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 BIHAR AND ORS. versus TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCO.CO. LTD. AND ANR.

Decided
8 September 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. 3 S.C.R. 444 · 1995 INSC 548

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. 444, margin F

Heard the counsel on both sides. Since the mining lease had already expired by efflux of time, we dispose of the appeal by stating as below :

p. 444, margin G

One M/s. Douglas Dias had approached this Court by way of appeal, viz., C.A. No. 3996/87. Since it has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court's order dated 25th January, 1993, the controversy does not survive for decision in this case, except that the impugned decision may be construed to stand in the way of the State to consider similar case differently in future. In fact in the application for condonation of delay, in filing this appeal, it was stated in paragraph 2, thus :

pp. 444–445, margin G

"Initially there was a decision taken that the petitioner should only file a counter affidavit to the special leave petition No. 6337 of 1986, filed by the respondent no. 2 herein, M/s. Douglas Dias, in the Supreme Court, but without there being a proper appreciation and perusal of the judgment done by the department they came to know that it may subsequently affect the rights of the petitioners, while granting any mining lease to any party. Ultimately, it was decided in the month of November, 1986, to file a special leave petition herein the Supreme Court and now the petitioners are

p. 445, margin A

filing a petition for special leave here in the Supreme Court."

p. 445, margin C

It is made clear that the judgment of the High Court w_ould not be construed to stand in the way of the appellant to grant mining leases in accordance with law and it would not form a precedent.

p. 445, margin C

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

p. 445, margin D