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

PROPRIETOR, M/S. JABALPUR TRACTORS versus SEDMAL JAINARAIN AND ANR.

Decided
30 October 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. 4 S.C.R. 561 · 1995 INSC 647
Also cited as
  • (1995) Supp 4 SCC 107 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. 561, margin H

With regard to the claim for Garage charges, C.S. No. 49-B/1990 on the file of the Illrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur is pending disposal. The State Consumer Forum had also noticed it in paragraph 26 of its order and concluded that the amount claimed by Mis. Jabalpur Tractors as Garage charges is Rs. 18,000 and this cannot be considered as the matter is already pending and is sub judice before the competent Civil Court. The Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law. In that view of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the impugned order, was not justified in directing to hand over possession of the car to the respondent.

p. 562, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the National Forum in First Appeal No.239/1991 dated February 18, 1993 in so far as the Garage charges are concerned is set aside. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 562, margin C

,.

p. 562, margin C