Indra Sawhney vs Union Of India - 1991 Supreme(SC) 688

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1991 Supreme(SC) 688

A.M.AHMADI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, KULDIP SINGH, M.H.KANIA, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, P.B.SAWANT, R.M.SAHAI, S.R.PANDIAN, T.K.THOMMEN
Indra Sawhney – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates:
A.K.PANDEY, A.L.TREHAN, A.S.BHASME, A.SUBBA RAO, A.Subhashini, ALPANA KIRPAL, Altaf Ahmed, ARUNA MATHUR, ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, ATTAR SINGH, B.B.Singh, B.D.SHARMA, B.S.Chauhan, B.S.Gupta, BINA GUPTA, C.L.SAHU, C.S.S.RAO, CHITRA MARKANDEYA, D.B.VOHRA, D.K.GARG, D.SINHA, E.M.S.ANAM, G.Prabhakar, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, H.VAHI, HARISH UPPAL, INDIVAR GUDWILL, INDRA MAKWANA, Indra Sawhney, J.B.DADACHAN, J.R.DAS, JAGDISH PRASAD, JITENDRA SHARMA, K.C.BAJAJ, K.HINGORANI, K.K.GUPTA, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.M.KASHYAP, K.M.NAYAR, K.R.NAMBIAR, K.R.R.PILLAI, K.SWAMY, K.VASUDEVA PILLAI, KAMINI JAISWAL, Kusum Chaudhary, L.G.HAVANUR, L.K.PANDEY, LALITA KAUSHIK, LIRA GOSVAMI, M.A.Firoz, M.H.BAIG, M.J.Paul, M.K.Garg, M.K.MICHEL, M.KD.NAMBURDIRI, M.T.George, M.VIRAPPA, Mahabir Singh, MANIK KARANJAVALA, MANOJ PRASAD, Mukul Mudgal, N.S.BISHT, N.SUDHAKARAN, NARESH K.SHARMA, P.C.KAPUR, P.K.MANOHARAN, P.MURLI KRISHNAN, P.P.Rao, P.P.SINGH, P.PARMESHVARAN, P.S.POTI, Pravir Chaudhary, R.D.UPADHYAY, R.K.MAHESHWARI, R.K.MEHTA, R.MOHAN, R.SASIPRABHU, RAKESH GUPTA, RANDHIR JAIN, RANI JETHMALANI, Ranjan Dwivedi, RAVI VERMA, S.B.Upadhyay, S.C.ROY, S.K.AGNIHOTRI, S.K.JAIN, S.KACHVALA, S.N.BHATT, S.R.Setia, S.SUKUMARAN, SHYAMALA PAPPU, SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY, Sudarsh Menon, T.S.VAIDYANATHAN, T.T.KUNHIKANNAN, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.D.KHANNA, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, VASANT SATHE

(1) LEARNED Additional Solicitor General states that the government definitely expects to be able to fix the economic criteria by 28/01/1992.

(2) W.P. No. 1094 of 1991 be tagged on with these cases.

(3) DELAY in filing amendment applications is condoned. All amendment applications filed challenging the Notification dated September 25, 1991 are allowed. Counter-affidavit by way of reply to the amendment in the petitions to be filed within three weeks and rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter.

(4) ALL amendments be carried out now in red ink in the original petitions within a week.

(5) HEARING of the cases is adjourned to 28/01/1992. Counsel are directed to file a brief summary of their propositions and the authorities relied on by them (merely citations) not exceeding five pages by 21/12/1991. Apportionment of time for hearing of the counsel will be made thereafter. Matters to be listed on 28/01/1992 at the top of the Regular Board

(6) AS far as the question of stay granted by us earlier is concerned, we see no reason to pass any order at this stage as the petitions are posted for hearing on 28/01/1992 and in view of the economic cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(SC) 688

A.M.AHMADI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, KULDIP SINGH, M.H.KANIA, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, P.B.SAWANT, R.M.SAHAI, S.R.PANDIAN, T.K.THOMMENIndra Sawhney – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – Respondent

A.M.AHMADI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, KULDIP SINGH, M.H.KANIA, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, P.B.SAWANT, R.M.SAHAI, S.R.PANDIAN, T.K.THOMMEN
Indra Sawhney – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent