A BSF employee challenged salary recovery for loss attributed to dereliction of duty. The court held that communication of the recovery order in Tripura did not confer territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, leaving the employee free to approach the competent High Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A
W.A. 68 of 2016
Bharat Kumar Ghosh,
son of late Krishna Ballabh Ghosh, resident of Thakur Dwara Brahmpuri, Jodhpur (Rajasthan), PIN : 342002, now residing at Salbagan B.S.F. Headquarters, Agartala, Tripura West ……… Petitioner – V e r s u s –
…….. Respondents
BEFORE
HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Deb, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S. Datta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, CGC
[2]
Date of hearing : 12.07.2017 Date of delivery of Judgment & Order : 31.10.2017 Whether fit for reporting : YES NO √
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(S. Talapatra, J)
This in-tra court appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 15.06.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 429 of 2016 challenging the order dated 09/10.03.2015 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition]. The petitioner urged this court for directing the respondents to refund the salaries deducted illegally from the petitioner in pursuance to the said order dated 09/10.03.2015. 2. While the petitioner was serving at the Border Security Force, the BSF in short, there was theft of properties of estimated value of Rs.4,00,000/- from the store-yard of 51 Bn. BSF, Rampura, Fazilka (Punjab). The said theft was reported under FIR No. 207 dated 13.11.2012 from the office of the Commandant, 51 Bn. BSF. In reference to the said incident, a Security Force Court was constituted to inquire into the charge of dereliction and consequential loss against the petitioner and on culmination of the inquiry, by the order dated 09/10.03.2015, the Commandant of 129 Bn. BSF, Rampura, Fazilka, Punjab directed that a sum of Rs. 1,59,854/- would be recovered from him by 24 installments. When the said theft was committed on 13.11.2012,
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 2 of 25
[3]
according to the petitioner he was under the movement order dated 15.07.2011 [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition] to attend the Basic Recruit Training commencing from 3rd week of July, 2011 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. His leave was also granted from 16.07.2011.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 3 of 25
[4]
were kept in the drawer of a table in the office till the theft was reported. Before the order dated 09/10.03.2015, no order was passed by the competent authority. The petitioner made several representations for review of the said order but without any positive yield.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 4 of 25
[5]
leave from 10.11.2012 and during that time, the said occurrence theft took place and the petitioner had therefore disputed that for his carelessness the said theft could be planned and executed. There is no evidence of the petitioner‟s carelessness or his involvement in the theft in any manner including collaborating with the real culprits.
“16. To invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is to make out a prima facie case showing the cause of action that the same has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court or at least a part or fraction of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. It is not material at all as to whether the person or authority against whom the relief is sought is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or not. The petitioner has to make out the cause of action or any part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Simply because the petitioner is now attached with Salbagan BSF Unit in the State of Tripura, this Court cannot usurp jurisdiction in respect of a proceeding initiated against the petitioner for a bundle of facts arisen in the State of Punjab. Further, a writ petition is decided on the basis of the pleadings and materials placed in support of the pleadings. In my considered opinion, there shall be a clear pleading in the writ petition itself as to how the jurisdiction of the Court is attracted to adjudicated upon the issues raised in the writ petition. Unfortunately, the petitioner simply stated about the fact in respect of the Security Force Court‟s proceeding initiated against him, the punishment imposed pursuant to the said proceeding and in respect of his subsequent representation, etc. and nothing else. There is no specific and clear pleading in the writ petition about cause of action to attract the jurisdiction of this Court in deciding the writ petition. In the absence of any such pleading showing the cause of action to attract jurisdiction of the Court, I think this Court should not entertain the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.”
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 5 of 25
[6]
Dinesh Chandra Gahtori versus Chief of Army Staff and
Page 6 of 25
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
[7]
Another reported in (2001) 9 SCC 525 the apex court has observed as under :
“3. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad to quash a communication sent to his wife which stated that the appellant had been tried by a Summary court Martial and had been found guilty of using criminal force against his superior officer and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage by holding :
“In view of the fact that the summary court- martial proceedings were conducted in the State of Punjab and orders were also passed in Punjab by the West Command, we are of the view that this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.”
4. The writ petition was filed in 1992. The impugned order was passed in 1999. This is a fact that the High Court should have taken into consideration. More importantly, it should have taken into consideration the fact that the Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the country. Placing reliance only on the cause of action, as the High Court did, was not justified.”
“ The High Court failed to consider all the relevant facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on the question of maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 7 of 25
[8]
lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complainant had filed the complaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had prayed for quashing the said complaint. The High Court did not also consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police. The High Court also did not take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurize the petitioner the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration in the matter. On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.“
following passage from NavinChandra N. Majithia (supra) :
“37. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts.”
[Emphasis added]
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 8 of 25
[9]
on South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. versus Nava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 443 to elicit the meaning and impart of the phrase „part of the cause of action‟. In South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. (supra) the only controversy that fell for the consideration of the apex court that whether the Delhi high Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was an admitted position notwithstanding the dispute that the contract was executed in Bombay. It was also an admitted position that the performance of obligations and liabilities under the contract was required to be done in Bombay inasmuch as cargo of livestock was to be transported in the ship from Kandla to Damman or Jeddah. It was also an admitted position that in furtherance of the execution of the contract at Bombay, the respondents had executed the bank guarantee at Delhi and had transmitted it to Bombay for performance of the contract. The question, therefore, was whether any part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. It was argued before the apex court having referred A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. versus A.P. Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163 that a part of cause of action had in the context arisen in Delhi and hence the high court on its original side had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But the said contention was not wholly accepted by the apex court.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 9 of 25
[10]
Bombay (supra), the apex court having referred to Section 20 of the code of civil procedure, the CPC in short, particularly to its
explanation to Clause (a) had occasion to observe that :
“The Explanation is in two parts, one before the word "or" occurring between the words "office in India" and the words "in respect of" and the other thereafter. The Explanation applies to a defendant which is a corporation which term, would include even a company such as the appellant in the instant case. The first part of the Explanation applies only to such a corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event the courts within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the defendant is situate will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not be actually carrying on business at that place, it will "be deemed to carry on business" at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. The latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place. The words "at such place" occurring at the end of the Explanation and the word "or" referred to above which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case fails within the latter part of the Explanation it is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but the court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction "in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office".
[Emphasis added]
“It is not permissible to read Article 226, the residence or location of the persons affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the persons affected can have
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 10 of 25
[11]
no relevance on the question of the High Court‟s jurisdiction.” [Emphasis added]
In this regard, there cannot be any controversy inasmuch as distinction between Section 20 of the CPC and the Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution thus has been well laid. Even after amendment, the said principle remained unscathed.
“The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writ issuable under Article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or authority „within the territories‟ in relation to which the High Court exercise jurisdiction.”
Page 11 of 25
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
[12]
action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any high court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition that the petitioner has to demonstrate that his right has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the court‟s jurisdiction.
“35. Negativing the contention and upholding the order passed by the High Court, this Court ruled that passing of a legislation by itself does not confer any such right to file a writ petition in any Court unless a cause of action arises therefor. The Court stated;
“A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question “. Referring to ONGC, it was held that all necessary facts must form an „integral part‟ of the cause of action. The fact which is neither material nor essential nor integral part of the cause of action would not constitute a part of cause of action within the meaning of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Consitution.
36. In National Textile Corporation. Ltd. & Ors. V. Haribox Swalram & Ors, (2004) 9 SCC 786 : JT 2004 (4) SC 508, referring to earlier cases, this Court stated that “12.1.. the mere fact that the writ petitioner carries on business at Calcutta or that the reply to the
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 12 of 25
[13]
correspondence made by it was received at Calcutta is not an integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the view to the contrary taken by the Division Bench cannot be sustained.”
37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a „part of cause of action‟, nothing less than that.”
[Emphasis added]
Rajasthan and Others versus M/s Swaika Properties and
Another reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289, where it has been observed as under:
“8. The expression 'cause of action' is tersely defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure:
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 13 of 25
[14]
"The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed , it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court."
In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. The mere service of notice under s. 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B , Brabourne Road , Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal , could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under s. 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Art. 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. The notification dated February 8 , 1984 issued by the State Government under s. 52(1) of the Act became effective the moment it was published in the official Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by the Special Officer, Town Planning Department , Jaipur under s. 52(2) for the grant of an appropriate writ , direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification issued by the State Government under s. 52(1) of the Act. If the respondents felt aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands situate at Jaipur and wanted to challenge the validity of the notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under s. 52(1) of the Act by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the remedy of the respondents of the grant of such relief had to be sought by filing such a petition before the Rajasthan High Court , Jaipur Bench , where the cause of action wholly or in part arose.”
[Emphasis added]
cause of action or part thereof.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 14 of 25
[15]
the decision of the apex court in Adani Exports Ltd.(supra) : AIR 2002 SC 162, M/s Swaika Properties(supra) : AIR 1985 SC 1289. In order to consolidating the construct of cause of action the apex court has observed having particular regard to Utpal Kumar Basu (supra) that the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. The said provision in the constitution [Clause (2)] had come for consideration in number of cases before the apex court. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court for entertaining a writ petition or a special civil application, as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 for deciding a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above decision that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court‟s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such „which have nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case‟. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 15 of 25
[16]
23. An illustration has been provided in Adani Exports
Ltd.(supra) from Utpal Kumar Basu (supra) where the apex court negatived the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents therein that either the acquisition of knowledge made through media at a particular place or owing and having an office or property or residing at a particular place, receiving of a fax message at a particular place, receiving telephone calls and maintaining statements of accounts of business, printing of letterheads indicating branch offices of the firm, booking of orders from a particular place are not the factors which would give rise either wholly or in part cause of action conferring territorial jurisdiction to courts. In the said case, the apex court has clearly held that the mere service of notice is not a relevant fact to determine the cause of action, unless that notice is an integral part of the cause of action.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 16 of 25
[17]
person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located or relocated outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partly arises within the court‟s territorial jurisdiction. The cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of CPC. The expression cause of action has neither been defined either in the CPC or in the Constitution. The cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term “cause of action” as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before the apex court. It is not at all necessary to make reference to those reports as the meaning has been unequivocally crystallized by means of interpretation.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 17 of 25
[18]
“(C). Cause of action wholly or in part arises.”
There is no definition as such. but the distinguish commentator Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla in his commentaries on Code of Civil Procedure has explained cause of action in the following terms:
“‟Cause of action‟ means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of
Page 18 of 25
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
[19]
evidence which is necessary to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to an immediate judgment, must be a part of the cause of action. It is, in other words a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in the suit. It has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. The cause of action must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. So, when the plaintiff filed his suit for ejectment fifteen days before he was entitled to possession, he failed for want of a cause of action. A Court enjoys jurisdiction in a suit if the cause of action arises within the local limits of its jurisdiction as provided under s. 20(c). If there is no cause of action, the plaint will be rejected by the Court. Even if a part of the cause of action arises within the local limits of jurisdiction of a Court, it has the jurisdiction to try the suit.”
[Emphasis added]
When Sir Mulla has referred Section 20(c) in the above part, we cannot be oblivious that such comment was made on the basis of pre-amended provision which existed before 01.02.1977.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 19 of 25
[20]
rise to the cause of action. Whether such communication by itself gives rise to the cause of action is the ultimate question we are to decide.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 20 of 25
[21]
31. In Adani Exports Ltd.(supra) the similar view
has been approved by the apex court. In Utpal Kumar Basu (supra) where the apex court has more categorically embedded that unless the service of such notice is an integral part of the cause of action, mere receipt of such notice within the territorial limit of the High Court, would not confer the jurisdiction to issue rule NISI.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 21 of 25
[22]
33. The apex court has observed in Ambica
Industries (supra) as follows :
“41. Keeping in view the expression “cause of action” used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter though the doctrine of forum conveniens may also have to be considered.
42. In Mussummat Chand Kour v. Partab Singh, it was held : (IA pp. 157-58)
“[T]he cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour ””.
made in Navin chandra N. Majithia (supra) where a Queen's Bench Division decision has been relied by the apex court. In Read versus Brown : (1888) 22 QBD 128, Lord Esher , M.R., adopted the definition for the phrase “cause of action” consolidating that it meant:
“Every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.”
[Emphasis added]
This part has been extensively used by Sir Mulla while proposing a workable definition of “cause of action” in his treaty as stated. “Even in the context of Article 226(2) of the constitution the apex court has adopted the same interpretation to the expression “cause of action”, wholly or in part, arises.”
Page 22 of 25
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
[23]
35. In Swaika Properties (supra) and in Utpal
Kumar Basu (supra) by enunciating that it is well settled that the expression “cause of action” means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, to entitle him to a judgment.
“If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule.”
“26. ...... with a view to determine the jurisdiction of one High Court vis-a-vis the other the facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be made and the facts which
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 23 of 25
[24]
have nothing to do therewith cannot give rise to a cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of a court.”
rise to the cause of action or part thereof, even a fraction, this principle is the essential tool to segregate the relevant fact from the irrelevant fact or from the insignificant or frivolous facts. Thus the touchstone would be that the fact having nexus or relevance with the lis, inasmuch as those facts are the media upon which the plaintiff asked the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. Thus, the delivery of the impugned order within the territorial jurisdiction is the only fact that has been pressed by the appellant-petitioner to assert that a fraction of cause of action arose within the territorial limit of this court but whether that facts has anything to do with the lis or the dispute involved in the case. The dispute in the case hinges on the manner in which the petitioner has been saddled with the liability to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,845/- in 24 (twenty four) equal instalments for loss caused by his dereliction of duty by the order dated 09/10.03.2015 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition]. Thus the communication or delivery of the said order dated 09/10.03.2015 is not a relevant fact for determining the cause of action.
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 24 of 25
[25]
treated as an integral fact giving rise to the cause of action (see National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Haribox Swalram: (2004) 9 SCC 786, Para 12.1.) Thus the well entrenched principle of forum conveniens cannot be applied in this case.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sabyasachi B
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2016
Page 25 of 25
1 issue framed by the court
Did communication in Tripura of the salary-recovery order constitute part of the cause of action conferring territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nawal Kishore Sharma versus Union of IndiaRelied on¶133
(2014) 9 SCC 329 · Who else cites this
NavinChandra N. Majithia versus State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶164
(2000) 7 SCC 640 · Who else cites this
Dinesh Chandra Gahtori versus Chief of Army Staff and AnotherReferred¶47
(2001) 9 SCC 525 · Who else cites this
Oil & Natural Gas Commission versus Utpal Kumar Basu and OthersRelied on¶153
(1994) 4 SCC 711 · Who else cites this
K. Bhaskaran versus Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and AnotherReferred¶51
(1999) 7 SCC 510 · Who else cites this
Satvinder Kaur versus the State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and AnotherReferred¶51
(1999) 8 SCC 728 · Who else cites this
H.V. Jayaram versus and Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn.of India Ltd. and OthersReferred¶51
(2000) 2 SCC 202 · Who else cites this
South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. versus Nava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and OthersReferred¶65
(1996) 3 SCC 443 · Who else cites this
A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. versus A.P. AgenciesRelied on¶154
(1989) 2 SCC 163 · Who else cites this
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay versus Prasad Trading Company etc.Referred¶66
(1991) 4 SCC 270 · Who else cites this
Election Commission, India versus Saka Venkata RaoExplained¶83
AIR (1953) SC 210 · Who else cites this
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh versus Union of India and AnotherExplained¶122
AIR (1961) SC 532 · Who else cites this
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. versus Union of India and AnotherRelied on¶148
(2004) 6 SCC 254 · Who else cites this
Alchemist Limited and Another versus State Bank of Sikkim and OthersRelied on¶154
AIR 2007 SC 1812 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Others versus Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd, and OthersReferred¶89
AIR 1984 SC 1264 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan and Others versus M/s Swaika Properties and AnotherRelied on¶171
AIR 1985 SC 1289 · Who else cites this
CBI versus Narayn DiwakarReferred¶89
(1999) 4 SCC 656 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Others versus Adani Exports Ltd. and AnotherRelied on¶175
(2002) 1 SCC 567 · Who else cites this
Ambica IndustriesRelied on¶158
Ambica Industries (supra)
Read versus BrownRelied on¶164
Read versus Brown : (1888) 22 QBD 128
Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶176
(2006) 3 SCC 658 · Who else cites this
National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Haribox SwalramApplied¶188
National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Haribox Swalram: (2004) 9 SCC 786, Para 12.1. · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bharat Kumar Ghosh
The Union of India
The Commandant, 129th Bn BSF
The Inspector General, Border Security Force, FTR Headquarter B.S.F.
The Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Sector HQ B.S.F. Azamgarh
The Director General, FHQ B.S.F.
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
