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

THE STATE OF GUJARAT versus RAJESH KUMAR CHIMANLAL BAROT AND ANR.

Decided
5 August 1996
Judges listed
S.P. BHARUCHA, S.C. SEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 279 · 1996 INSC 820
Also cited as
  • AIR 1996 SC 2664 (16 citing judgments)
  • (1996) 5 SCC 477 (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
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments 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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 279, margin F

The order under appeal is passed by the national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commi'5ion in first appeal against an order of the State Commission.

p. 279, margin G

The order under appeal opens with these words :

p. 279, margin G

'Although there is substantial force in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General, Mr. Thakore, appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the question of pricing does not legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, regard being had to the· peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where only a very small period of about 10 months is involved and the party concerned is a Gram Panchayat, which is claiming benefit of subsidised rate of 25 paise per unit in respect of electricity consumed by it for the supply of drinking water to its residents from a bore-well, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission uphold-

pp. 279–280, margin H

ing the right of the panchayat to the benefit of the said subsidy."

p. 280, margin B

We find this very difficult to appreciate. If a court does not have jurisdiction, it does not have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that one of the parties involved is a Gram Panchayat or the period involved is very short or the amount involved is very small. If a court does not have jurisdiction, it is the obligation of the appellate court so to hold and to set aside the order under appeal.

p. 280, margin C

Having regard to the fact that the dispute did not "legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums", the appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the claim made by the respondents before the Slate Commission is dismissed.

p. 280, margin D

There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 280, margin E