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

J. JOSE DHANAPAUL versus S. THOMAS AND ORS.

Decided
16 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. 757 · 1996 INSC 271
Also cited as
  • (1996) 3 SCC 587 (7 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.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 757, margin E

It appears that the appointment of the first respondent was annulled by the proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. No. 727/93. Consequently, Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the first respondent states that his client has lost interest in this matter since a fresh cause of action has arisen. He is not contesting the matter in this case since it would be open to his client to take such action as is warranted under law.

p. 757, margin F

It is not in dispute that the appellant was not a party to the impugned order dated June 15, 1993 made in O.A. No. 2199/92 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras. Without being impleaded. as a party, appointment of Thomas was annulled by the impugned order. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed grave error of law in upsetting his appointment when he was not made a party. The impugned order is set aside as regards the appellant.

pp. 757–758, margin G

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 758, margin A