AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img


Sabir Hussain & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1995] INSC 768 (30 November 1995)

Ramaswamy, K.Ramaswamy, K.Majmudar S.B. (J)

CITATION: 1996 SCC (1) 626 1995 SCALE (6)777

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3488 OF 1979 Virendra Singh V State of U.P. & Ors.

O R D E R

Though the case has been called twice, the appellants are not present in person. We have taken the assistance of Shri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State.

The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P.[(1980) 1 SCR 498] where this Court had held that "failure to specify number of services would not invalidate the draft scheme under Section 68 C or the approved scheme under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". Same is the question in these appeals also. Under these circumstances, the omission to specify the number of services in the approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already approved.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys