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

ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD. versus R. N. KAPOOR

Decided
19 May 1959
Judges listed
S.K. DAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1960] 1 S.C.R. 368 · 1959 INSC 89
Also cited as
  • AIR 1959 SC 1262 (47 citing judgments)
  • 1959 SCC OnLine SC 62 (2 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
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 14 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

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.

In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

p. 388

DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD.

p. 388

v. THE DHRANGADHRA MUNICIPALITY

p. 388

(and connected petition)

p. 388

(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. K.APUR, P. B. G.AJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. W ANCHOo, JJ.)

p. 388

Municipality-Regulation of discharge of ejjl.uent-Issue of notice-Objection to such notice and requisition specified therein- Scope of enquiry by Special Officer-Existence of nuisance, if can gone into-Bombay District Municipal Act, I9DI, adapted and applied the State of Saurashtra and amended by Act XI of I955·

p. 388

The respondent Municipality issued a notice under sub-s. (1) of l53A of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra and as amended by Act XI of 1955, calling upon the appellant to show cause why it should not be directed to discharge the effluent of it's chemical works in the manner specified in the notice. On the :ippellant objecting to the notice and the requisition contained therein, a Special Officer was appointed by the Government under sub-s. (3) of that section to hold an enquiry in the matter. The Special

p. 388

treated some of the issues raised, as preliminary issues of law and held .that the question whether the discharge of the effluent polluted the water and adversely affected the fertility of the soil was a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the Municipality and binding on him and was as such beyond the scope of his enquiry. The question for determinatiOn in this appeal was whether the Special Officer was right in the view he took of s. l53A(3) of the Act and in restricting ·the scope of the enquiry in the way he did.

p. 388