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

BHANKRA BYAS MANAGING BOARD versus SURESH AND ANR.

Decided
5 May 2009
Judges listed
TARUN CHATTERJEE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 109 · 2009 INSC 673
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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 110, margin E

2

This appeal is preferred against an ir.terim order dated 3rd of April, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 2865 of 2007 whereby the High Court, while admitting the appeal preferred by the appellant, has granted final relief to the respondent No. 1 by directing the appellant to give compassionate appointment to him. In our view, the High Court was not justified in granting such interim order at the admission stage. It is an admitted position that the second appeal was admitted for final disposal. A suit was filed by the respondent No.1 for declaration that he was a legal heir of the deceased employee of the appellant being his adopted son. The said suit, however, was decreed and affirmed by the first appellate court against which the appellant has filed the second appeal in the High Court which is pending. Although a decree has been passed against the appellant, but in the interim stage of the A second appeal, the appellant could not be directed to appoint the respondent No.1, if on the statement of the respondent No.1 he was ready to forego the past benefit if he was taken in service. Accordingly, the interim order granted by the High Court is set aside. The High Court is directed to decide the pending B second appeal within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.

pp. 110–111, margin E

3

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the second appeal which shall be decided by the High Court in accordance with law after giving proper hearing to the parties. C

p. 111

4

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of. D

p. 111