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 RAJASTHAN versus M/S. KALYAN SUNDARAM CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

Decided
12 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. 463 · 1996 INSC 227
Also cited as
  • (1996) 3 SCC 87 (9 citing judgments)
  • JT 1996 (3) SC 162 (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

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. 463, margin F

This appeal by Special leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge made in Civil Revision No. 209/94 on 16.11.1994 of the High Court of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the respondent-Company after inviting tenders had executed an agreement on 13.4.1969 for execution of the project. Thereafter, three post dated cheques of dates between May and July 1989 were given for a sum of Rs. 6, 87, 100 each of which got bounced. After issuing said notice, the suits were filed for recovery. Simultaneously proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act and also under Section 420 IPC in three complaints, CC Nos. 219, 220 and 254 of 1989. The High Court stayed the proceedings of the civil suits pending disposal of the criminal cases. This appeal came to be filed against the said order.

pp. 463–464, margin F

It is settled law that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The criminal court would deal with offence punishable under the Act. On the Other hand, the courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require the exercise of their power. We have never come across stay of any civil suit by the courts so far. The High Court of Rajasthan is only an exception to pass such orders. The High Court proceeded on wrong premise that the accused would be expected to disclose their defence in the criminal case by asking them to proceed with the trial of the suit. It is not a correct principle of law. Even otherwise it no longer subsists, since many of them have filed their defences in the civil suit. On principle of law, we hold that the approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. But since the defence has already been filed nothing survives in this mat~er.

p. 464, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeal Allowed.

p. 464, margin D