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

HASINUDDIN KHAN AND ANR. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Decided
13 September 1979
Judges listed
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[1980] 2 S.C.R. 1207 · 1979 INSC 179
Also cited as
  • (1980) 3 SCC 285 (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
1 other citation string 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.

CHANDRACHUD, C.J.-In view of the Judgment of this Court in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas, Jethabhai & Anr.(') Union of India

p. 1208, margin A

Mahindra Supply Company(') and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors.(') and in view of the fact that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, upholding the validity of the 1962 Act was dismissed by the Constitution. Bench of this Court after an elaborate argument, there is no substance in the contention that either the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 or the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, Act 33 of 1972 is unconstitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the gi-ound of their unconstitutionality is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very fairly conceded that position. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

p. 1208, margin A

However, the appellants may, if so advised, ask for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned single judge. We are sure that the delay caused in filing the S.L.Ps in this Court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this Court.

p. 1208, margin D

Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 543/75 says that the appellant has already filed special leave petition (Civil) No. 361 of 1976 in this Court challenging the decision of the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court on the merits of the matter. He has also filed an application seeking leave of this Court for urging additional grounds and an application for coodonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition- The petition for permission to nrge additional grounds, except on Constitutional points, shall he treated as having been filed in the S.L.P. These three petitions will be listed before the Division Bench 4-10-1979. S.R.

p. 1208, margin E

(l) [19511 SC. R. 51. (2) [19621 3 S.C.R. 497. (3) [1968! 2 S.C.R. 95.

p. 1208, margin F