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

KASHMIR CHAND versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ORS.

Decided
15 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 591 · 1996 INSC 742

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. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 591, margin E

Admittedly, the plot was sold in an open auction held in July, 1971 for a sum of Rs. 46,000. The appellant has paid only Rs. 11,500. He was due of the balance sum of Rs. 34,500. In terms of the auction, he had not complied with the payment for well over '21 years. Consequently, he was demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 3,78,000 which he defaulted to pay. When allotment was sought to be cancelled he calling that action in question, filed a writ petition to the High Court. Pending writ petition, the High Court passed an order in a civil miscellaneous case. Therein the appellant had asserted that he had deposited the sum of Rs. 34,500, on September 21, 1992. The Court found that in case the said amount of Rs. 34,500 was deposited, as contended by the appellant, the balance amount of Rs. 3,43,500 was directed to be deposited but he had not done. Consequently, the \Vrit petition dismissed and an appeal in the impugned order in MPA No. 355/93 dated 19th August, 1993, the order of the learned single Judge was confirn1ed.

pp. 591–592, margin F

Though time was taken for filing the counter, the same was not filed by the respondents. Tl is stated by Shri K.B. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the appellant, that his client had already deposited two instalments of the amount with interest @ 12% and one instalment is due. We P1i111a fade accept the statement of the counsel to be correct. In case those payments have already been made, the appellant is given liberty to pay the balance amount within a period of 4 months from today. In case he has not already deposited or if he commits default in payment of the amount as directed, this order would stand vacated and the order of the High Court would stand restored.

p. 592, margin B

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

p. 592, margin D