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

SUBHASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARI AND ORS. versus RAM MILAN AND ORS.

Decided
31 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. 748 · 1997 INSC 82

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.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 748, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated May 24, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No. 8654/95.

p. 748, margin F

The admitted position is that though lease was granted lo the appel- !ants on December 5, 1994 for one year and was executed, as admitted by the respondents, on the said date, it expired on December 5, 1995. It is contended that the lease granted to the appellants was cancelled by the Commissioner on February 17, 1995 and on a revision filed by the appel- !ants to the State Government, by order dated March 23, 1995, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. But unfortunately the operation of the order of the Goyeniment ~as stayed by the High Court on May 21, 1995 and it set aside the order of the Government by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction of the High Court the auctions were conducted and third parties have been inducted to work out the excavation of the sand; but they are not before us. Though there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since . the working of the period of the lease granted to the appellants was not .allowed to be fully utilised on !lccount of the orders passed by the courts or the Commissioner, the. time may be extended for the appellants to execute the .lease and work out the lease for the residue period, as stated earlier, since the third party rights have already been intervened, in their absence we cannot give. the direction as sought for. Under these circumstances, it is stated in the affidavit itself that the respondent-Government have offered refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed by the High Court. The respondents an; directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6,30,000.

pp. 748–749, margin F

We are constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismisse.d.

p. 749, margin D