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

BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES versus UNION OF INDIA

Decided
14 November 1983
Judges listed
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1984] 1 S.C.R. 815 · 1983 INSC 174
Also cited as
  • (1984) 1 SCC 141 (8 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1984 SC 160 (6 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.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments 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.

J. The ·order of the Government dated :November 30, '1982 Which is impugned in these proceeding leaves much to be desiied. ]lut we do hot propose t"o admit the appeal since: after hearing a longish argument fro~ Shri Atiil B. Divan on behalf Of the appellant, We are ·Satisfied on the material produced . before us and on perusal of the 'counter affidavit of the Government · that, there were good reasons for passing the impugned. order .. We must, however, impress upon the . Government that while disposing of applications under· Sections 21, 22 and i3 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, · 1.969 it must give good reasons in support of its order. and not merely state iis bald conclusion. The faith of the people in administrative tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals a~ fairly and dispose of the matters b~fore them by well consi<!ered orders .. The.relevant material musf be·made avail-· able to be.objectors because with out it, -they cannot possibly must the claim or contentiom of the applicants under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the MRTP Act. The refusar of the Government to furnish such material to the objectors can amount to·a denial of a reasonableopportnnity to the objectors to 'meot the applicant's case. And denial of a reasonable oppo~unity to meet the other man's case.is denial of natural justice: .

p. 816, margin A

·.On the quesiion of the need to give reasons in support o.f the ·conclusions to Which the Governinel)t has come, the authorities concerned may, . with profit, see the Judgments of this Court in . Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors.,(i) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India .Limited v. Union of India & Ans.( and · Uma Charan v: State' of Madhya J'radesh & Anr.(

p. 816, margin D

With these observations we dismiss the special leave petition and the appeal. H.L.C. Petition dismis;~d .

p. 816, margin F

(1) [197411 SCR 797 • (2) [1976) Suppl. SCR 489 (3) 1 SCR!353 .

p. 816, margin F

• '

p. 816, margin F