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

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN. RANCHI 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. 761 · 1996 INSC 273
Also cited as
  • (1996) 7 SCC 542 (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.

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 2 other Supreme Court judgments 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. The respondent-Municipality has made a consolidated outstanding demand for a sum of Rs. 1,01,501 for years 1993-94, 1994-95 on December 16, 1993 towards the service charges. The appellants challenged the validity of the dema~d. On reference, the Division Bench in the impugned order dated May 15, 1995 in CWJC No. 3223/94 upheld the demand of the Municipality. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 761–762, margin G

The controversy is no .longer res integra. This Court in Union of India v. Puma Municipal Council & ors., [1992] 1SCC100 had held that Section 135 of the Railways Act is subject to the provisions of Article 285 of the Constitution. Therefore, the respondent-Municipality was restrained from demanding any payment by way of service charges from the Railways. Shri M.P. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality sought to rely on clause ( 4) of Section 135 of the Railway Act which contemplates a contract between the Central Government and the Municipality and payment thereof on the basis of the said contract. In this case the contract now sought to be relied upon is only to relieve distress warrant pending disposal of the dispute in the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be construed that there is any contract between the Union of India and the Municipality. In view of the fact that the Municipality has no right to demand service charges from the Union of India, the demand made by the Municipality is clearly ultra vires its power. It is true that earlier W.P. No. 2844/92 was filed and was dismissed by the High Court and the special leave was refused by this Court on the ground of gross delay.

p. 762, margin B

It is now settled law that the sufilmary dismissal does not constitute res judicata for deciding the controversy. Moreover, this being recurring liability which is ultra vires the power, earlier summary dismissal of the case does not operate as a res judicata.

p. 762, margin E

The appeal is accordingly allowed. Writ is issued as prayed for. Whatever amount has been· paid by now cannot be recovered from the Municipality. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 762, margin F