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

LUMBINI NAGAR COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 815 · 1995 INSC 476

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. 816, margin C

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenaments with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenaments and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenaments even till date.

p. 816, margin D

Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenaments. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed.

p. 816, margin F

Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division Bench, was not inclined to grant injunct~on as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a

p. 816, margin G

LUMBINI NGR. COOP. HSG. SOCY. LTD. v. U.0.1. 817 discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.

p. 817

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 817, margin A