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

P.R. SINHA AND ORS. versus INDER KRISHAN RAINA AND ORS.

Decided
7 December 1995
Judges listed
N.P. SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 297 · 1995 INSC 852
Also cited as
  • (1996) 1 SCC 681 (8 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.

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. 298, margin C

This appeal has been filed on behalf of Managing Director, Chief General Manager and General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, against an order dated 4th December, 1990 passed by a learned Judge of Jammu & Kashmir High Court directing the appellants to implement the order dated 27th August, 1990 passed by the said High Court.

p. 298, margin C

It appears that a writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents making a grievance regarding non supply of coal inspite of the deposit having been made so far as the price of the coal was concerned. The stand of the appellants before the High Court was that the Income Tax Department had attached the money which had been deposited by the respondents for the supply of the coal.

p. 298, margin E

It is an admitted position that an exparte ad interim order was passed on 27th August, 1990 the High Court while admitting the writ petition saying that in the meantime respondents of the said writ petitim;i shall release the coal to the writ petitioners for which they have received the payment.

p. 298, margin F

We are informed that a counter affidavit was filed. A petition was also filed for modification of the aforesaid interim order bringing to the notice of the High Court the circumstances under which the coal could not be supplied to the writ petitioners. Thereafter the impugned order was passed saying that the .aforesaid order dated 27th August, 1990 must be implemented within two weeks and a direction was given to list the contempt petition alongwith writ petition on 23rd December, 1990. In the meantime this Court on 20th December, 1990 issued notice on the special leave petition and passed an order staying further proceedings before the High Court. From the records it appears that respondents have appeared but none appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

pp. 298–299, margin G

This Court has pointed out repeatedly that while entertaining the writ petition the High Court should not pass interim order, the nature of which is to grant a relief which can be granted only at the final disposal of such writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqboob Khan & Ors. reported in (1992] 4 SCC 167.

p. 299, margin B

We set aside the order dated 4th December, 1990 and request the High Court to first consider the application for modification filed on behalf of the appellants and thereafter pass any other appropriate order in arcnrdance with law.

p. 299, margin C

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

p. 299, margin D

We request the High Court to also consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings for contempt should be pursued. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 299, margin D