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 KERALA ETC. versus T.R. UDAY SANKARAN AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
16 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 758 · 1995 INSC 464

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.

CA.@ SLP (C) Nos. 7305 & 7288 of 1987. Leave granted.

p. 759, margin C

Respondent No. 3'has been served and Shri T.G.N. Nair appeared for him. Service on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 when admittedly sought to be affected postal endorsement shows "not known". It would be obvious that they appeared to have managed to have the notice returned with that endorsement so as to delay the disposal of the case. Therefore, the notice must be deemed to have been served on them.

p. 759, margin D

Notification under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, which is equivalent to Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 22nd June, 1976. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award in 1977. On reference, the Additional Subordinate Judge enhanced compensation on 24th June, 1980. Under these circumstances, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and the benefit of additional amount as envisaged under Section 23 (1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Central Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

p. 759, margin E

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. However, the claimant-respondents are entitled to solatium@ 15 per cent on the enhanced compensation and interest @ 4 per cent on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession till date of payment of deposit whichever is earlier.

pp. 759–760, margin G

S.L.P. (C) No. 7156 of 1991

p. 760, margin A

The special leave petition is dismissed. RP. Appeals allowed in part and petition dismissed.

p. 760, margin A