Supreme Court of India

ANAKAPALLA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED versus WORKMEN

Decided: 23 October 1962
Judges listed: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official

[1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 730 · 1962 INSC 298

Also cited as

AIR 1963 SC 1489 (17 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 9 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, SANGLI AND ORS. 21 October 2013 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 9 and 2 other paragraphs
RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 22 September 2006 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 18
M/S. MARUTI UDYOG LTD. versus RAM LAL AND ORS. 25 January 2005 · bench of 2 judges and 1 other paragraph
WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY AKHIL BHARTIYA KOYLA KAMGAR UNION versus EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY COLLIERY OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD AND ORS 21 March 2001 · bench of 2 judges and 1 other paragraph
N.T.C. (SOUTH MAHARASHTRA) LIMITED versus RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 24 November 1992 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 12

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

We show no paragraphs for this judgment: the judgment's start was not found in our copy, so its stored text may include the editorial headnote; we could not check the quote or pin-cite against it.