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

THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC. versus P. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
24 January 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 526 · 1997 INSC 55

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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 CA NOS. 476-477197@ SLP (C) NOS. 14713-14/96.

p. 526, margin F

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 526, margin F

There was no order passed or action pursued in terms of Rule 155- A ( 6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which envisages that the authority is required to draw up the proceedings to consider the merits and demerits of the applications and to give reasons for grant of the permit. The Division Bench of the High Court has pointed out in the impugned judgment 28th June, 1996 that since no reasons were recorded in the proceedings purported to have been held on 9th May, 1984, order dated August 1, 1984 passed by the Regional Development Authority the grant of permit was not valid and being a nullity it is est. The High Court has observed as under:

pp. 526–527, margin F

"We have pointed out that records do not contain any proceedings or any reasons except the order as notified which has already been extracted. There is not disagreement between the parties regarding non-existence of the proceedings containing reasons for selecting

p. 527, margin A

the first respondent and rejecting the other applications".

p. 527, margin B

In view of the above finding all the contentions raised on the legality of the Division Bench judgment, based thereon, per force do not arise. Accordingly, we do not find from this perspective, any illegality in the judgment passed by the Divisions Bench warranting interference.

p. 527, margin B

As regards CA.No.478 of 1997 @ SLP (C) No.23207 of 1996, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding .that the entire proceedings is a nullity. Under those circumstances, no writ can issued as was sought for.

p. 527, margin C

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeals are dismissed.

p. 527, margin D