2008(1) JLJ 76
(SPECIAL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, A.K. Gohil,
Subhash Samvatsar and S.K. Gangele, JJ.
Manoj Kumar v. Board of Revenue and others
Writ Appeal No.395 of 2007 (Gwalior) : on reference by Division Bench; decided on 2.1 1.2007.
Questioning the assail-ability and substantiality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5731/2006 the present writ appeal was preferred under section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short "the 2005 Adhiniyam"). When the same was placed before a Division Bench for the purpose of admission on 20.8.2007 the Bench hearing the appeal took note of the decision rendered in the case of Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [2007(3) JLJ 220], wherein a view was expressed to the effect that an order passed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the sustainability of the order passed by the Board of Revenue is delineated under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and not in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the dictum propounded in Dr, Jaidev Siddha and others v. Jaiprakash Siddha and others [2007(3) JLJ 151], whereby the view expressed in Rama and Company (supra), was overruled, and further noticed the order passed by the apex Court in the special leave petition affirming the order passed in Rama and Company (supra), and directed the matter to be listed on 23.8.2007. Thereafter the Division Bench hearing the appeal on admission on the subsequent date thought it condign and seemly to refer the matter to a larger Bench regard being had to the far reaching effect and impact of the controversy involved because of the order passed by the apex Court in the special leave petition and the effect of the Full Bench decision in the said context. [Para 1
Held: The order passed in the special leave petition arising from Rama and Company (supra), would not be a binding precedent on the High Court and the High Court is obliged to follow the earlier view expressed by the apex Court. We may note with certitude that the order passed in Rama and Company (supra), would be binding between the parties to the said lis. [Para 61
In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we are of the humble view that dismissal of an appeal from Rama and Company (supra), is not a binding precedent as there are earlier judgments in the field and the High Court bound to follow the earlier decisions. AIR 1989 SC 1933, AIR 1995 SC 1480,2002 AIR SCW 1573, 2003(1) JLJ 105 (FB), (2005)12 SCC 764 and AIR 1998 SC 2230 followed. [Para 63
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 136 and 141 n refusal to grant leave to appeal by speaking or non-speaking order -- impact of Art.141 n non-speaking order neither attracts doctrine of merger, substitutes the order in issue nor is declaration of law n a !‘peaking order is a declaration of law within the meaning of Art. 141 -- also its findings bind the parties and Court below.
A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the Court, Tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the Court, Tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (2002)6 SCC 359 followed. [Para 41
(3) Letters Patent (M.P.) - Cl,10 -- Letters Patent of Chartered High Courts - Cl.15 -- provisions are pari materia to each other -- if appeal is not excluded under Letters Patent, it lies to Division Bench from order of Single Judge. AIR 1986 SC 1272, AIR 1964 SC 1043 and AIR 1953 SC 357 followed. [Paras 15 to 17
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- High Court exercises original jurisdiction under Art.226 even while issuing writ of certiorari - power under Art.227, i.e., exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction. AIR 1930 Mad.896, AIR 1952 Mad. 300 relied on AIR 1963 SC 946, AIR 1958 SC 398, AIR 1972 SC 1598, AIR 2003 SC 3044, AIR 1986 SC 1272 and AIR 1955 SC 233 followed. [Para 31
(5) Precedent -- duty of High Court is to follow only the precedents that is binding -- binding precedents explained. AIR 1989 SC 1933, AIR 1995 SC 1480, (1999)4 SCC 697, 2002 AIR SCW 1573, AIR 1989 SC 1933 and (2005)12 SCC 764 followed. 2003(1) JLJ 105 (FB) and 2001 RN 343 (HC-FB) relied on. [Paras 43 to 50
(6) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S.2 -- appeal-can only be heard against an order which is passed under Art.226. (2002)4 SCC 638 followed. [Paras 65 & 66
Per Samvatsar, J. (dissenting) --
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 141 -- case of Rama and Co. [2007(3) JLJ 220 (DB)] duly affirmed by Supreme Court in 2007(3) JLJ 231 -- is a binding precedent -- judgment rendered in case of Dr. Jaidev Siddha [2007(3) JLJ 151 (FB)] is per incuriam.
Now only two implications arise from the order of the apex Court and it is not open to this Court to examine the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rama and Company (supra), or by the Full Bench in the case of Dr. Jaidev Siddha (supra), and only option for this Court is to hold that the judgment of the apex Court will hold the field, because any number of Judges of the High Court cannot refuse to follow the dictum of the apex Court which is directly on the question to hold that writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a petition challenging the order of the Tribunal is maintainable. Judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Jaidev Singh (supra) is per incuriam as the same was passed after decision of the apex Court in SLP No.918612007. [2007(3) JLJ 231 (SC)] 2007(3) JLJ 231 (SC), AIR 2004 SC 2351, AIR 1955 SC 233, AIR 1988 SC 1353, (2000)6 SCC 359, AIR 2006 SC 3258 and AIR 2005 SC 254 followed. [Para 18
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-141 && fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk flfoy Ø-9186 lu~ 2007 [2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 231] esa btktr ;kfpdk [kkfjt djus dk mPpre U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k && vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; ugha gS && og i{kdkjksa ij vkc)dj gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-5731@2006 esa ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k dh vk{ksi;ksX;rk vkSj mlds lkj dk iz‘u mBkrs gq, e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; [kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼la{ksi ds fy, ^^lu~ 2005 dk vf/kfu;e**½ dh /kkjk 2 ds v/khu izLrqr fjV vihy dh xbZ FkhA tc 20-8-2007 dks og xzg.k fd, tkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k j[kh xbZ rc vihy lquus okyh U;k;ihB us jkek ,aM daiuh fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk ,d vU; [2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 220] esa fn, x, fofu‘p; dk voyksdu fd;k ftlesa bl vk‘k; dh jk; O;Dr dh xbZ fd jktLo eaMy }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 vFkok 227 ds v/khu i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk ds v/khu of.kZr gS] Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds ewy vf/kdkfjrk ds v/khu ugha rFkk Mk- t;nso flag rFkk vU; fo- t;izdk‘k flag rFkk vU; [2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 151] esa izfrikfnr vH;qfDr dk voyksdu fd;k ftlds }kjk jkek ,aM da- ¼iwoksZDr½ esa vfHkO;Dr jk; myVh xbZ gS] rFkk loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk esa jkek ,aM da- ¼iwoksZDr½ esa ikfjr vkns‘k vfHkiq"V djrs gq, ikfjr vkns‘k dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k rFkk funs‘k fn;k fd ekeyk 23-8-2007 dks lwphc) fd;k tk,A rRi‘pkr~] ijorhZ fnukad dks xzg.k ds laca/k esa vihy dh lquokbZ djrs le; [kaM U;k;ihB us fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ds dkj.k varoZfyZr lafookn dk nwjxkeh izHkko vkSj la?kkr ,oa mDr lanHkZ esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB fofu‘p; dk izHkko /;ku esa j[krs gq, ekeyk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks funsZf‘kr djuk lehphu vkSj mfpr le>kA ¼iSjk 1 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jkek ,aM da- ¼iwoksZDr½ ls mn~Hkwr fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns‘k mPp U;k;ky; ij vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; ugha gS rFkk mPp U;k;ky; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkO;Dr iwoZrj jk; dk vuqlj.k djus dks ck/; gSA ge ;g fuf‘pr :i ls dg ldrs gSa fd jkek ,aM da- ¼iwoksZDr½ esa ikfjr vkns‘k mDr eqdnes ds i{kdkjksa ij vkc)dj gksxkA ¼iSjk 61 iwoksZDr vk/kkjHkwr dkj.k dh n`f"V ls gekjh fouez jk; gS fd jkek ,aM da- ¼iwoksZDr½ dh vihy dh [kkfjth vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; ugha gS D;ksafd bl {ks= esa iwoZrj fu.kZ; gS vkSj mPp U;k;ky; iwoZrj fofu‘p;ksa dk vuqlj.k djus dks vkc) gSA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh lh 1933] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1480] 2002 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 1573] 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] ¼2005½12 ,l lh lh 764 rFkk , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 2230 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 63 ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-136 rFkk 141 && vk[;kid vFkok vuk[;kid vkns‘k }kjk vihy dh btktr iznku djus ls bUdkj && vuq-141 dk la?kkr && vuk[;kid vkns‘k u fookfnr vkns‘k izfrLFkkfir djrk gS] u og fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk gh gS && vk[;kid vkns‘k vuq-141 ds vFkkZarxZr fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk gS && blds vfrfjDr] mlds fu"d"kZ i{kdkjksa ij vkSj fupys U;k;ky; ij vkc)dj gksrs gSaA bl ¼mPpre½ U;k;ky; dks vihy dh btktr ds fy, ;kfpdk vuk[;kid vkns‘k }kjk [kkfjt dh tk ldrh gS ;k fQj vk[;kid vkns‘k }kjkA [kkfjth ds vkns‘k esa tks Hkh ‘kSyh iz;qDr gks] ;fn og vuk[;kid vkns‘k gS] vFkkZr~ mleas fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk [kkfjt djus ds dkj.k ugha fn, x, gSa] rc mldks u foy; dk fl)kar vkd`‘V gksxk ftlls og ml U;k;ky; ds le{k fookfnr vkns‘k ds LFkku ij izfrLFkkfir gks tk,] u og lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 141 ds v/khu mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk gksxk D;ksafd mlesa fdlh Hkh fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk ugha dh xbZ gksxh ----- ;fn vihy djus dh btktr ls bUdkj dk vkns‘k vk[;kid vkns‘k gS] vFkkZr~ mlesa btktr iznku djus ls bUdkj ds dkj.k fn, x, gSa] rc ml vkns‘k ds nks fufgrkFkZ gksrs gSaA izFker%] vkns‘k esa varfoZ"V fof/k dk dFku lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 141 ds vFkkZarxZr mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk gksrk gSA f}rh;r%] fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk ds vfrfjDr vkns‘k esa tks dqN Hkh dgk x;k gS og mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ gSa tks ml eqdnes ds i{kdkjksa ij rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; ns‘k dk loksZPp U;k;ky; gksus ds dkj.k U;kf;d vuq‘kklu ds :i esa] mldh ijorhZ fdlh Hkh dk;Zokgh esa U;k;ky;] vf/kdj.k ;k izkf/kdj.k ij Hkh vkc)dj gksaxsA ijarq bldk vFkZ ;g ugha fd fupys U;k;ky;] vf/kdj.k ;k izkf/kdj.k dk vkns‘k dk fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ukeatwj djus ds mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k esa foy; gks x;k ;k ;g fd mPpre U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k mu i{kdkjksa ds e/; ijorhZ dk;Zokgh esa iwoZ U;k; ds :i esa vkc)dj ,dek= vkns‘k gksxkA ¼2000½6 ,l lh lh 359 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 41 ¼3½ ySVlZ isVsaV ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 10 && pkVZfjr mPp U;k;ky;ksa dk ySVlZ isVsaV && [kaM 15 && mica/k ijLij lefo"k;d gSa && ySVlZ isVsaV ds v/khu vihy mioftZr ugha gks rc ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k ds vkns‘k ls vihy [kaM U;k;ihB dks gksxhA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1272] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1043 rFkk , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 357 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15 ls 17 ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 rFkk 227 && mRizs‘k.k fjV tkjh djrs le; Hkh mPp U;k;ky vuq-226 ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr djrk gS && vuq-227 ds v/khu ‘kfDr] vFkkZr~ i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx] ewy vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1930 enzkl 896] , vkb vkj 1952 enzkl 300 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 946] , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 398] , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1598] , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 3044] , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1272 rFkk , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 233 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 31 ¼5½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && mPp U;k;ky; dk drZO; dsoy mlh iwoZ fu.kZ; dk vuqlj.k djus dk gS tks vkc)dj gS && vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; Li"Vhd`rA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1933] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1480] 1999 4 ,l lh lh 697] 2002 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 1573] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1933 rFkk ¼2005½12 ,l lh lh 764 vuqlfjrA 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2001 jk fu 343 ¼mPp U;k-&iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 43 ls 50 ¼6½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2 && vihy && dsoy mlh vkns‘k ds fo:) lquh tk ldrh gS tks vuq-226 ds v/khu ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ¼2002½4 ,l lh lh 638 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 65 ,oa 66 U;k- laoRlj ¼folEer½ && ¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-141 && jkek ,aM da- ekeyk [2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 220 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk 2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 231 esa lE;d~:is.k vfHkiq"V && vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; gS && Mk- t;nso fl)k ds ekeys [2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 151 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] esa fn;k x;k fu.kZ; vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k gS vc] loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k ds dsoy nks fufgrkFkZ gSa rFkk bl U;k;ky; dks jkek ,aM daiuh ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa [kaM U;k;ihB ;k Mk- t;nso fl)k ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ; dh ‘kq)rk ijhf{kr djus dh Lora=rk ugha gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; ds ikl ,dek= fodYi ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus dk gS fd loksZPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; bl {ks= esa ekU; gksxk D;ksafd mPp U;k;ky; ds U;k;k/kh‘k fdruh Hkh la[;k esa D;ksa u gksa] og loksZPp U;k;ky; dh ,slh vH;qfDr dk tks Bhd mlh iz‘u ij gS] vuqlj.k djus ls bUdkj ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, ugha dj ldrs fd vf/kdj.k dk vkns‘k lk{ksfir djus ds fy, dh xbZ ;kfpdk esa fo}ku ,d U;k;k/kh‘k dk fu.kZ; vk{ksfir djrs gq, fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; gSA iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk Mk- t;nso fl)k ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa fn;k x;k fu.kZ; vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k gS D;ksafd og fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk Ø-9186@2007 [2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 231 ¼mPpre U;k-½] esa loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ds i‘pkr~ ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA 2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 231 ¼mPpre U;k-½] , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 2351] , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 233] , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 1353] ¼2000½6 ,l lh lh 359] , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 3258 rFkk , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 254 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18
Misra, J. (for himself and on behalf of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Abhay Gohil and S.K. Gangele, J1.) --
Introductory Backdrop
1. Questioning the assail-ability and substantiality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5731/2006 the present writ appeal was preferred under section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaya1aya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short "the 2005 Adhiniyam"). When the same was placed before a Division Bench for the purpose of admission on 20.8.2007 the Bench hearing the appeal took note of the decision rendered in the case of Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [2007(3) JLJ 220=2007(2) MPJR 229], wherein a view was expressed to the effect that an order passed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the sustainabi1ity of the order passed by the Board of Revenue is delineated under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and not in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the dictum propounded in Dr. Jaidev Siddha and others v. Jaiprakash Siddha and others [2007(3) JLJ 151=2007(2) MPJR (FB)361=2007(3) MPLJ 595], whereby the view expressed in Rama and Company (supra), was overruled, and further noticed the order passed by the apex Court in the special leave petition affirming the order passed in Rama and Company (supra), and directed the matter to be listed on 23.8.2007. Thereafter the Division Bench hearing the appeal on admission on the subsequent date thought it condign and seemly to refer the matter to a larger Bench regard being had to the far reaching effect and impact of the controversy involved because of the order passed by the apex Court in the special leave petition and the effect of the Full Bench decision in the said context. That is how the matter has travelled to the larger Bench to be dwelled upon with regard to the scope of maintainability of the writ appeal under the 2005 Adhiniyam.
Prelude in Particularly
2. M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 was passed by the State Legislature which received assent of the President on 21.6.1981. In Balkrishna Das and others v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd., labalpur and others [1985 JLJ 140=AIR 1985 MP 42 (FB)], 1981 Adhiniyam was declared ultra vires and it was further held that the said Act does not extinguish the right of appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The decision rendered in the case of Balkrishna Das (supra), and other decisions from the Bombay High Court travelled to the apex Court. The Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others, etc. [2005(1) JLJ 358=AIR 2005 SC 862], upheld the validity of 1981 Adhiniyam.
3. After the Constitutional validity of the 1981 Adhiniyam was sustained, the Letters Patent Appeals pending in this High Court, being not maintainable, were dismissed. At that juncture the State Legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (Act No.14 of2006). The said Act was brought into existence to provide for an appeal from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction to a Division Bench of the same High Court. Section 2 of the Act, to which we shall advert to in detail at a later stage, postulates that an appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court. It has also been provided therein that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Keeping in view the language employed under the 2005 Adhiniyam in Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory [2007(1) MPHT 335], wherein the legal propriety of the o
1. Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another = [2007(3) JLJ 220
3. Balkrishna Das and others v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd., Jabalpur and others = [1985 JLJ 140
4. Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others, etc. = [2005(1) JLJ 358
5. Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory = [2007(1) MPHT 335]
6. State of M.P and others v. M.S. Wakankar and another = [2007(1) JLJ 364
7. Umaji v. Radhikabai = [AIR 1986 SC 1272]
8. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others = [2004(1) JLJ 1
9. Harivishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque = [AIR 1955 SC 233]
11. Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash = [AIR 2004 SC 3892]
12. Krishan Prasad Gupta v. Controller
15. Mangalbhai and others v. Radheyshyam = [AIR 1993 SC 806]
16. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad = [(1999)6 SCC 275]
17. Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals = [AIR 1958 SC 398]
18. T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and another = [AIR 1954 SC 440]
19. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashoka Hurra and another = [AIR 2002 SC 1771]
20. Kishorilal v. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank and others = [2007 RN 1
21. Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni = [AIR 1966 SC 1445]
22. State of Gujrat v. Vora Fiddali Bardruddin Mithibarwala = [AIR 1964 SC 1043]
23. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. = [AIR 1953 SC 357]
25. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijayanand = [AIR 1963 SC 946]
28. Hamid Hassan v. Banwarilal Roy = [1947(2) Mad. LJ 32 at p.35
29. Budge Municipality v. Mangru = [1957 Cal. WN 25
31. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. v. Ramtahel Ramnand = [AIR 1972 SC 1598]
53. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and others = [AIR 1955 SC 233]
56. Suga Ram v. State of Rajasthan = [AIR 2006 SC 3258]
58. Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another = [(2000)6 SCC 359]
34. Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen = [AIR 1997 SC 2077]
36. Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs etc. = [AIR 1989 SC 1933]
38. N.S. Giri v. Corporation of City Mangalore and others = [(1999)4 SCC 697]
40. Pradip Chandra Pariza and others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others = [(2002)1 SCC 1]
41. Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others v. State of M.P and another = [2003(1) JLJ 105
52. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha and others = [2007(3) JLJ 151
54. Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India = [AIR 1988 SC 1353]
55. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar = [AIR 2004 SC 2351]
57. State of West Bengal v. Ashish Kumar Roy = [AIR 2005 SC 254]
10. Custodian for Evacuee Property v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor = [AIR 1961 SC 1087]
33. Waryam Singh v. Amarnath = [AIR 1954 SC 215 (K)]
35. Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another = [(2000)6 SCC 359]
37. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation and another = [AIR 1995 SC 1480]
42. State of M.P v. Balveer Singh = [2001 RN 343
44. Aidal Singh v. Karan Singh = [AIR 1957 All 414 (FB)]
49. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and others v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. = [2001(2) JLJ 315
48. Hindustan Lever Limited v. B.N. Dongre = [(1994)6 SCC 157]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.