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

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus S. J. THANAWALA AND ANR.

Decided
26 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 1063 · 1996 INSC 315

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.

p. 1063, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made on July 29, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 2333/83. The admitted position is that one Hanumanbux had been runni,ng salt works at Bombay. It had established salt factory at B'iandup Cirde on land admeasur.ng 138 acres 17 guntas and seabed etc., on the basis of a lease which was due for renewal on July 1, 1983. When a notice was issued by the appellants on June 30, 1983 calling upon the licensees to execute a lease dead admitted the title of the appellants, they re!Siisted the action in the above writ petition. The High Court in the impugned order stated that whether the respondents are owners of the property or a lessees and consequently whether the Government can compel the licensees to concede to their title are jurisdictional issues. Since. the Collector had already decided that the respondents had title to the property, which is a condition for grant of a valid iicence, it was for the Government to consider the renewal of the licences provided all the requisite conditions for renewal of the licence were complied with. We are informed that the appeal has already been filed against the order of the Collector and is pending. It is for the Government to have the matter disposed of.

pp. 1063–1064, margin F

It is not in dispute that for grarit of renewal, title to the property or title under a lease is a condition precedent. The Government asserted its title to the prqperty and called upon the respondents to accept their title and have a licence issued from them. On the other hand, the respondents asserted to have title to the property and claimed that they had a right under the order passed by the Collector which is· subject matter in the appeal. The High Court, therefore, rightly has not gone into the question of t.itle and relegated the parties to the decision of the appellate Tribunal and to take action in furtherance thereof. The view taken by the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified on the facts of the case. However, it will be subject to the result in the appeal and the action of the appellants would be in furtherance thereof. Until then, the interim order passed by the High Court would continue. It would be open to the appellants to have the appeal disposed of as expeditiously as possible and have the matter decided accordingly.

p. 1064, margin A

The appeal is dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1064, margin E