Allowed¶66

State of Haryana v. Mohan Lal & Ors.

Supreme Court30 Oct 19691969 INSC 320 · [1970] 3 S.C.R. 2021969 INSC 320

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Validity of constitution and reconstitution of the Rohtak Improvement Trust during supersession of the Municipal Committee; interpretation of ss. 1(3) and 4-A, Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 (including insertion by Punjab Act VIII of 1936); powers of the Administrator/State Government under s. 238, Punjab Municipal Act 1911 during supersession; continuance of the Act after reconstitution of the Committee; dissolution of a trust under s. 103(1) and power to create or reconstitute a dissolved trust via ss. 3-4 read with s. 12, General Clauses (Punjab) Act 1898; writ petition under Art. 226 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 1121 of 1966 allowed.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the High Court set aside and appeal allowed; the rate-payers' writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs throughout. ¶66

State of Haryana versus Mohan Lal & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1970)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment of the High Court set aside and appeal allowed; the rate-payers' writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs throughout.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether, under sub-s. (3) of s. 1 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 read with s. 4-A, a Trust could be created in a municipal area whose Committee stood superseded (the High Court having held that s. 1(3) envisages creation of a Trust only where a Committee is functioning). +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

Reading s. 1(3) and s. 4-A of the 1922 Act with s. 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, where the Municipal Committee stands superseded it is the Administrator who exercises the powers given by the latter part of s. 1(3), including the power to say that the Act shall not come into operation; s. 4-A proceeds on the footing that during supersession the trustees originally to be appointed by the Committee are appointed by the State Government. There was therefore no anomaly, and the High Court erred in holding that the Trust could not be set up in 1958 because the Committee was not functioning.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Once the Act has come into operation in accordance with sub-s. (3) of s. 1, there is no provision by which it can cease to apply; it was not necessary to apply the Act again when the Municipal Committee was reconstituted in 1962, and the High Court wrongly held otherwise.

¶50

Key takeaways

If the trust could originally be created under ss. 3 and 4, then, reading ss. 3 and 4 with s. 12 of the General Clauses (Punjab) Act, 1898 (a power conferred by any Punjab Act being exercisable from time to time as occasion requires), the Government has the power to create a new trust or reconstitute a trust which was dissolved.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 — ss. 1(3), 3, 4, 4-A and 103(1) read with s. 238, Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and s. 12, General Clauses (Punjab) Act, 1898 — Rohtak Municipal Committee superseded (1954); Act extended and Rohtak Improvement Trust set up (1958); Trust dissolved under s. 103(1) (1961); Committee reconstituted (1962); Government reconstituted the Trust (1963) — rate-payers' Art. 226 petition allowed by Punjab High Court; reversed on appeal. HELD (Sikri, J.): (i) reading s. 1(3) and s. 4-A (inserted by Punjab Act VIII of 1936) with s. 238, during supersession the Administrator wields all the Committee's powers and could object to the application of the Act, and the State Government fills the Committee's trustee seats — there was no anomaly and the Trust was validly set up in 1958; (ii) once in operation under s. 1(3) the Act continues to apply; reapplication on the Committee's reconstitution was unnecessary; (iii) reading ss. 3 and 4 with s. 12 of the General Clauses (Punjab) Act, 1898, the Government may create a new trust or reconstitute a trust earlier dissolved. Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs throughout.

202

STATE OF HARYANA

MOHAN LAL & ORS.

October 30, 1969

rs.M.SIKRI,G.K.MITTERANDP.JAGANMOHANREDDY,JJ.] _PunjabTown Improvement Act (Punj._4_of_1922),_ss.1 (3)3,4,4A and_1()3(1)andPunjabMunicipal Act, 1911,s.238-Supers.,sion of *Municipality-PowerofGovernment to setupImprovement Trust under* *1922Act-Powerof Government to reconstitute dissolved Trust after re·* .constitutionofMunicipal Committee. The Rohtak Municipal CommitteewassupersededinAugust 1954, .andanAdministratorwasapP<>intedunders.238of the Punjab Municipal Act,1911.InJune1958theprovisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,1922,wereextended totheMunicipalityandthe Rohtak Improve· ment Trustwassetupundelrthe Act.InAugust 1961, the Government issued a notification unders.103(1)of the 1922ActdissolvingtheTrust. The Municipal Committeew~sreconstituted in January· 1962 and in October 1962 the Government decided to reconstitutetheTrust. The ~funicipalCommittee..thereuponpasseda resolution opposingtherecon- situationofthe Trust. In January 1963, however,the Government re- constituted the Trust and the Municipal Committeewasasked to nameits l'epresentatives tobeappointedastrustees.- The rate·payers filed a writ petition challenging the reconstitution ofthetrustandthe High Court allowed the petition. In appealto.this Court, HELD :(I)The attention of the High Courtwasnot drawntos. 4Aof the 1922 Actandtherefore it erredinholding that the Trust could notbesetupin1958because, unders.1(3) of the1922Act a Trustcan- notbecreatedina Municipalareaunless the committeewasfunctioning. Unders.4A, where the Municipal Committeewassuperseded the State Government could appoint the trustees,andtherewasno anomalyinthe Govelrnment nominating the trustees, because, the Administratorwhohad allthe powersandduties of the Committee under_s:_238of the1911 Actwascompetenttosaytothe Government that the1922Act should notbeappliedtothe Municipality.[205C-D206BJ (2) Once the 1922 Act had come into operation unders.1(3),it continuestoapplyanditwas not necessary to applyitagain\Vhenthe** Municipal Committeewasreconstitutedin1962.(206DJ
(3) Underss.3 and 4 ofthe1922Actand theGeneral Clauses (Punjab) Act,t 898, Government has the power to create a new trustor reconstitute a Trust which was dissolved. [206H] CMLAPPELLATEJURISDICTION:Civil AppealNo.1121of 1966.
Appealbyspecial leave from the judgment and order dated August 17, 1965 of the PunjabHighCourt, in Letters Patent AppealNo.110 of 1965. ·

rs.M.SIKRI,G.K.MITTERANDP.JAGANMOHANREDDY,JJ.]
_PunjabTown Improvement Act (Punj._4_of_1922),_ss.1 (3)3,4,4A
and_1()3(1)andPunjabMunicipal Act,
1911,s.238-Supers.,sion of
Municipality-PowerofGovernment to setupImprovement Trust under
1922Act-Powerof Government to reconstitute dissolved Trust after re·
**.constitutionofMunicipal Committee.
The Rohtak Municipal CommitteewassupersededinAugust 1954,
.andanAdministratorwasapP<>intedunders.238of the Punjab Municipal
Act,1911.InJune1958theprovisions of the Punjab Town Improvement
Act,1922,wereextended totheMunicipalityandthe Rohtak Improve·
ment Trustwassetupundelrthe Act.InAugust 1961, the Government
issued a notification unders.103(1)of the 1922ActdissolvingtheTrust.
The Municipal Committeew~sreconstituted in January· 1962**
and
in
October 1962 the Government decided to reconstitutetheTrust.
The
~funicipalCommittee..thereuponpasseda resolution opposingtherecon-
situationofthe Trust.
In
January 1963, however,the
Government re-
constituted the Trust and the Municipal Committeewasasked to nameits
l'epresentatives tobeappointedastrustees.-
The rate·payers filed a writ
petition challenging the reconstitution ofthetrustandthe High Court
allowed the petition.
In appealto.this Court,
HELD :(I)The attention of the High Courtwasnot drawntos.
4Aof the 1922 Actandtherefore it erredinholding that the Trust could
notbesetupin1958because, unders.1(3) of the1922Act a Trustcan-
notbecreatedina Municipalareaunless the committeewasfunctioning.
Unders.4A, where the Municipal Committeewassuperseded the State
Government could appoint the trustees,andtherewasno anomalyinthe
Govelrnment nominating the trustees, because, the Administratorwhohad
allthe powersandduties of the Committee under_s:_238of the1911
Actwascompetenttosaytothe Government that the1922Act should
notbeappliedtothe Municipality.[205C-D206BJ
(2) Once the 1922 Act had come into operation unders.1(3),it
continuestoapplyanditwas not necessary to applyitagain\Vhenthe
Municipal Committeewasreconstitutedin1962.(206DJ

(3) Underss.3 and 4 ofthe1922Actand
theGeneral Clauses
(Punjab) Act,t 898, Government has the power to create a new trustor
reconstitute a Trust which was dissolved. [206H]
CMLAPPELLATEJURISDICTION:Civil AppealNo.1121of
1966.

Appealbyspecial leave from the judgment and order dated
August 17, 1965 of the PunjabHighCourt, in Letters Patent
AppealNo.110 of 1965.
·

' '

I-

HARYANA V. MOHAN LAL (Sikri, J.)

¶18

263

¶19

¶20

Janardan Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.

¶21

The respondent did not appear.

¶22

The Judgment of the Court -was delivered by

¶23

Sikri, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab accepting the petition filed ll by the rate-payers of Municipal Committee, Rohtak, respJndents before us, and ordering that the State Government shalJ not proceed with the constitution of the Rohtak Improvement Trust under the notification of August 30, 1961. The High Court allowed the petition because it held ( I ) that sub-s. ( 3) of s. I of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (Punjab Act IV of 1922)-herec inafter referred to _as the Act--only envisages the creation of a Trust in a Municipal area where a Committee is fonctioning and so is in a position to hold a special meeting to decide whether or not it considers the creation of a trust desirable, and (2) that once a trust ceases to exist under s. I 03 (I ) of the Act in order to recreate the trust the Act has to be applied again, and as the Municipal Committee had at a special meeting held on Novem- D ber 9, 1962, decided unanimously that the Act should not be applied the Government was bound to give effect to that decision.

The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sachthey, contends that the High Court has placed a wrong interpretation on the two provisions mentioned abov~ and somehow s. 4-A of the Act was not noticed by the High Court.

¶28

Before we deal with the interpretation of the provisions mentioned above it is necessary to state a few facts. The Rohtak Municipal Committee was superseded on August 2, 1954. The Government purported to extend the provisions of the Act to the whole of the area of the Municipality on May 21. 1958. The notification to this effect reads :

¶29

"In pursuance of the provisions of sub-section ( 3) of Section 1 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (Punjab Act No. IV of 1922), the Governor of Punjab proposes to apply the provisions of the said Act to the whole of the area of the municipalities specified below with effect from 9th June, 1958 :-

¶30

2 .....

¶31

Rohtak, "

¶32

Sub-section ( 3) of s, 1 of the Act reads as follows :

¶33

¶34

"!. (3) This section and section 66 shall come into force at O!lce. The State Government may by notification propose to apply the rest of the Act to the whole or any part of any municipality and to any locality adjacent

¶35

204 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS ·[1970]3S.C.R.
thereto, on such dateasmaybespecified in such notification; and the Act shallcomeinto operation after the lapse of three months unless within' that period the municipal committee concerned at meeting convened for the purposeofconsidering the application of the Act resolvebya majority of two-thirds that the Act should notbesoapplied."	A •
In pursuance of this notification a trustwasset up. But on August30, 1961,the Government issued a notificationinexercise of its powers under sub-s. (1)ofs.103.of the Act and declared that the Rohtak Improvement Trust shallbedissolved with effect from August 30, 1961 from which the Chairman and the trustees ofthe aforesaid Trust ceased to· function. Section 103 ( 1) of the Act readsasfollows: "103.(1)When all schemes sanctioned under this Act have been executed or have been so far executed as to render the continued existence of the trust, in the opinion of the State Government, unnecessary,orwhen in the opinion of the State Government itisexpedient that the trust shall cease to exist, the State Government may by notification declare that the trustshal!bedis- solved from such dateasmaybespecified in this behalf 1nsuch notification; and the trust shall be deemedtobe dissolved accordingly." It'appears that on the supersessionoftheMunicipalityof Rohtak in 1954 an Administrationwasappointed unders.238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. This section,_interalia,_provides: "238.(1).... ( 2) When a committeeissosuperseeded. the following consequences shall ensue:- (a).... (b)all powers and dutiesofthe committee may. until the committeeisreconstituted, be exercised and performed by such personsasthe State Government may appoint in that behalf;" · Fresh elections of the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, were held inJuly1961, and the Municipal Committee reconstitutedo,n January 10, 1962. On October 23, 1962, the Government informed the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, that it had decided to reconstitute Rohtak Improvement Trust ;mmediately and asked the Deputy Commissioner to recommend a panel ofsixnames of suitable persons for appointmentastrustees and the Government also askedhimtocall upon the Municipal Committee, Rohtak,to elect its representativesastrustee!!.	c D E F G H

204
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS
·[1970]3S.C.R.

thereto, on such dateasmaybespecified in such
notification; and the Act shallcomeinto operation after
the lapse of three months unless within' that period the
municipal committee concerned at meeting convened for
the purposeofconsidering the application of the Act
resolvebya majority of two-thirds that the Act should
notbesoapplied."

A
•

In pursuance of this notification a trustwasset up.
But on
August30, 1961,the Government issued a notificationinexercise
of its powers under sub-s. (1)ofs.103.of the Act and declared
that the Rohtak Improvement Trust shallbedissolved with effect
from August 30, 1961 from which the Chairman and the trustees
ofthe aforesaid Trust ceased to· function.
Section 103 ( 1) of the Act readsasfollows:
"103.(1)When all schemes sanctioned under this
Act have been executed or have been so far executed
as to render the continued existence of the trust, in the
opinion of the State Government, unnecessary,orwhen
in the opinion of the State Government itisexpedient
that the trust shall cease to exist, the State Government
may by notification declare that the trustshal!bedis-
solved from such dateasmaybespecified in this behalf
1nsuch notification; and the trust shall be deemedtobe
dissolved accordingly."
It'appears that on the supersessionoftheMunicipalityof
Rohtak in 1954 an Administrationwasappointed unders.238 of
the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. This section,_interalia,_provides:
"238.(1)....
( 2) When a committeeissosuperseeded. the
following consequences shall ensue:-
(a)....
(b)all powers and dutiesofthe committee may.
until the committeeisreconstituted, be exercised and
performed by such personsasthe State Government
may appoint in that behalf;" ·
Fresh elections of the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, were held
inJuly1961, and the Municipal Committee reconstitutedo,n
January 10, 1962. On October 23, 1962, the Government
informed the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, that it had decided
to reconstitute Rohtak Improvement Trust ;mmediately and asked
the Deputy Commissioner to recommend a panel ofsixnames of
suitable persons for appointmentastrustees and the Government
also askedhimtocall upon the Municipal Committee, Rohtak,to
elect its representativesastrustee!!.

c
D
E
F
G
H

¶36

•

¶37

HilYANA V. MOHAN LAL (Sikri, J.)

¶38

205

¶39

A This was not to the liking of the Municipal Committee and the Mu.nicipal Committee unanimously passed a resolution on November 9, 1962, strongly opposing the reconstitution of the Improvement Trust, Rohtak.

¶40

The Government by notification dated January 10, 1963, in B exercise of powers conferred by sub-s. (2) of s. 4 of the Act appointed one Major S. K. Mehta as Chairman, Rohtak Improvement Trust. The Municipal Committee was again requested to send two names of three members of the Municipal Committee to be appointed as trustees as required by cl. (b) of sub-s. ( 1) of s. 4 of the Act. Thereupon 32 rate-payers filed the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the reconstitution of the c Rohtak Improvement Trust.

¶41

¶42

Coming to the first point decided by the High -Court, it seems to us that s. 4-A of the Act was not brought to its notice and if it had been brought to its notice the High Court may well have come to the contrary conclusion. Section 4-A, which was inserted by Punjab Act VIII of 1936 reads :

¶43

"4-A. During the period of supersession of a Municipal Committee under section 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the three seats allotted to the Municipal Committee on the trust under clause (b) of sub-section ( 1) of section 4 shall be filled by the State Government by appointing any three persons by !llOtifiE cation in the Official Gazette. The term of office of every trustee so appointed shall be three years or until the Trust is dissolved, whichever period is less, provided that if the Municipal Committee is reconstituted three members of the Municipal Committee shall be elected or appointed in accordance with the provisiQns of section F 4, and on their election or appointment the three trustees appointed by the State Government under this section shall cease to be members of th~ Trust."

¶44

Readings. 1(3) ands. 4A of the Act, and s. 238 of the Pu.njab Municipal Act, 1911, together, it seems to us that the true meaning of the latter portion of sub-section ( 3) of s. 1 is that G when the Government ·applies the section and the Municipal Committee has been superseded before that date it is the Administrator who would exercise the powers given under the latter part of that sub-section; in other words, the Admmistrator would be competent to say to the Government that the Act shall not come into operation. The words of s. 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act are very wide and it is difficult to liniit the expression "all powers and duties H of the co!Illllittee" in any manner. The Municipality exercise? powers by resolution passed by majority. and ~e . fact that this particular resolution had to be by two-third ma3onty does not lead

¶45

[1970] 3 S.C.R.

¶46

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶47

206

¶48

to the conclusion that the power to oppose the application of the Act vesting in the Municipal Committee cannot be exercised by the Admi,nistrator under s. 238, Punjab Municipal Act.

¶49

Section 4A of the Act clearly proceeds on the oasis that while the Municipal Committee stands superseded the appointment of trustees which was originally to be made by the Municipal Committee would be made by the State Government. As the High Court did not have s. 4-A before it had relied on the anomaly that where a Municipal Committee was suspended the Governmtmt could nominate some members of the suspended Committee as members of the Trust or otherwise fill these vacancies, and the· High Court felt that it could not believe that it was the intention of the Legislature.

¶50

Coming to the second point made by the High Court, it seems that the High Court has wrongly. held that 0J11Ce the Act has been applied it is necessary that it should be applied again when the Municipal Committee is reconstituted. There is nothing in the words of sub-s. ( 3) of s. 1 to warrant this conclusion. Once the Act has come into operation in accordaince with the provisions of sub-s. ( 3) o,f s. 1 there is no provision by which the Act can cease to apply.

¶51

The only point that remains is : when a trust has been dissolved under s. 103 of the Act, can it be reconstituted under the Act? The only provisio,ns under which a trust can be reconstituted under the Act are sections 3 and 4. Section 3 reads :

"3. The duty of carrying out the provisions of this Act in any local area shall, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter contained, be vested ~n a board to be called "The (name of town) Improvement Trust" hereinafter referred to as the "The Trust"; and F every such board shall be a body corporate and have perpetual succession and common seal, and shall by the said name sue atid be sued."

¶58

Section 4 reads;

¶59

"4. (1) The trust shall consist of seven trustees, G namely:-

¶60

¶61

The other sub-sections of s. 4 provide how the trustees are to be appointed.

¶62

It seems to us that if the trust could originally be created under ss. 3 and 4, reading ss. 3 and 4 and s. 12 o.f the General Clauses. Act, the Government has the power to create a 1riew trust or reconstitute a new trust. We may mention that s. 12 of the Gene-

¶63

¶64

HARYANA v. MOHAN LAL (Sikri, /.)

¶65

207

¶66

A ral Clauses (Punjab) Act, 1898, provides that "where by any Punjab Act any power is conferred then that power may be exercised from time «> time as occasion requires." In the result the jtidgment of the High Court is set aside, the appeal allowed a,nd the writ petition disniissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout. 8 Y.P. Appeal allowed.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether, under sub-s. (3) of s. 1 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 read with s. 4-A, a Trust could be created in a municipal area whose Committee stood superseded (the High Court having held that s. 1(3) envisages creation of a Trust only where a Committee is functioning).¶23
The court held
Reading s. 1(3) and s. 4-A of the 1922 Act with s. 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, where the Municipal Committee stands superseded it is the Administrator who exercises the powers given by the latter part of s. 1(3), including the power to say that the Act shall not come into operation; s. 4-A proceeds on the footing that during supersession the trustees originally to be appointed by the Committee are appointed by the State Government. There was therefore no anomaly, and the High Court erred in holding that the Trust could not be set up in 1958 because the Committee was not functioning.ratio¶44
2.
Whether, once the Act has come into operation under s. 1(3) and a trust has ceased to exist under s. 103(1), the Act must be applied again in order to recreate the trust after the Municipal Committee is reconstituted (as the High Court held).¶23
The court held
Once the Act has come into operation in accordance with sub-s. (3) of s. 1, there is no provision by which it can cease to apply; it was not necessary to apply the Act again when the Municipal Committee was reconstituted in 1962, and the High Court wrongly held otherwise.ratio¶50
3.
When a trust has been dissolved under s. 103 of the Act, can it be reconstituted under the Act, i.e., does the Government have power to create a new trust or reconstitute a dissolved trust?¶51
The court held
If the trust could originally be created under ss. 3 and 4, then, reading ss. 3 and 4 with s. 12 of the General Clauses (Punjab) Act, 1898 (a power conferred by any Punjab Act being exercisable from time to time as occasion requires), the Government has the power to create a new trust or reconstitute a trust which was dissolved.ratio¶62

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated August 17, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 1965, against which the present appeal by special leave is directed.¶7
Punjab High Court · 1965-08-17
Prior proceeding
Rohtak Municipal Committee superseded on August 2, 1954; Administration appointed under s. 238, Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.¶28
Prior proceeding
In pursuance of sub-section (3) of s. 1, the Governor of Punjab proposed to apply the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 to the whole of the area of the specified municipalities, including Rohtak, with effect from 9th June, 1958.¶29
Prior proceeding
In pursuance of that notification a trust (the Rohtak Improvement Trust) was set up.¶35
Prior proceeding
By notification of August 30, 1961, issued in exercise of powers under sub-s. (1) of s. 103 of the Act, the Government declared the Rohtak Improvement Trust dissolved with effect from that date; the Chairman and trustees ceased to function.¶35
Prior proceeding
Fresh elections of the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, were held in July 1961 and the Municipal Committee stood reconstituted on January 10, 1962.¶35
Prior proceeding
On October 23, 1962 the Government decided to reconstitute the Rohtak Improvement Trust immediately, asked the Deputy Commissioner to recommend a panel of six names for appointment as trustees, and called upon the Municipal Committee to elect its representatives as trustees.¶35
Prior proceeding
The Municipal Committee unanimously passed a resolution on November 9, 1962 strongly opposing the reconstitution of the Improvement Trust, Rohtak.¶39
Prior proceeding
By notification dated January 10, 1963, in exercise of powers under sub-s. (2) of s. 4, the Government appointed Major S. K. Mehta as Chairman, Rohtak Improvement Trust; the Committee was again asked to send names of three of its members as trustees under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4.¶40
Prior proceeding
Thirty-two rate-payers filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the reconstitution of the Rohtak Improvement Trust.¶40
Prior proceeding
The High Court of Punjab allowed the rate-payers' petition, holding (i) that sub-s. (3) of s. 1 envisages creation of a Trust only where a Committee is functioning, and (ii) that after a trust ceases to exist under s. 103(1) the Act must be applied again, and ordered that the State Government shall not proceed with the constitution of the Rohtak Improvement Trust under the notification of August 30, 1961.¶23

State of Haryana v. Mohan Lal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Mohan Lal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lala Ram versus Hari Ram

Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. versus State of Haryana and Ors.

Sheo Nath versus the State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh versus Satya Narain Prasad

Choudhary Jawaharlal & Ors. versus State of Madhya Pradesh

Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. & Others versus Kumari Chittra Srivastava & Others