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

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus CHHANGUR PRASAD SETH

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

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 139 · 1996 INSC 185

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. 139, margin F

We have heard the counsel for the parties. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna made on November 11, 1993 in CWJC No. 13107/92. Admittedly one Shyama Devi was a teacher who died on August 17, 1988. She nominated certain persons to be entitled to received the G.P.F. etc. on her behalf. It would appear that three persons laid the claim which was accordingly made over. When the respondent claimed to be son of a brother of the deceased, he was asked for the succession certificate. By the time he produced the certificate, the amount had already been paid to the claimants. Therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed to make the payment to him. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 139–140, margin F

In view of the fact that the State had discharged the liability In terms of the nomination by the deceased teacher, the inter se claim,-if any, have to be adjudicated only on the regular constituted forum and the State cannot be compelled to pay twice over on the succession certificate produced by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the High Court is clearly illegal.

p. 140, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High court is set aside. If any other claim is to be discharged, the same may be done in accordance with law. This order does not preclude the respondent to take action according to law. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 140, margin B