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

SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. versus BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI AND ANR.

Decided
21 February 1975
Judges listed
A.N. RAY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1975] 3 S.C.R. 619 · 1975 INSC 44
Also cited as
  • (1975) 1 SCC 421 (99 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1975 SC 1331 (53 citing judgments)
  • (1975) SCC(L&S) 101 (33 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0667/1975 (3 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 43 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

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.

By order of the Court.

p. 684

Rules and Regulations of .the ' Oil and Natural Gas Co11ullis!1ion, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation ho.vc the force of law.

p. 684

· The employees of these statutory bc>gies have a statutory status and H they are entitled to a declarati~ ot being in employment whe11 theit dismissal or rernoval is in contravention of statutory provisions.

p. 684

These statutory bodies are authorities within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.

p. 685

In Civil Appeal No. 2137 of 1972, the declaration granted by the High Court that the order removing Bhagatram Sardarsingh Raglrn-

p. 685

vansi from service is null and void and that he continues in service is mandamus upheld. The writ of issued by the High Court is also upheld.

p. 685

In Civil Appeal No. 1655 of 1973, the writ of mandamus granted by the High Court is upheld.

p. 685, margin B

In Civil Appeal No. 1655 of 1973, the writ of mandamus granted Corporation is an authority within the meoaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution for the reasons given in this judgment. The conclusion of the High Court that the regulations have not the force of law is set aside. The conclusion of the High Court that Corporation should not be permitted to enforce the regulations mentioned in clauses ( 1) and ( 4) of Regulation 25 is upheld.

p. 685, margin B

In Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1974, the Judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Finance Corporation is authority within the meaning of Art. 12. The Regulations of the Corporation have the force of

p. 685, margin B

law. The conclusion of the High Court that the Association is not entitled to raise a plea of discrimination on the basis of Art. 16 is set aside.

p. 685, margin B

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

p. 685, margin E

The P'arties ·will pay and bear their own costs in all these appeals. P. H.P.

p. 685, margin E