manufacturer of tape recorders, received moulds and certain parts from Pieco (Philips) free of cost and declared a price for its finished goods. The Central Excise authorities and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal rejected this declared price, holding that it did not represe

STATE OF U.P.versusDHARMENDRA SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

1999 INSC 43121 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of U.P. prosecuted Dharmendra Singh and Narendra for the pre‑meditated murder of five members of a complainant’s family, including children and an elderly man, after a personal grievance and an attempted molestation. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to death, calling the

BIBI SALMA KHATOONversusSTATE OF BLHAR AND ORS.

2001 INSC 38321 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant claimed a right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 after a sale deed was registered on 30 January 1988. He filed an application on 30 April 1988, seeking to have the land transferred to him. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether this application was filed withi

EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD.versusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2001 INSC 16221 March 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute between East India Hotels Ltd. and Agra Development Authority was referred to arbitration, and the umpire filed the award on 13 November 1998, which the trial court made a rule of court on 25 February 1999. The respondent challenged the award in a revision, arguing that the court had not complied with Secti

RAMA KANT AND ORS.versusSONA DEVI

2002 INSC 9521 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Brothers Rama Kant and others were tenants of a shop owned by Sona Devi. The landlord filed an eviction petition for non‑payment of rent for the period October‑December 1995. The son of one tenant paid the arrears and the landlord accepted the payment without prejudice. The Rent Controller held that the payment constit

MODI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK AND ANR.versusW.S.G. CRICKET PTE. LTD.

2003 INSC 2721 January 2003Dismissed

Modi Entertainment Network and another filed a suit in the Bombay High Court for damages arising from a contract granting exclusive telecast rights for the ICC Knockout Tournament. The contract contained a clause that disputes would be governed by English law and submitted to the non‑exclusive jurisdiction of the Engli

M/S. BHARAGATH ENGINEERINGversusR. RANGANAYAKI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 57220 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased employee of Mis. Bharagath Engineering died in an accident alleged to have occurred in the course of his employment. The employer argued that the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 should be barred because the employee was an "insured person" under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, de

M/S. UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusU.P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

2002 INSC 57420 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

U.P. Financial Corporation initiated recovery proceedings against Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. under the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 for default on a loan. The appellant contended that, after the enactment of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993,

ZAHIRUL ISLAMversusMOHD. USMAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 56920 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Zahirul Islam, sued Mohd. Usman and others. One of the defendants (Defendant No.2) died on 1 February 1995, but the trial court proceeded ex parte against him without substituting his legal representative. The legal representative later sought a stay of execution of the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of th

TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2002 INSC 48420 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. claimed exemption from excise duty on steel ingots (Item 26) under Notification No. 53/64, asserting that the ingots were produced from fresh unused steel melting scrap obtained by cutting blooms into pieces and rendering them into scrap. The departmental authorities, the Central Government,

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMAHALAXMI STORES

2002 INSC 48520 November 2002Dismissed

Mahalaxmi Stores purchased large stone boulders and crushed them into smaller stones known as 'gitti'. The issue was whether this crushing process constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, thereby attracting sales tax. The Sales Tax Tribunal and the Bombay High Court held that it

G.C.KAPOORversusNAND KUMAR BHASIN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 57420 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, G.C. Kapoor, let a premises to a tenant when his son Rohit was a minor. After Rohit obtained a post‑graduate diploma in computer science, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bon

D.M. NANJJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS.versusS.A. RAMAPPA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 45520 September 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was granted a parcel of land by the revenue authority under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, because the land was adjacent to his existing holding and was needed for better cultivation. The grant was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The respon

VEDABAI @VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATILversusSHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 30120 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Vedabai filed an appeal against a trial court order but missed the prescribed period by seven days, citing illness as the reason. The Additional District Judge dismissed her application for condonation of delay, and the Bombay High Court upheld that dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether a short delay of a few d

MOTILAL JAINversusSMT. RAMDASI DEVI AND ORS.

2000 INSC 34320 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase a property for Rs.25,000, paying Rs.17,000 at execution and agreeing to pay the remaining Rs.8,000 within five months at the time of execution of the sale deed. The defendant refused to accept the balance and to execute the deed. After three legal notices, the plaintiff

AJIT KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.versusCHIRANJIBI LAL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 15920 March 2002Disposed off

The appellants, tenants, were ordered to vacate premises under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. After the trial decree and a dismissed first appeal, they filed a second appeal in the Patna High Court, but neither they nor their counsel appeared at the hearing. The High Court nonetheless

BIBHUDATTA MOHANTYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 16020 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bibhudatta Mohanty, was temporarily appointed as an Extra Departmental Mail Carrier and sought a permanent posting. The recruiting authority sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange specifying only a minimum qualification of VIII standard, without mentioning any preference for candidates with higher

DAEWOO MOTORS INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 11420 February 2003Dismissed

Daewoo Motors India Ltd imported plant and equipment under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, which required it to meet export obligations equal to six times the CIF value of the imports. The company furnished bank guarantees for licences exceeding Rs 100 crore. Although the export‑obligation period was

SRI SWAMI KRISHNANAND GOVINDANANDversusM/S. M.D. OSWAL HOSIERY (REGD.)

2002 INSC 9120 February 2002Dismissed

The appellant, a registered charitable society, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The tenant denied that the appellant was a public institution and that it required the premises. During trial the tenant’s counsel conceded b

STANDARD PENCILS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

2002 INSC 40019 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Standard Pencils Ltd., a manufacturer of Kum‑Kum pencils, sought exemption from excise duty under Notification 235/1986‑CE, which exempts goods described as "Kum‑Kum" under sub‑heading 3307.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) classified the pencils under headin

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusVISHNUNARAYAN AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 15419 March 2002Dismissed

The State of West Bengal, having taken over the management and later the undertaking of the Great Eastern Hotel under the 1975 and 1980 Acts, transferred the undertaking (except lands and buildings) to the Great Eastern Hotel Authority. The Authority issued a circular to occupants of shop, office and godown premises wi

M/S. P & B PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2003 INSC 11119 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

M/s P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of patent and proprietary medicines, used the logo "P/B" assigned by M/s P & B Laboratories Ltd. The Central Excise authorities issued several show‑cause notices alleging that its distributor was a related person and that the logo was also used by the assig

SWAMI NATH CHOUHAN AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 56118 December 2002Dismissed

The appellants, Swami Nath Chouhan and others, claimed tenancy of 4 Bighas 4 Kathas and 15 Lechas at Hukanpukhuri, alleging a lease from respondents 5‑7 in 1947, while the land had been acquired by the Union of India in 1943 for defence purposes and later reconveyed without possession. The Union issued a notice under R

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusL.T.E.C. (P) LTD., BOMBAY

2002 INSC 39818 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, I.T.E.C. (P) Ltd., sold projectors to Mis. International Talkie Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and claimed exemption under Notification 71178. The Revenue issued a notice under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, alleging Mis. International was a "related person" and demanded excise duty and penalty for t

SAMIR MUKHERJEEversusDAVINDER K. BAJAJ AND ORS.

2001 INSC 21818 April 2001Dismissed

The appellant, Samir Mukherjee, occupied premises under an oral lease for manufacturing purposes. The respondents, Davinder K. Bajaj and others, served a 15‑day notice to quit, invoking Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which presumes a month‑to‑month tenancy unless the lease is for agricultural or manufactu

JAMNALAL AND ORS.versusRADHESHYAM

2000 INSC 22418 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords owned a property in Ujjain and let three rooms to the tenant at Rs.60 per month. The tenant defaulted on rent for March‑July 1976 and produced forged receipts; the landlords gave notice of termination for arrears and nuisance and sued for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS GOVT. OF A.P.versusTHE COLLECTORS AND ORS.

2003 INSC 10418 February 2003Dismissed

The Chief Conservator of Forests of Andhra Pradesh filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record concerning title to certain lands, without joining the State as a party. The same issue was pursued in a civil appeal after a suit by the pattedars (private landholders

SALEEM BHAI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 55417 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed suits seeking a declaration that several earlier decrees and orders were illegal, null and void. The defendants moved to reject the plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging no cause of action and that the suits were barred by res judicata. The trial court, without de

M/S. OCL INDIA LTD.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 55517 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

M/s OCL India Ltd., a cement manufacturer, was assessed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the year 1986-87. The Sales Tax Officer issued an assessment order in 1987, which was later subjected to a show‑cause notice by the Assistant Commissioner in 1995 under delegated revisional power, but the proceedings were dropped

M/S. BHUPINDRA STEELS (P) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2002 INSC 39017 September 2002Dismissed

Bhupindra Steels Ltd, a manufacturer of ingots, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 208/83, asserting that the "ends of M.S. Flats" used as inputs fell within sub‑item 8 of the notification. The Central Excise authorities rejected the claim; the Collector (Appeals) allowed it, but the Customs Exci

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSONIC ELECTROCHEM (P) LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 39517 September 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court heard appeals by the Union of India against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order quashing excise duty notices served on Sonic Electrochem Ltd. for the plastic body of its electro‑mosquito repellent (EMR) and a "fragrant mat". The issues were whether the plastic body constituted "goods" under the Cent

NILIMA MUKHERJEEversusKANTA BHUSAN GHOSH

2001 INSC 37717 August 2001Dismissed

The respondent filed an eviction suit after tenant Ramesh Chand Ganguly died intestate, claiming the tenancy ended. The appellant, Nilima Mukherjee, asserted she was the adopted daughter of the deceased and therefore entitled to continue as tenant. To prove adoption she relied on a joint bank account and a freedom‑figh

M/S. SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD.versusSTATE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ANR.

2001 INSC 21117 April 2001Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Mis. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd., manufactured industrial alcohol and was initially exempt from a vend fee under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The exemption was withdrawn in 1979 and the company filed writ petitions; the High Court ordered it to give a bank guarantee and/or deposit amounts in a separate a

NARAYAN GOVIND HEGDEversusKAMALAKARA SHIVARAMA HEGDE AND ANR.

2001 INSC 51116 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The widow Smt. Yenki borrowed Rs. 650 for family necessity after her husband's death and executed a promissory note. An award under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 created a charge on her property, which was later auctioned; the appellant purchased the land. The son (applicant) claimed he was the sole

R.C. TAMRAKAR AND ANR.versusNIDI LEKHA

2001 INSC 51216 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent landlady sued the appellant tenant for eviction and recovery of rent arrears, invoking bona‑fide requirement under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial court found a landlord‑tenant relationship, held the tenant in arrears and the landlady’s need bona‑fide, and decreed eviction.

K.D. DEWANversusHARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR

2001 INSC 51416 October 2001Dismissed

The appellant, K.D. Dewan, had occupied a residential premises in Chandigarh since 1965, initially paying rent to the father of the respondent and thereafter to the respondent, Harbhajan S. Parihar. The respondent filed an eviction application under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949,

SHER BAHADURversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 33916 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former casual labourer who was later given temporary status as a khalasi in the Indian Railways, was charged with fraudulently obtaining his appointment letter and was dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry. The enquiry report relied on the order of his appointment as documentary evidence but failed to

MGMT OF THANJAVUR TEXTILES LTD.versusB. PURUSHOTHAM AND ORS.

1999 INSC 11016 March 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Management of Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. dismissed three employees after a domestic enquiry in which the manager appointed an advocate as the enquiry officer. The advocate recorded evidence and also gave findings on the misconduct, leading to the dismissal orders. The workmen challenged the dismissal before

PURAN CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusKIRPAL SINGH (D) AND ORS.

2000 INSC 60715 December 2000Directions issued

The dispute concerned whether two prior mortgagees, who had become landlords after purchasing the mortgagee's interest, could retain possession of agricultural land as tenants after the mortgage was redeemed by the owners. The owners (appellants) obtained a decree for redemption and possession, which the lower courts a

MITRANGSHU ROY CHOUDHARY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 18815 April 1999Dismissed

Five trade apprentices of the North Eastern Railway, who completed their apprenticeship as fitters under the Apprentices Act, 1961, were initially appointed as temporary Fitters (Group C) on 28 May 1990. On 7 June 1990, the Railway cancelled these appointments and placed them in Group D posts (Carriage Khalasi) based o

UNION OF INDIA AND ORSversusNO. 664950 IM HA VILDAR/CLERK SC BAGARI

1999 INSC 18915 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, a Havildar/Clerk in the Indian Army, challenged Army Order No. 11 of 1987 which limited the grant of study leave to regular commissioned officers, alleging discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Union of India contended that study leave is intended to enhance the knowledge of o

G.S. AUTO INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

2003 INSC 1615 January 2003Disposed off

G.S. Auto International Ltd manufactured screws, bolts, nuts and similar items that were used as components of motor vehicles. The dispute concerned their proper classification under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – whether they should fall under Tariff Item 52 (bolts, nut

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusPATEL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2615 January 2001Case Partly allowed

The West Bengal State Electricity Board (the Board) invited tenders for a power project and, under its Instruction to Bidders (ITB), evaluated bids. Respondents 1‑4 (Patel Engineering and others) claimed that a systematic computer error had caused clerical mistakes in their bid documents and sought correction, assertin

SHRI KASTURCHAND AND ANR.versusSHRI HARBILASH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 44714 September 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, proprietors of khud‑kasht land, filed a suit to recover possession of land recorded in the annual village papers (Khasra) as theirs for Samvat years 2006 and 2007, before the vesting date of 2 Oct 1951. The respondents later had the appellants' names struck off and their own entered in 2008 without foll

I.R. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC.

1999 INSC 39414 September 1999Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners challenged the insertion of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after they had been struck down as unconstitutional. The issue was whether such post‑1973 insertions, p

SRI MAHENDRA NATH DAS @ SRI GOBIND DASversusSTATE OF ASSAM

1999 INSC 26114 May 1999Dismissed

The appellant, M.N. Das, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the brutal murder of Hara Kanta Das, in which he struck the victim with a sword, amputated his hand and severed his head, and then carried the head to a police outpost. The Sessions Court sentenced him to death, a decision affirmed by the Gauhati High Cou

C.V. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.versusN.M. MUHAMMED KUNHI

2002 INSC 38413 September 2002Dismissed

The tenants (appellants) challenged a second eviction petition filed by the landlord (respondent) under Section 15(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement for his son. An earlier appellate authority had held that the second petition was not barred by

R.K. PARASHERversusDINESH KUMAR AND ORS.

2000 INSC 13613 March 2000Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Dr. R.K. Parashar, was allotted Shop No.123‑A by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, a decision later upheld by the Additional District Judge. Respondent No.1, Dinesh Kumar, who had earlier attempted to regularise his occupation of the same shop through applications under Rule 10(6) and Section 14 of

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusSMT. AMARJEET KAUR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 53512 December 2002Dismissed

The respondents, landholders under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, were initially found not to hold surplus land. After the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force, they were later declared to have surplus land and the State sought to reopen the earlier 1955 proceedings und

ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.versusDAULAT AND ANR.

2001 INSC 43912 September 2001Dismissed

The appellant, a seller of a land‑and‑building, executed an agreement and memorandum to sell the property to the respondents. The respondents filed a suit under clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration of the agreement’s validity and specific performance of the sale, without expres

T.T. ANTONYversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 29412 July 2001Case Partly allowed

During a minister's visit to Kannur in 1994, police firing resulted in five deaths and many injuries, leading to two FIRs (Crimes 353/94 and 354/94). After a change of government, a Commission of Inquiry blamed the firing and the Director‑General of Police ordered a fresh FIR (Crime 268/97) three years later, initiatin

CHANDRA KANTA SINHAversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 28012 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a truck involved in a fatal accident, challenged an interim compensation order of Rs. 50,000 passed by the trial court. The High Court Single Judge allowed the appellant's appeal, prompting the respondents to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) under Clause 10 of the Patna High Court Letters Pate

KAMLA DEVIversusLAXMI DEVI

2000 INSC 32712 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Kamla Devi, the landlord, let a big room to Laxmi Devi, the tenant, who later constructed an unauthorised latrine on an adjacent vacant plot of land (9'x7'). The parties compromised, making the plot a rented premises at Rs 5 per month. Kamla later terminated the tenancy and sued for possession of the plot. Laxmi conten

STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRAversusM/S. ASHIT SHIPPING SERVICES (P.) LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 19212 April 2002Disposed off

The State Bank of Saurashtra (appellant) sought leave to defend a summary suit filed by Ashit Shipping Services (respondent No.1) under Order 37 of the CPC, which claimed payment on a bond that the bank alleged was an indemnity, not a guarantee. The bank alleged fraud and collusion involving the respondent and a second

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusJALARAM WOOD CRAFTS (P) LTD.

2003 INSC 16712 March 2003Dismissed

Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of plywood and related products, claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86 for inputs (glue, UF resin, wood veneer) while its final products were already exempt under Notification No. 175/86 up to an aggregate value of Rs 20 lakh. The Revenue argued that th

ESCORTS LIMITED AND ANR.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

2003 INSC 16812 March 2003Dismissed

Escorts Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., manufacturers of tractors, sold 60% of their tractors to stockists at a 27.5% discount and 40% to sub‑stockists at a 25% discount. They passed the 2.5% differential discount on to the stockists and claimed it as a deductible trade discount when valuing the goods sold to sub‑stockis

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURversusALCOBEX METALS

2003 INSC 16912 March 2003Dismissed

AlcoBex Metals manufactured copper shells and blanks that were consumed without payment of excise duty between 1981 and 1985. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, issued a show‑cause notice on 6 March 1986 invoking the proviso to Section 11‑A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking recovery of duty, confisc

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARATversusLOV. S. KINARIWALA

2002 INSC 53211 December 2002Dismissed

The respondent, a beneficiary of a trust, received income from a partnership firm which was assigned to the trust and later distributed. The beneficiaries, including the respondent, assigned their interests to a Body of Individuals (B.O.I.) and claimed that the assets should be valued as belonging to the B.O.I. The Ass

MORESHWAR BALKRISHNA PANDARE AND ORS.versusVITHAL VYANKU CHAVAN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 27511 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The predecessor of the appellants, a landlord, obtained an exemption certificate under Section 88C(4) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 because his annual income as of 1 April 1957 was below Rs 1500. The High Court upheld the certificate. After the certificate was granted, the appellants gave notic

HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 23411 May 1999Disposed off

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and another imported asbestos fibre before 1986 and were demanded additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants argued that the fibre, obtained by merely separating it from the parent rock, was not a manufactured article and therefore not liable to

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusM/S. UNIVERSAL ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

2003 INSC 16311 March 2003Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against Mis. Universal Electrical Industries, a small‑scale manufacturer of electric appliances, seeking to deny the exemption under Notification No. 175/1986. The issue was how to compute the aggregate value of clearances for the exemption, specifically whether the value of fin

GURBAX SINGHversusKARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 7411 February 2002Dismissed

Jamail Singh executed two sale deeds on the same day, one (Ex P-2) at 10:00 a.m. and the other (Ex D-1) with no time recorded. Lower courts found that Ex P-2 was executed earlier and therefore should have priority over Ex D-1. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed this finding and dismissed the appeal against it.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusSUNIL J. KINARIWALA

2002 INSC 52810 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Sunil J. Kinariwala, a partner in a firm, created a trust and assigned fifty percent of his ten percent partnership share to the trust, claiming that the income was diverted at source and therefore not assessable in his total income. The Income Tax Officer held the assignment to be an application of income and included

RAEES AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1999 INSC 55210 December 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Nagar Panchayat Jalalabad comprised 21 members, including three nominated members who were barred from voting. A motion of no‑confidence against the President was moved and supported by 13 members. The High Court held that, because the nominated members could not vote, they should be excluded from the total members

ROY V.D.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2000 INSC 51810 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Roy V.D. was searched and arrested by an Excise Inspector who, at the time of the search, was not authorized under Sections 41(2) or 42(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act to make such a seizure. A charge was filed, later dismissed, and a fresh charge sheet was lodged, leading

M/S. KANTHI ENTERPRISES & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2002 INSC 37210 September 2002Dismissed

The appellants, dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, challenged the retrospective operation of an Explanation inserted in 1996 to the first proviso of Section 5(1‑A), arguing that it imposed a new tax burden they could not pass on to consumers and was therefore unreasonable and arbitrary. The State contended that

TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.versusCYRIAC THOMAS AND ORS.

2002 INSC 37310 September 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the Taluk Land Board against a Kerala High Court order that accepted sale deeds executed by the sisters of Cyriac Thomas, the declarant. The central question was whether the sisters, as daughters of the deceased Elanjikkal Cyriac, possessed a legal share in the agricultural land

SODANI CEMENT AND CHEMICALS (P) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

2002 INSC 37410 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Sodani Cement and Chemicals (P) Ltd., a small‑scale industry (SSI) manufacturing ordinary Portland cement, sought the benefit of Notification No. 23/1989‑CE which exempts cement produced in a vertical shaft kiln with a licensed capacity not exceeding 200 tonnes per day from the normal excise duty of Rs. 215 per tonne,

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusHINDUSTAN SANITARYWARE & INDUSTRIES

2002 INSC 37510 September 2002Dismissed

The dispute centered on whether plaster of paris used to make moulds for sanitaryware qualifies as an "input" eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86, as amended by Notification No. 82/87, under the Central Excise Rules. Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries, the respondent, claimed the exemption, but the ex

RAJINDER PERSHAD (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSMT. DARSHANA DEVI

2001 INSC 35710 August 2001Dismissed

The landlady sought eviction of the tenant for non‑payment of rent, relying on a demand notice that was allegedly served by post. The tenant denied receipt of the notice, claiming the postman was on leave and therefore no refusal occurred. The Rent Controller, after examining the postman, found that the tenant had refu

SHRI MUNSHI RAM AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 39710 August 2000Dismissed

The landlord (respondent No.3) purchased premises that were subject to a perpetual lease from the Delhi Improvement Trust, which prohibited any use other than residential without the lessor's written consent. The tenants (appellants) operated a shop in the premises, violating the lease condition. The Delhi Development

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER AND ORS.versusTATA FINLAY AND ANR.

2001 INSC 28610 July 2001Dismissed

The appellants, the State of Kerala and Divisional Forest Officers, appealed against a Kerala High Court order that quashed demand notices for seigniorage on eucalyptus trees cut by the respondents, Tata Finlay, on leased plantation lands. The Supreme Court examined Section 4 of the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modificati

KLSAN Y ASHWANT DHIRADEversusSONABAI BAPPU LOHAR AND ORS.

2001 INSC 20010 April 2001Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, sought restoration of possession of agricultural land after the landlord's widow took possession following a termination under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The widow leased the land to another tenant within eleven years and eleven months of taking possessio

RAJENDRA TIWARYversusBASUDEO PRASAD AND ANR.

2001 INSC 5699 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, alleging default in rent, personal requirement and damage, and claimed title to the premises through three sale deeds. The defendant denied being a tenant of the plaintiffs, asserting an earl

JAMIL AHMAD AND ORS.versus5TH ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE MORADABAD AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4909 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Wali Mohammed, a Muslim landowner, executed a Will bequeathing 25.32 acres to the appellants and died leaving a son, Gulam Mohammed, and a daughter, Moti Begum. The Tehsildar, after public notice and examination of witnesses, held the Will genuine and ordered mutation of the bequeathed land in the appellants' names. Th

L.L. SUDHAKAR REDDY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 3529 August 2001Directions issued

The Manda Revenue Officer filed an application under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 alleging that the first appellant had encroached upon five acres of government land and sold it to several respondents. The Special Court held that the land belonged to the government and ordered t

MUTHU GOUNDERversusAMMAYEE AMMAL

2002 INSC 2929 July 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a decree of a subordinate court. The Madras High Court disposed of the appeal without framing any substantial question of law, despite the statutory requirement that the High Court must be satisfied that such a quest

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusNARAIN SINGH

2002 INSC 2739 May 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Narain Singh, a former driver and later constable in the Border Security Force, was charged with disobeying a lawful command and assaulting his superior after failing to report for sentry duty. He pleaded guilty and appealed his dismissal, arguing that his poverty and admission of guilt warranted leniency. The discipli

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.versusRISHI RAM AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2868 July 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a suit for recovery of rent arrears and eviction filed by landlords against a tenant under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The trial court held that the first hearing was on 20 May 1980 and dismissed the tenant’s claim of having paid arrears on the fir

REGIONAL AUTHORITY, DENA BANK AND ANR.versusGHANSHYAM

2001 INSC 2678 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a former personal driver of Dena Bank's regional manager, claimed to be a workman and obtained a Labour Court award for reinstatement with back wages. Dena Bank challenged the award in the Allahabad High Court, which stayed the award on the condition that the bank reinstate the respondent and pay him re

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

2000 INSC 3018 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) sought electricity duty from Associated Stone Industries, which excavated stones from mines and cut them into slabs, arguing that the electricity used to pump water from the mines was part of the manufacturing process and therefore exempt under the 1962 notification. Subsequ

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORSversusMD. KHALIL ETC.

2000 INSC 3028 May 2000Dismissed

The State of West Bengal challenged the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal’s order quashing a demand for entry tax and penalty on MD Khalil, who was found possessing dry fruits in a cold storage in Calcutta. The Authority had issued notice under Section 14(3) of the Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972, alleging the goods w

SI ABIR AHMADversusSHAM LAL AND ANR.

2002 INSC 728 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shabir Ahmad, was a tenant of the first floor of a "shop‑cum‑flat" premises in Chandigarh, which he used exclusively as a hair‑dressing salon. The landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (as amended 19

DILAWAR BALU KURANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2002 INSC 78 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lecturer of a private college affiliated to Shivaji University, was accused of accepting Rs. 400 to inflate a student's exam marks. An FIR was lodged seven days after the alleged incident, no incriminating material was seized, and witness statements were recorded ten months later. He was charged under

K.A. ABDUL MAJEEDversusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 3467 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was appointed as Lower Division Typist by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) in 1981 after meeting the qualifications advertised, completed probation, and was promoted to Upper Division Typist in 1983. Subsequent appointments of other typists led to a seniority dispute when the GCDA, citing t

STATE OF M.P.versusBHUPENDRA SINGH

2000 INSC 97 January 2000Dismissed

The respondent was arrested on 17 February 1977 with detonators in his possession and was charged under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. He challenged the prosecution on the ground that the consent required under Section 7 of the Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court of Madhya Prades

HARNEK SINGHversusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS, PUNJAB AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5756 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, legatee of the late Daljit Singh, challenged the allotment of land declared surplus under the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to respondents 5‑10. The landowner had been declared surplus in 1976, but the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force in 1973 and its Section 28 saved pending surpl

STATE OF KERALAversusM.S. MANI AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4316 September 2001Dismissed

The State of Kerala filed a contempt petition against M.S. Mani and others for publishing a newspaper column that allegedly scandalised senior advocates and undermined the dignity of the Supreme Court. The petition was filed on 17 May 1999, but the required prior written consent of the Attorney General/Solicitor Genera

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1256 March 2002Dismissed

The State of Punjab sought possession of a parcel of land on the basis that it had vested in the Gram Panchayat and was mutated in its name under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The appellants (Nos. 2 and 3) claimed that the land had been allotted to them earlier, on which they had invested heav

SARWAN KUMAR AND ANR.versusMADAN LAL AGGARWAL

2003 INSC 686 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sarwan Kumar and another, were heirs of a commercial tenant in a premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord, Madan Lal Aggarwal, obtained an ex‑parte decree for ejectment and mesne profits from a civil court, which the appellants challenged on the ground that the civil court lac

KUNJANAM ANTONY (DEAD) BY LR5.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 706 February 2003Dismissed

The appellant claimed ownership of 17.74 acres in Alathur Taluk, asserting that the land was a rubber plantation and therefore exempt from vesting under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Forest Tribunal initially held the land was not a private forest, but after a remand the Tribunal ag

RAM BHAROSE SHARMAversusMAHANT RAM SWAROOP AND ORS.

2001 INSC 716 February 2001Dismissed

The case concerned a 19th‑century grant of six bighas of land in Jaipur as “Udak Jagir” to Swami Ram Ballabh, a disciple of the Ram Sanehi sect. The tenants of the present holder challenged the grant, arguing it was made to a religious institution or as a public trust, and sought exemption under the Rajasthan Land Refo

USHA HARSHAD KUMAR DALALversusM/S. ORG SYSTEMS AND ORS.

2000 INSC 66 January 2000Dismissed

The appellant, Usha Harshad Kumar Dalal, a co‑owner of a building, filed a partition suit in 1978 and a Court Receiver was appointed who took symbolic possession while Suhrid Geigy Trading Ltd. (R‑2) occupied the premises. After the licence expired, the amendment to the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Cont

N.C. DAGAversusLNDER MOHAN SINGH RANA

2002 INSC 5195 December 2002Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant applied for leave to defend, arguing that the lease permitted both residential and commercial use and that decades of commercial occupation implied consent. The Rent Controller denied leave a

TATOBA BHAU SAVAGAVE (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusVASANTRAO DHINIRAJ DESHPANDE AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4865 October 2001Dismissed

The landlord, a serving member of the armed forces, filed a tenancy case under Section 43‑IB of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 seeking resumption of land from the tenants. The High Court, after remand, held that the partition of the joint family lands in 1944 was conclusive and that land owned by t

UMASHANKARversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2001 INSC 4885 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Umashankar, was charged with circulating counterfeit currency after paying for mangoes with a fake Rs 100 note and police recovered additional counterfeit notes and related items from his possession. He was convicted under IPC sections 489‑B (using counterfeit notes as genuine) and 489‑C (possession of c

DHRUV GREEN FIELD LTD.versusHUKAM SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 3285 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit in a civil court challenging the validity of a ten‑year lease of village common land granted by the Gram Panchayat and the legality of the auction. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, read with Section 1

ANANDI D. JADHAV (DEAD) BY LRS .versusNIRMALA RAM CHANDRA KORE AND ORS .

2000 INSC 1925 April 2000Dismissed

The landlord heirs of a one‑room premises filed suit for eviction of the tenant, Nirmala Ramchandra Kore, under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, alleging that the tenant had alternate accommodation because her sons had built a house. The tenant contended that under

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.versusE.I.T.A. INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 1505 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal challenged the constitutional validity of several provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and its 1995 Rules, including Section 2(6), the explanation to Section 11, and Section 14(4), as well as Rules 172, 173, 174, 188 and 189. The respondents argued that these provisions created a s

KALPATARU AGROFOREST ENTERPRISESversusUNION OF INDIA

2002 INSC 1205 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises claimed a refund of excess freight paid to Indian Railways and filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the claim. The appellant filed a review petition under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, but the Tribunal dismissed it. The appellant

P. LALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2003 INSC 635 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an IPS officer (Respondent No.3) who applied for voluntary retirement with immediate effect on 5 May 1993, deposited the required notice money, and then left India without waiting for the Government’s acceptance. The Government of India accepted his retirement on 2 March 1995, making the retirement e

T.N. DADHA PHARMACEUTICALSversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

2003 INSC 655 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals obtained exemption under Notification No. 116/69 for its drug Darzamol Injection, which contains Metronidazole and Dextrose. The Revenue later alleged that Dextrose, not being a pharmaceutical necessity or therapeutically inert, was suppressed in the classification list, withdrew the exemptio

FAZLE RABversusMOHD. YAKEEN

2002 INSC 645 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Fazlerab, a co‑sharer of a village property that had become part of the municipal limits of Tanda, sued Mohd. Yakeen claiming a customary right of pre‑emption under the Oudh Lands Act, 1876. The trial court upheld the right, but the High Court reversed, holding that the custom did not apply in towns and that Fazlerab f

PRADIP CHANDRA PARIJA AND ORS.versusPRAMOD CHANDRA PATANAIK AND ORS.

2001 INSC 5904 December 2001Directions issued

The case arose when a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court, disagreeing with a prior three‑judge decision in Nityananda Kar v. State of Orissa, ordered that the matter be placed before a five‑judge bench. The petitioners challenged whether such a referral was permissible under the Constitution and Supreme Court Rules.

K.R. SURAJ ETC. ETC.versusTHE EXCISE INSPECTOR, PARAPPANANQADI AND ANR.

2000 INSC 5684 December 2000Dismissed

In 1993 Excise Inspectors, acting under the then‑unamended Section 31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, seized liquor samples from the petitioners' licensed shops and alleged adulteration, filing complaints under Section 57A and Section 56(b). The petitioners moved the High Court to quash the proceedings under Cr.P.C. Section

CHITRANJAN BURMANversusOM PRAKASH BAJORIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4844 October 2001

The landlords (Bajorias) sought eviction of the tenants (Burmans) from a shop under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 on grounds of non‑payment of rent and personal requirement. The tenants had repeatedly sent the monthly rent by postal money order to one co‑owner, Anar Devi, who refused

S.R. BABUversusT.K. VASUDEVAN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4254 September 2001Disposed off

The landlord, who occupied part of a building, filed an eviction petition against the tenant occupying the remaining part, invoking Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller rejected the claim under 11(8) and 11(4)(iv) but ordered eviction under

LAKSHMI NARAYANANversusS.S. PANDIAN

2000 INSC 4304 September 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Lakshmi Narayanan, obtained an ex parte eviction decree against tenant S.S. Pandian under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and filed an execution petition. During execution proceedings the parties compromised: the tenant surrendered part of the premises and entered into a three‑y

RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITYversusRAM KRISHNA VYAS

1999 INSC 2224 May 1999Dismissed

The respondent, a retired employee of Rajasthan Agricultural University, claimed that his gratuity should be calculated on his last drawn pay including dearness allowance (DA) and ad‑hoc DA, whereas the university argued that only basic pay should be considered, relying on resolutions adopting Rajasthan State Service R

K. KARUPPANNANversusSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

1999 INSC 2234 May 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, originally appointed as Junior Assistant in Market Committee X, was transferred and appointed as Supervisor in Market Committee Y under Rule 203 of the 1962 Rules and later regularised with satisfactory completion of probation. In 1991 the Government issued an order treating each Market Committee as a se

THAKUR PRASAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusRAJ KARAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 1434 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a suit land in the former Banaras State that had been granted rent‑free (Krishnarpan) and later mortgaged by the mortgagors, who subsequently sold one‑sixth of the land to the mortgagees and the rest to other purchasers. After the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was applied to

SANDEN VIKAS (INDIA) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

2003 INSC 1444 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd., a manufacturer of car air‑conditioning kits, claimed exemption under Notification No.166/86‑CE by classifying its kits under Item 5 of Heading 8415. The Assistant Collector treated the kits as air‑conditioners under Item 3, leading to a demand for duty. After the amendment on 20 March 1990 in

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2003 INSC 554 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the High Court’s order that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was not liable to Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax on rentals collected from telephone subscribers. The Supreme Court examined whether the DoT qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade T

PREMA (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusSURAT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2003 INSC 564 February 2003Dismissed

The case concerned two pre‑emption suits filed under the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 after the appellant purchased a one‑fourth share of agricultural land (first sale) and later a one‑eighth share (second sale) from co‑owners. The plaintiff sought to enforce his pre‑emptive right over both sales, while the appellant d

BALCHANDRA ANANTRAO RAKVI AND ORS.versusRAMCHANDRA TUKARAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 4773 October 2001Case Partly allowed

The Bombay government assumed management of certain agricultural lands in 1949 and terminated it in 1957. After termination, the tenant (first respondent) held a non‑permanent tenancy and, under Section 88(1)(d) proviso (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, had a one‑year window (until 1 Oct 1959)

UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

2002 INSC 3623 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Unichem Laboratories Ltd., a bulk drug manufacturer, filed classification lists on 3 March 1986 before Notification No. 234/86 was issued. After the notification, it obtained a certificate from the Drugs Controller and claimed exemption from excise duty, but the Assistant Collector denied the claim, insisting that exem

MAHAKOSHAL TOURIST, NAPIER TOWN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 3633 September 2002Dismissed

The appellants, bus operators holding All‑India Tourist permits, challenged the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1991, alleging that it lacked a mechanism to assess tax liability and grant refunds for vehicles not used in the state. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions, h

LEELA SONI AND ORS.versusRAJESH GOYAL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4193 September 2001Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on grounds of rent default and unauthorised occupation of a portion of the premises. The trial court decreed eviction, but the first appellate court reversed, erroneously requiring the landlord to prove that

JAGBIR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1998 INSC 3463 September 1998Case Allowed

The police filed a report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and the trial court acquitted all accused. The complainant, Birbal, appealed to the High Court under Section 378(4) after obtaining leave, and the High Court convicted two of the appellants. The appellants challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court under S

DIWAN SUGAR MILLS AND ORS.versusSTAIB OF U.P. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2813 May 2000Dismissed

Diwan Sugar Mills, a partnership that owned a sugar factory leased to Diwan Sugar and General Mills (Pvt) Ltd., claimed Rs 12 lakhs as compensation under Section 7(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, arguing that no deductions should be made for liabilities of the lessee. The Prescribed

UNION OF INDIAversusINDALCO INDUSTRIES

2003 INSC 2153 April 2003Dismissed

The Union of India (Revenue) issued a show‑cause notice under Section 11‑A of the Central Excise Act alleging clandestine removal of goods and incorrect valuation of Indalco Industries’ aluminium products. The High Court dismissed the part of the notice dealing with clandestine removal but quashed the valuation portion

N. PRABHAKAR RAOversusJ.R. RAMESH KUMAR@RAMESHJI

2001 INSC 5522 November 2001Leave Granted & Allowed

The tenant, N. Prabhakar Rao, occupied a building (both residential and non‑residential) under a lease dated 5 February 1974, paying Rs.160 per month. The landlord, J.R. Ramesh Kumar, filed an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a

MAMO AND ANR.versusCOMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHRI GURDWARA SAHIB AND ORS.

1999 INSC 5391 December 1999Dismissed

The plaintiff, a Sikh Gurdwara, sued the heirs of a former mortgagee for possession of a notified agricultural land that had been gifted to the Gurdwara but remained in the possession of the mortgagee. An earlier suit against the local Gurdwara committee, filed within the 90‑day period prescribed by Section 28 of the S

RAM NIWAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. BANO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 3671 August 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, entered into an agreement to purchase a shop from the vendor for Rs.9,200 and paid part of the price. The vendor later sold the shop to purchasers for Rs.20,000. The appellant sued for specific performance of the original agreement against both the vendor and the purchasers. The trial court rul

OBERAI FORWARDING AGENCYversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

2000 INSC 421 February 2000

The appellant, Oberai Forwarding Agency, was hired to transport a consignment of broken rice, which was lost in transit. The consignee (second respondent) claimed the loss from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (first respondent), which paid compensation and obtained a "Letter of Subrogation" and a Special Power of Attorney

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