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

THE COMMISSIONER, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, BANGALORE AND ORS. versus KASLIYAPPA GURUKULA SRI VIDYA SHALA

Decided
1 September 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. 3 S.C.R. 246 · 1995 INSC 527

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.

Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel.

p. 246, margin G

Leave granted.

p. 246, margin G

Admittedly, the suit was filed in which the Government was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was granted. Then the state filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree on February 17, 1984 and that petition was dismissed on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. The appeal was also dismissed by the High Court.

pp. 246–247, margin G

The question is whether the State has properly given explanation for not filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree within 30 days from the date of the knowledge. No notice required under s.80 CPC was issued. In view of the fact that the office of the Government was informed on February 15, 1984, the Government must be deemed to have had notice of a parte decree from that date and within three days thereafter the application was filed. Therefore, there was no delay.

p. 247, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 247, margin C