LIST OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

OVERRULING EARLIER DECISIONS

CIVIL:

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act:

1. AIR 2002 SC 5 – STATE OF A.P. VS. N. ADIKESHAVA

REDDY – Decision in AIR 1993 SC 2465 – ATIA MOHAMMADI
BEGUM VS. STATE OF U.P. is partly overruled and it is held
that the master plan prepared as per law in force even
subsequent to the enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulations) Act is to be taken into consideration to
determine whether a particular piece of land is a vacant land
or not.

2. AIR 1996 SC 1643 – T.R. THANDUR VS. UNION OF

INDIA – Under Sec.20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulations) Act, the State Government has power to grant
exemption if the application of the provisions of the Chapter-
III in which Sec.20 is contained would cause undue hardship
and the decision to the contrary in AIR 1994 SC 923 –
S.VASUDEV/D.P. SHARMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA is
overruled.

Land Acquisition Act:

3. AIR 2002 SC 1045 – L.A.O. VS. M/S. B.V. REDDY

AND SONS – Decision in AIR 2000 SC 3282 KRISHI
UTPADAN MANDI SAMITHI VS. KANHIYALAL is partly

1
overruled and it is held that the amendment to Sec.25 of the
Land Acquisition Act which does not place a bar for awarding
as compensation an amount more than the amount claimed
does not have retrospective effect.

4. AIR 2002 SC 1334 – Padmasundar Rao vs. State of

Tamil Nadu – The decisions in (1996) 3 SCC 88 –
N.NARASIMHAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA and (1996)
10 SCC 619 – STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. D.C.
NANJUNDAIAH relating to Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act
are overruled.

5. AIR 2001 SC 1117 – LAO VS. V. NARASAIAH – Sale

deeds in respect of similar lands can be relied upon for
determining the market value of land in land acquisition
cases, without examining the vendee or vendor or anyone
connected with it and the decisions in (1995) 2 SCC 305 –
P.RAMAREDDY VS. LAO and (1993) 3 SCC 240 –
INDERSINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA are overruled.

6. AIR 2001 SC 2951 – SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI VS.

STATE LAO – Additional compensation under Sec.23(1A) of
the Land Acquisition Act can be given only for the period from
the date of preliminary notification upto the date of award or
date of taking possession whichever is earlier and if
possession is taken prior to preliminary notification under
Sec.4, additional compensation cannot be awarded. The
decisions in AIR 1995 SC 2492 – ASST. COMMISSIONER VS.

2
MATAPATHI and AIR 1996 SC 127 – STATE OF HIMACHALA
PRADESH VS. DHARAMDAS are overruled.

7. AIR 1995 SC 2259 – UNION OF INDIA VS. PRADEEP

KUMARI – Benefit of re-determination of the amount of
compensation under Sec.28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act
can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that
has been made by the Court after coming into force of the
said section provided the application is filed within the
prescribed period of three months from the date of the award
and the view taken in BABUA RAM’S CASE reported in
1995(2) SCC 689 is dissented from.

8. AIR 1995 SC 1012 – K.S. PARIPOORNAM VS.

STATE OF KETALA – payment of additional compensation
under Sec.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of
acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the commencement
of the amendment Act of 1984 will have to be restricted to
matters referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Sec.(1) of
Sec.30 of the Amendment Act and the decision in (1992) 1
SCC 673 – ZORA SINGH’s case is overruled to that extent.

9. AIR 1995 SC 724 – U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS

PRAISHAD VS. GYAN DEVI – Under Sec.50(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, subject to the limitation contained in the
proviso to the said section, a local authority for whom land is
being acquired has a right to participate in the proceedings
for acquisition before the Collector as well as reference Court

3
and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the
amount of compensation and the said right imposes an
obligation on the Collector as well as the reference Court to
give a notice to the local authority with regard to the
pendency of the proceedings and the date on which the
matter would be taken up for consideration. In this regard,
the decision in (1971) 3 SCC 821 – MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHAMEDABAD VS.
CHANDULAL SHAMALDAS PATEL is overruled.

Misfeasance in the matter of public allotments:

10. AIR 1999 SC 2979 – COMMON CAUSE VS. UNION

OF INDIA – Mere allotment of petrol outlets by the Minister of
State in the Union cabinet would not constitute misfeasance
unless the other essential elements are present. Decisions in
AIR 1996 SC 3538 and AIR 1997 SC 1686 are reversed.

Motor Vehicles Act:

11. AIR 2002 SC 1301 – UNION OF INDIA VS.

BHAGAVATHI PRASAD – The decision in AIR 1998 SC 640
UNION OF IDNIA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
is partly overruled and it is held that despite a finding that
the accident in question took place on account of the
negligence of an agency other than the motor vehicles, still
the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the claim petition.

4
Karnataka Rent Control Act

12. AIR 2000 SC 1724 – GANTUSA H. BADDI VS.

MEERABAI G. PAI – Tenancy in respect of a non-residential
premises is also heritable under the provisions of the
Karnataka Rent Control Act and the decision to the contrary
in 1997(11) SCC 628 – VENKATESH THIMMAIAH VS. S.S.
HAWALDAR is overruled.

13. (2001) 7 SCC 409 – LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DURBAR

VS. RUDRAVVA – The decision in ILR 1994 Kant. 1659 (SC) =
(1994) 2 SCC 671 – LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA
ENTERPRISES VS. SYEDA VAJHUNNISSA BEGUM is
overruled in the matter of contractual tenancy and it is held
that proceedings of eviction of a tenant can be initiated
during the subsistence of the lease only on the ground
enumerated in Sec.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and
it is also provided as one of the grounds for forfeiture of the
lease rights in the lease deed and not otherwise.

State Financial Corporations Act:

14. AIR 2002 SC 834 – STATE FINANCIAL

CORPORATION VS. M/S. JAGADAMBA OIL MILLS – The
decision in AIR 1993 SC 935 – MAHESH CHANDRA VS.
REGIONAL MANAGER is overruled holding that the
guidelines given in the said decision place unnecessary

5
restrictions on the exercise of powers contained in Sec.29 of
the State Financial Corporations Act.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act:

15. AIR 2001 SC 626 – EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS.

N.C. BUDHARAJ - The decision in AIR 1988 SC 1520 –
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. ABHADUTA JENA is overruled
and it is held that Arbitrator has jurisdiction under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act to award interest on the
sums found due and payable for the pre-reference period in
the absence of any specific stipulation or prohibition in the
contract to claim or grant any such interest.

Intellectual Property Rights:

16. AIR 2001 SC 1952 – CADILLA HEALTH CARE

LTD., VS. CADILLA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., - Decision in
AIR 2000 SC 2114 - S.M. DYECHEM LTD., VS. CADBURRY in
which the principle of phonetic similarity has not been
accepted, is overruled, in view of the earlier decisions in AIR
1965 SC 980 – DURGADUTT SHARMA’s case and AIR 1969
SC 449 – AMRITDHARA’s case.

Execution – Order 21 CPC:

17. AIR 2001 SC 2699 – DADI JAGANNATHAM VS.

JAMMULU RAMULU - The period of limitation for making

6
deposit in an application to set aside the sale in execution of
a decree under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is 60 days from the
date of sale and not 30 days and the decision in AIR 1990 SC
933 – P.K. UNNI VS. NIRMALA INDUSTRIES is overruled.

Appeal (CPC):

18. AIR 2000 SC 2587 – KUNHAYAMMED VS. STATE

OF KERALA – The Supreme Court cannot and does not
reverse or modify a decree or order appealed against while
deciding a petition for special leave to appeal and what is
impugned before the Supreme Court can be reversed or
modified only after granting leave to appeal and then
assuming appellate jurisdiction over it and therefore if special
leave is not given it cannot be said that the order appealed
against gets merged and the view taken to the contrary in the
decision reported in (1997) 6 SCC 78 – SRI NARAYAN
DHARMA SANGHAM TRUST VS. SWAMI PRAKASHANANDA.

Specific Performance:

19. AIR 2000 SC 860 – RAM AWADH VS. ACHHAIBAR

DUBEY – The plea that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract in a suit for specific
performance is available both to the vendor and the
subsequent purchaser and the decision to the contrary in AIR
1995 SC 945 – JUGRAJ SINGH VS. LABHSINGH is overruled.

7
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act:

20. AIR 1996 SC 238 – R.RAJAGOPAL REDDY VS. P.

CHANDRASHEKHARAN – If a suit is filed prior to the coming
into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, then
the provisions of Secs. 4(1) and 4(2) are not applicable as they
are not retrospective and the decision to the contrary in AIR
1989 SC 1247 – MITHILESH KUMARI VS. PREM BEHARI
KHARE is overruled.

SERVICE, LABOUR & OTHER MATTERS:

21. AIR 2002 SC 77 – V.JAGANNADHA RAO VS. STATE

OF A.P. – Decisions in AIR 1989 SC 2060 – STATE OF A.P.
VS. V. SADANANDAM and AIR 2000 SC 1729 – GOVT. OF
A.P. VS. B. SATHYANARAYANA RAO held to be not correctly
decided and it is held that the relevant provisions of the
special rules for the posts of Asst. Labour Officers in A.P.
Labour Sub-ordinate Services framed by the Governor of A.P.
in exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 309 of the
Constitution providing for consideration of employees of the
Factories and Boilers Units for the purpose of promotion to
the higher post are invalid.

22. AIR 2001 SC 1210 – P.MOHANREDDY VS. E.A.A.

CHARLES – Right to get seniority determined as per rules in
force at the time of recruitment vests in an employee and
unless the amended rule is given retrospective effect, seniority

8
cannot be changed over and over again and the decision in
AIR 1982 SC 1604- WING COMMANDER J. KUMAR VS.
UNION OF INDIA is not followed.

23. AIR 1999 SC 2894 – PREETI SRIVASTAVA VS.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Overruling the decisions in
AIR 1981 SC 2045 – STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS.
KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN; (1994) 4 SCC 401 – AJAYKUMAR
SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR; AIR 1997 SC 3687 – POST
GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND
RESEARCH VS. K.L. NARASIMHAN – it is held that the State
cannot prescribe criteria which adversely affect standard of
higher education laid down by the Union of India and the
State Government cannot make rules which impinge upon the
regulations framed by the Medical Council.

24. AIR 1999 SC 3471 – AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF

PUNJAB – Overruling the decisions in (1997) 5 SCC 201 –
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTHA VS. STATE OF U.P. and AIR 1997
SC 2366 – JAGADEESHLAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA it is
held that reservation in appointment and in promotion is not
a fundamental right.

25. AIR 1999 SC 3502 – KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY

BOARD VS. VALSALA K. – Relevant day for determining the
amount of compensation and interest under Workmen’s
Compensation Act is the date of accident and not the date of
adjudication of the claim and the view taken in NEW INDIA

9
ASSURANCE COMPANY VS. V.K. NEELAKANDAN in Civil
Appeal Nos. 16904 to 16906 of 1996 is held to be incorrect.

26. AIR 1999 SC 468 – MUKHTHIAR CHAND VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB – On the question of the right of
Ayurvedic and Unani Doctors to practise allopathic medicine,
the decision in AIR 1992 SC 1310 – A.K. SABHAPATHI VS.
STATE OF KERALA is overruled.

27. AIR 1998 SC 2713 – PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS.

KUNJ BEHARI MISHRA – If the disciplinary authority
proposes to differ from the report of Enquiry Authority he
must give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and the
decisions to the contrary in 1994 SUPP. (2) SCC 468 – STATE
BANK OF INDIA VS. S.S. KOUSHAL and AIR 1998 SC 965 –
M.S. SAXENA’S CASE are overruled.

28. AIR 1998 SC 1767 – POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE

OF MEDICAL EDUCATION VS. FACULTY ASSOCIATION –
There cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre either
directly or by device of rotation of roster point and the
decisions in AIR 1997 SC 3074 – UNION OF INDIA VS.
MAHDAV GAJANAN and 1995 SUPP. (1) SCC 432 – STATE
OF BIHAR VS. BAGESHWARI PRASAD are not approved.

29. AIR 1998 SC 656 – GENERAL MANAGER,

TELECOM VS. SRINIVAS – Telecom department of Union of
India is one engaged in commercial activity and is not

10
discharging any sovereign functions of the State and therefore
is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act and the
decisions to the contrary in AIR 1997 SC 2817 – BOMBAY
TELEPHONE CANTEEN EMPLOYEES ASOCIATION case and
(1996) 8 SCC 489 – THEYYAM JOSEPH’S case are overruled.

30. AIR 1997 SC 2661 – PUNJAB DAIRY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., VS. KALASINGH – If
the Labour Court records a finding that the departmental
enquiry was defective and gives an opportunity to the
management and the workman to adduce evidence and
records a finding that the dismissal of the workman by the
management was valid, then, that order would relate back to
the date of original dismissal and not to the date of judgment
of the Labour Court and the ruling to the contrary in AIR
1990 SC 2174 – DESHRAJ GUPTHA VS. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL is overruled.

31. AIR 1997 SC 645 – AIR INDIA STATUTORY

CORPORATION VS. UNITED LABOUR UNION – Under the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, on abolition
of contract labour the erstwhile regulated contract labour
cannot be thrown out of establishment and the decision to
the contrary in DEENA NATH’s case reported in AIR 1992 SC
457 is overruled.

32. (2002) 4 SCC 244 = AIR 2002 SC 643 – JAIPUR

ZILLA SAHAKARI BHUMI VIKAS BANK LTD., VS. RAMGOPAL

11
SHARMA – It is held in this decision that where approval is
not granted under Sec.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was
passed and the employee becomes entitled to wages from the
date of dismissal to the date of disapproval and the decision
to the contrary in (1978) 2 SCC 144 – PUNJAB BEVERAGE’S
case is overruled.

CRIMINAL:

33. AIR 2001 SC 2255 – STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

VS. NAJAKAT – period undergone by the accused as an under
trial can be set off against the sentence imposed on him
irrespective of the fact whether he was in custody in
connection with the same case or not and the decision in AIR
1984 SC 1796 – RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA
is dissented from.

34. AIR 2000 SC 3187 – ABDUL WAHAB ANSARI VS.

STATE OF BIHAR – Question of sanction under Sec.197
Cr.P.C. can be raised even prior to the stage of framing of
charge and the decision to the contrary reported in JT
2000(8) SC 248 –BIRENDRA K. SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR
is overruled.

35. AIR 1999 SC 2181 – SURENDRANATH MOHANTY

VS. STATE OF ORISSA – An offence not shown as
compoundable under Sec.320 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to

12
compounded and the decisions in AIR 1973 SC 2418 –
RAMAPOOJAN VS. STATE OF U.P. and AIR 1988 SC 2111 –
MAHESHCHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN are overruled.

36. AIR 1998 S.C. 3148 – RANJITH SINGH VS. STATE

OF PUNJAB – when once the Sessions Court takes cognizance
of the offence pursuant to a committal order, the only stage
when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the
array of the accused is after reaching the stage of collection of
evidence and at that stage the powers under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C.
can be invoked and under Sec.193 the Sessions Court does
not have the power to summon other accused. The
observations in 1993 (2) SCC 16 – KISHAN SINGH’s case have
not been approved.

37. AIR 1996 SC 946 – GAIN KAUR VS. STATE OF

PUNJAB – Sections 306 and 309 of IPC are not violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the decision to the
contrary in (1994) 3 SCC 394 – P.RATHINAM VS. UNION OF
INDIA is held to be incorrect.

38. (2002) 4 SCC 578 – P.RAMACHANDRA RAO VS.

STATE OF KARNATAKA – The decisions in COMMON CAUSE
1st and 2nd cases and RAJDEO SHARMA’S 1st and 2nd cases
reported in (1996) 4 SCC 33, (1996) 6 SCC 775, (1998) 7
SCC 507 and (1999) 7 SCC 604 respectively are overruled
holding that a Court cannot fix a time for conclusion of a
criminal trial.

13
 39. AIR 1998 SC 1057 – M/S. MODI CEMENTS LTD.,
VS. KUCHIL KUMAR NANDI – When once the cheque is
issued by the drawer, a presumption under Sec.139 of the
N.I. Act must follow and merely because the drawer issues a
notice to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment it
will not preclude an action under Sec.138 of the Act and so
observing the decisions in AIR 1996 SC 2339 – ELECTRONIC
TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD., VS. INDIAN TECHNOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS
(ELECTRONICS) PVT. LTD., and in 1996(6) SCC 369 – K.K.
SIDHARTHAN VS. T.P. PRAVEENA CHANDRAN are held not
to have correctly laid down the law.

40. AIR 1996 SC 2439 – BANISINGH VS. STATE OF

U.P. - A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for the absence
of the appellant and his lawyer and the Court is not bound to
adjourn the case for their absence and should dispose of the
appeal on merits and the decision in AIR 1987 SC 1500 –
RAMNARESH YADAV’s case taking a contrary view is
overruled.

41. AIR 2000 SC 3203 – DADU VS. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA – In this case Sec.32-A of the NDPS Act to
the extent it takes away the right of the Appellate Court to
suspend sentence of a convict is held to be unconstitutional
and therefore the decision in AIR 1999 SC 1131 – MAKTOOL
SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB is not good law.

14
 42. AIR 1999 SC 2378 – STATE OF PUNJAB VS.
BALDEV SINGH – The Judgment in AIR 1996 SC 977 –
Preetichand’s case, in the matter of interpretation of Sec.50 of
the NDPS Act is held not to have laid down correct law

Customs Act:

43. AIR 2000 SC 1102 – UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S.

GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ – Notification under Sec.25 of the
Customs Act would come into operation as soon as it is
published in the Gazette of India and the decisions to the
contrary in AIR 1998 SC 668 – COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL
EXCISE VS. NEW TOBACCO COMPANY and AIR 1999 SC
844 – GARWARE NYLONGS LTD., VS. COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS are overruled.

Central Excise Rules:

44. AIR 2000 SC 197 – COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL

EXCISE VS. COTSPUN LTD., - The decision in AIR 1995 SC
1436 – BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES CASE relating to the
interpretation of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules is
overruled.

Evidence Act:

45. AIR 1996 SC 1491 – STATE VS. S.J. CHOUDHARY

– Under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act opinion of a typewriter

15
expert is admissible in evidence and the word ‘Science’
occurring in that section includes opinion of experts in
typewriters and typewriting also falls within the meaning of
the word ‘handwriting’ and the decision in AIR 1952 SC 343 –
HANUMANTH’s case taking a different view is overruled.

Torts:

46. AIR 2000 SC 2083 – STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

VS. CHALLA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY – The decision in
Kasturilal’s case reported in AIR 1965 SC 1039 in which a
distinction has been made between sovereign and non-
sovereign functions of the State has been held to be no longer
of any binding value.
*******

16