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

M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. versus MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

Decided
12 October 2007
Judges listed
TARUN CHATTERJEE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 442 · 2007 INSC 1079

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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Delay condoned.

p. 442, margin F

2

Leave granted. 3 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th of January, 2006 of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in WP No. 7150 (S/S) of 2000 and WP No.7 (S/S) of 2001.

p. 442, margin F

4

In the writ petitions, the writ petitioner had challenged an order dated 1 lth of December, 2000, by which he was dismissed from the service. By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the writ A petitions in the following manner: "In view of the above facts, the writ petition deseives to be allowed and accordingly an order/direction in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the opposite paiiy No. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 8 9f this B writ petition. Since writ petition No. 7 (S/S) of2001 has already been aHowed so no relief in writ Petition No. 7150 of2000 is being granted. The Petitioner would be reinstated on his services in accorClance c with the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and petitioner may be given all consequential benefits induding the arrears of salary etc. etc."

pp. 442–443, margin G

5

The question involved in this appeal is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Prahlad Sharma v. State of U.P. and;Ors., D (2004] 4 SCC 113. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Cowrt and as the case is covered by the aforesaid decision, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

p. 443

6

We are informed that the Respondent has already been reinstated E and the order of the High Court has already been implemented and backwages have been paid. This judgment and order shall not be treated as a precedent in case of similarly situated persons. K.K.T. Appeal allotved. F

p. 443