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

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD.) versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
9 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 378 · 1997 INSC 511

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.

This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Delhi, made on b.3.1997 in C.W. No. 1085/97.

p. 378, margin E

The predecessor of the petitioner-Company had taken on rent the disputed premises, from the Life Insurance Corporation, on 4th floor of Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Since the petitioner had not vacated the premises, action was taken for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner challenged the action in the High Court contending that this Court had issued directions in I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59/88 to constitute a High-power Committee to resolve the disputes between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India of the concerned Ministry, by a Committee composed of Cabinet Secretary, Secretary in Ministry of Law and Secretary in the Bureau of Public Sector Undertakings to decide the disputes without needless consumption of time and waste of public funds. The petitioner has sought for such a reference and contends the High-power committee should have been constituted and decided the matter. We find no force in the contention.

pp. 378–379, margin F

The object of issuing direction in those matters was to decide the fiscal disputes in case of major policy matters to save the public money and courts valuable time, and disputes could amicably be settled between the Public Sector Undertakings. and the Government of India or the State Governments. The intention was not to resolve the disputes like eviction of a Company or Public Undertaking under Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act;. such petty disputes are not directed to be dealt with by the High level officers whose otherwise duty and time is of very important nature. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error warranting interference.

p. 379, margin A

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 379, margin C