Supreme Court of India

MADAN MOHAN PATHAK versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Decided: 21 February 1978
Judges listed: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Case Allowed

Citations

Official

[1978] 3 S.C.R. 334 · 1978 INSC 43

Also cited as

(1978) 2 SCC 50 (49 citing judgments)
AIR 1978 SC 803 (19 citing judgments)
(1978) SCC(L&S) 103 (6 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

2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 39 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 18 May 2023 · bench of 5 judges · cites it at para 17 and 1 other paragraph
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER versus M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS 17 March 2023 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 46
THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS versus DR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS. 3 March 2023 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 6
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 14 July 2021 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 51
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA 27 November 2019 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 44

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.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

We agree with the conclusion of Brother Bhagwati but prefer to rest our decision on the ground that the impugned Act violates the provisions of Article 31 (2) and is, therefore, void. We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on the effect of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 371 of 1976. P.B.R. Petitions allowed.

p. 369, margin G