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

NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC. versus ASSTI. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE TEXTILES COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES ETC.

Decided
25 March 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] 3 S.C.R. 882 · 1996 INSC 445

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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted . We have heard learned counsel on both. sides.

p. 882, margin F

When the matter had come up in the first instance before. another Bench·in S.L.P. (C) No. 6611/95, pursuant to the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, by order dated September 25, 1995 this Court passed the order as under :

p. 882, margin F

In view of the statemenf made by learned '.Additional Solicitor General that if the current obligation pursuant to the Notification dated March 20, 1995.is carried ·out by the petitioner, the respondents will not hold them liable for any past liability, the petitioner does not intend to press the SLP which is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted · , that the petitioner has not raised any obje~ti~n t~ it; prospective

p. 883

liability under the said Notification dated March 20, 1995".

p. 883

Subsequently, the appellants claimed the same relief. In view of the liability which sought to be avoided by the appellants, the Union of India had filed a Review Petition before the Bench which came to be dismissed by order dated March 13, 1996. Since the same question is involved in.these cases, the same order should equally follow. The learned counsel for the • Union of lridia seeks to contend that the 'concession relates to the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995. The liability ~ow sought to be wiped out .relates in addition to the above it .·also relates to th_e period from April 1, 1990 to September ·30, 1992. He sought to make that distinction and contends that the matter involves f~rther inve~tigation.We do not fi'nd any ·force in the submission made _by .the 'le.arned counsel.. When the past liability was sought t<i be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to :March 31, 1995, the same principle per force would apply to the previous period fro~ April 1, 1990 to September 30, .1992:- ·

p. 883

,,

p. 883, margin E

Under. those circmµstances, all the appeals are allowed and the orders are quashed as prayed:for. However, the oroer of.this Court does not preclude the Government to take such appropriate steps as are open to them. under. law for any future liability. No costs. RP: ·Appeals are allowed.

p. 883, margin E

o· "''.

p. 883, margin F