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

S.K. SALDI versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

Decided
6 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015 · 1997 INSC 114
Also cited as
  • (1997) 9 SCC 661 (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

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.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad High Court, made on April 21, 1980 in Miscellaneous Application in Civil Revision No, 1136n9.

p. 1015, margin G

The appellant has to get over several insurmountable difficulties in his way. On his own showing, the appellant claims to have been appointed in M/s. Meerut Straw Board Mills, Meerut, which was claimed to be a subsidiary of J aswant Sugar Mills. It is claimed by the appellant that he was transferred on deputation to S.B. Sugar Mills; as a consequence, he was entitled to go back to his parent Department. However, since he was not relieved, he filed a civil suit, viz., Case No. 26/48, before the Civil Judge, Bijnor. The Civil Judge, by his order dated March 29, 1979, directed the S.B. Sugar Mill, Bijnor to formally reinstate him and thereafter transfer him to the parent Department. The said order came to be challenged by the Mill in the revision in the High Court. The High Court held that he was not entitled to be reinstated. Since an enquiry was pending against him, the Court at the most would have directed to conduct an enquiry followed by action to be taken according to the result of the enquiry. That order was not challenged and it became final. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 1015–1016, margin G

Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, contenqs that when the appellant was initially appointed in the Meerut Straw board and was transferr6d to the. Mill on deputation, he was entitled to be repatriated when the Mill was not inclined to retain his services and, . therefore, the direction issued by the Civil Court is valid in law and the High Court was not justified in reversing that order. As stated earlier, the appellant had to cross several insurmountable hurdles, namely, in the suit the appellant had not impleaded his employer M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills with whom he claimed to have been appointed. He suo motu impleaded the sugar Mill in the SLP filed in this Court and subsequently, it was deleted. Under these circumstances, the sugar Mill against whom the relief sought for was not a party to the suit. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The second difficulty in the way of the appellant was that the main. order was allowed to become final and he did not challenge the same. Under these circumstances, the review order could not have more force than the original order. Therefore, we do not find any manifest error of law warranting interference.

p. 1016, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. The interim order passed by this Court stands dissolved. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1016, margin G