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

PUNJAB STATE AND ANR. versus DARSHAN KUMAR

Decided
2 November 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. 727 · 1995 INSC 675
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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. 728, margin B

In this case, the respondent had filed the suit questioning the orders dated 19.5.76, 28.12.77, 13.10.78, 2.7.79, 18.5.84, 29.5.86, 8.10.87 and 3.11.88 passed by the competent authority, withholding the increments. The Civil Court considered the question of limitation and held that since the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules had not been followed in conducting the enquiry, the suit is not barred by limitation. The Appellate Court has only stated that "no order was communicated".

p. 728, margin B

We have gone through the allegation stated in the plaint and written statement as extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court. It does not appear that the respondent had taken the plea that the orders were not communicated to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed on September 25, 1989. Except the orders of October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 all other orders were passed before three years of the filing of the suit and are . clearly barred by limitation.

p. 728, margin C

Under these circumstances, the decree of the Trial Court is modified to the extent that withholding of the increments by orders dated October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 are invalid in law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation.

p. 728, margin E

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 728, margin F