Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BAYER (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
6 February 1991
Judges listed
RANGANATH MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1991] 1 S.C.R. 250 · 1991 INSC 25
Also cited as
  • (1993) 3 SCC 29 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KANIA, J. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4497 of 1990. The High Court allowed the said writ petition and struck down a communication from the Bombay Municipal Corporation, respondent no. 2 herein, informing the petitioners in the said writ petition, who are arrayed as respondents nos. 3 to 13 before us, that their application for permission to develop the property, namely, the land in question situated at Village Balkum near Thane, was rejected in view of the representations submitted to the Government by the owners of chemical factories situated in the said village, who are the appellants/petitioners herein that no building construction permission should be granted within a certain distance from the said factories. The petitioners in the Special Leave J>etition are some of the said chemical factories. They were not joined in the writ petition as respondents and have prayed for leave to file the Special Leave Petition on the ground that the judgment adversely affects them and they are aggrieved by the same.

p. 251, margin D

Permission is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard.

p. 251, margin G

We find that appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court at the instance of the appellants. The appellants are, however, given liberty to file a review petition before the Bombay High Court for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a period of four weeks from today. In our opinion, it is proper that the entire controversy to which the judgment relates should be determined in the light of the submissions which may be made by the appellants.

pp. 251–252, margin G

In these circumstances, we direct that the review petition, if filed, shall be entertained by the Bombay High Court and the appellants will be given a hearing as if the matter were heard afresh as far as they are concerned. I1 is clarified that the hearing of the review application will not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appellants herein and the respondents.

p. 252, margin B

The interim order made by this Court on January 8, 1991 will continue to remain in operation till the review petition is decided by the High Court. However, it will be open for the High Court to vary or vacate the interim order on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties or by any of the inte'rveners here. If the review petition is not filed within the said period of four weeks, the appeal shall stand dismissed and all interim orders passed by us shall be deemed to be vacated.

p. 252, margin C

In our opinion, the review petition deserves to be disposed of with expedition and we would, therefore, request the High Court to dispose of the review petition, if filed as aforestated, within four months from today and in any event, by the 30th September, 1991.

p. 252, margin E

The matter shall now be placed before learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for passing appropriate directions.

p. 252, margin F

The appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order as to costs. V.P.R. Appeal disposed of.

p. 252, margin F