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

R.C. CHAWLA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Decided
12 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 466 · 1996 INSC 61
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 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.

Leave granted.

p. 466, margin E

As per the orders of this Court passed earlier, if the appellant wants to avail of the allotment, he necessarily has to comply with the conditions of allotment . Consequently, he cannot use allotted residential premises for commercial purpose. The appellant has filed an affidavit verified on January 4, 1996 stating, among other things, thus :

p. 466, margin F

"Thal as per the order of Honourable Supreme Court of India, I have got the conunercial use of my house stopped w.e.f. 2.1.96.

p. 466, margin G

The above statement is true to the best of my knowledge." The learned counsel for the respondents states that he does not have

p. 466, margin G

R.C. CHAWLA STATE 467 any inforn1ation as to what was the action taken by the authorities in that behalf. Sri S.K. Bagga, the learned counsel has shown to the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement also was communicated to the HUDA and the respondents. The respondents are at liberty to verify whether the appellant had stopp6d use of the premises for commercial use w.e.f. January 2, 1996 and on being so satisfied, they are directed to withdraw the impugned resumption order.

p. 467

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

p. 467, margin B