{"id":204331,"date":"1968-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968"},"modified":"2015-07-10T01:14:44","modified_gmt":"2015-07-09T19:44:44","slug":"union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1370, \t\t 1968 SCR (2) 887<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNANAK SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/01\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1370\t\t  1968 SCR  (2) 887\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1971 SC1676\t (4)\n R\t    1981 SC2198\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nRes Judicata-Petition under Art. 226 allowed by single Judge\nof  High  Court\t on two\t grounds-Division  Bench  dismissing\npetition   by  adversely  deciding  first  ground  and\t not\nconsidering second ground-Second ground whether can be basis\nof civil suit-Whether barred by res-judicata.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent was a temporary Field Inspector of the Office\nof  the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi.  By  an  order\npassed\t in   January\t1958   the   Additional\t  Settlement\nCommissioner,  Mr. Kane, who was also holding the office  of\nAdditional  Custodian  terminated  the\temployment  of\t the\nrespondent  after giving him one month's salary in  lieu  of\nnotice.\t  The  order  was  confirmed  by  the\tdepartmental\nauthorities in appeal.\tThe respondent filed a writ petition\nin the High Court on two grounds, namely: (i) that the order\nterminating the employment amounted to punishment and  could\nnot be made without affording opportunity to be heard;\t(ii)\nthat  Mr. Kane was not competent under s. 5 of\tthe  Central\nServices (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 to pass the  order.\nThe  single  Judge who heard the petition  upheld  both\t the\ngrounds\t and granted the petition. in appeal,  the  Division\nBench\treversed  the  order  and  dismissed  the   petition\nobserving  that\t the  order in question did  not  amount  to\npunishment.   The  Division Bench observed that\t the  second\npoint was not before -them, be-cause arguments were advanced\nmainly\ton  the first point and on a decision of  the  first\npoint  the  appeal could be disposed  of.   The\t respondents\npetition  under\t Act. 136 of the  Constitution\tfor  special\nleave to appeal to this Court was dismissed.  The respondent\nthereafter instituted a suit in the Civil Court.  The  trial\nCourt dismissed the suit but the first appellate court\theld\nthat  the  order terminating the  respondent's\tservice\t was\nvoid.\tA second appeal by the Union of India was  dismissed\nby the High Court on the view that the order of\t termination\nof services was passed by an incompetent authority and\tthis\nissue  was not barred by res judicata.\tThe Union  of  India\nappealed.\nHELD  : The single Judge who decided the  respondent's\twrit\npetition  decided both the grounds in his favour.   When  in\nappeal\tthe High Court reversed the judgment  and  dismissed\nthe  petition  it must be deemed to have rejected  both\t the\ngrounds on which the petition was founded.  In rejecting the\nfirst plea the High Court gave detailed reasons.  The second\nplea must also be deemed to have been negatived by the\tHigh\nCourt,\tfor the High Court could not, without reversing\t the\njudgment  of the single Judge, on that plea  have  dismissed\nthe  petition.\t 'Me  suit  was\t therefore  barred  by\t res\njudicata.\nit  could  not be said that the High Court reserved  to\t the\nrespondent  the\t right\tto agitate the\tquestion  about\t the\nauthority of Mr. Kane to pass the order, in a separate suit.\nThere  was no such express reservation and it could  not  be\nimplied,  for such an implication was plainly  inconsistent,\nwith the final order passed by the High Court.\nGulabchand Chhotal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R.<\/a>  1965.\nS.C. 1153, referred to.\nAbdullah  Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass, A.T.R.  1917\tP.C.\n201 held not applicable.\nL3 Sup Cl\/68-14\n888\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION\t: Civil Appeal\tNo.  280  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nSeptember 29, 1966 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at
\nDelhi in Regular Second Appeal No. 74-D of 1966.
\nB.   Sen, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
\nPritam Singh Safeer, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J.  Nanak  Singh-respondent in  this  appeal-held  in
\nAugust 1957 the post of Field Inspector in the Office of the
\nCustodian, Evacuee Property, Delhi, as a temporary employee.
\nBy  order  dated January 10, 1958, K.  S.  Kane,  Additional
\nSettlement  Commissioner who was also holding the office  of
\nAdditional  Custodian  terminated  the\temployment  of\t the
\nrespondent  after giving him one month’s salary in  lieu  of
\nnotice.\t The order of Mr. Kane was confirmed in appeal.
\nNanak  Singh then moved the High Court of Punjab by a  peti-
\ntion  under  Art.  226\tof the\tConstitution  for  an  order
\ndeclaring  that\t the  determination of\this  employment\t was
\n“void, illegal and unconstitutional” on two grounds-(1) that
\nthe  order terminating the employment amounted\tto  imposing
\npunishment   and  could\t not  be  made\t without   affording
\nopportunity to the employee to show cause against the action
\nproposed to be taken in regard to him; and (2) that Mr. Kane
\nwas  not competent under r. 5 of the Central Civil  Services
\n(Temporary   Services)\t Rules,\t 1949\tto   terminate\t his
\nemployment.   Gurdev Singh, J., upheld both the grounds\t and
\ngranted\t the petition.\tThe High Court of punjab  in  appeal
\nreversed  that order and directed that the petition be\tdis-
\nmissed.\t   The\tHigh  Court  observed  that  by\t the   order
\ndetermining the employment of Nanak Singh no punishment\t was
\nimposed.   In  dealing\twith the authority of  Mr.  Kane  to
\nterminate  the\temployment  of Nanak Singh  the\t High  Court
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  the\tsecond place it was urged  that\t the
\n\t      Officer who had passed the order of  dismissal
\n\t      was not competent to do so.  The second  point
\n\t      is  not before us because arguments have\tbeen
\n\t      advanced\tmainly on the first point and  on  a
\n\t      decision of this point the appeal can be\tdis-
\n\t      posed of.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A petition preferred to this Court against the order of\t the
\nHigh  Court  for  leave\t to appeal under  Art.\t136  of\t the
\nConstitution was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Nanak  Singh thereafter instituted suit No. 218 of  1963  in
\nthe -Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, for a declaration
\nthat  the  order terminating his employment was made  by  an
\nauthority lower
\n889<\/span>
\nthan  the authority competent to pass that order,  and\tthat
\nthe  order  was\t “wanting in bona fides”  and  was  on\tthat
\naccount “illegal, null and void”, and for an order declaring
\nhim  entitled to be treated as continuing in employment\t and
\non duty and entitled to all the benefits of service as if he
\nhad  not  been\tremoved\t from  employment.   This  suit\t was
\ndismissed  by the Court of First Instance.  In\tappeal,\t the
\nAdditional District Judge, Delhi, reversed the decree passed
\nby the Court of First Instance, and declared that the  order
\nof Mr. Kane dated January 10, 1958, terminating the  employ-
\nment of Nanak Singh was void and inoperative, and that Nanak
\nSingh  was entitled to be treated as in service and on\tduty
\nsince the date of -the order.  A second appeal against\tthat
\njudgment by the Union of India was dismissed by Bedi, J. The
\nlearned\t Judge\twas  of the view that the  judgment  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the High Court in the writ  petition\t did
\nnot  operate  to prevent Nanak Singh  from  reagitating\t the
\nquestion  about the authority of Mr. Kane to  terminate\t his
\nemployment,  and  that on the materials\t placed\t before\t the
\nCourt  there  was  no  evidence\t that  authority  had\tbeen
\ndelegated to Mr. Kane to exercise that power.  Against\tthat
\norder,\twith special leave, the Union of India has  appealed
\nto this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question which falls to be\tdetermined  in\tthis
\nappeal is whether the judgment of the High Court in the writ
\npetition operated as res judicata in the Civil Suit filed by
\nNanak  Singh.\tNanak  Singh, it may  be  recalled,  claimed
\nrelief\ton two alternative grounds-(1) infringement  of\t the
\nprotection  under  Art.\t 311 of the  Constitution;  and\t (2)
\nabsence\t of  authority\tin the Officer\twho  terminated\t his
\nemployment  under  r.  5  of  the  Central  Civil  Service’,
\n(Temporary   Service)\tRules,\t1949.\t Each\tground,\t  if
\nsuccessful,  was  sufficient  to support  an  order  in\t his
\nfavour.\t  Gurdev  Singh,  J., decided both  the\t grounds  in
\nfavour of Nanak Singh.\tThe High Court reversed the judgment
\nof  Gurdev  Singh, J., and dismissed the petition  filed  by
\nNanak Singh : thereby the High Court must be deemed to\thave
\nrejected both the grounds on which the petition was founded.
\nOn  the\t plea  that  the  order\t of  termination  of   hi.-,
\nemployment  amounted  to  dismissal,  the  High\t Court\tgave
\ndetailed reasons and observed that by the termination of his
\nemployment Nanak Singh was not visited with any\t punishment.
\nThe second plea about the authority of Mr. Kane also must be
\ndeemed\tto  have been negatived by the High Court,  for\t the
\nHigh  Court  could not, without reversing  the\tjudgment  of
\nGurdev\tSingh, J., have dismissed the petition.\t It is\ttrue
\nthat  in  the judgment of the Court of Appeal  some  obscure
\nstatement  has been made, and it is difficult to  appreciate
\nthe true purport thereof.  But what operates as res judicata
\nis  the decision and not the reasons given by the  Court  in
\nsupport\t of  the  decision.  We are  unable  to\t agree\twith
\ncounsel\t for  Nanak Singh, that the High Court\treserved  to
\nNanak
\n890<\/span>
\nSingh the right to agitate the question about the  authority
\nof  Mr. Kane in a separate suit.  There is no  such  express
\nreservation,   and  it\tcannot\tbe  implied,  for  such\t  an
\nimplication  is\t plainly inconsistent with the\tfinal  order
\npassed by the High Court.  Even assuming that the High Court
\nwas  in\t error in holding that the appeal could\t be  decided
\nonly  on the first point, the order dismissing the  petition
\nmust  still operate as res judicata in respect of  both\t the
\npoints on which the petition was founded.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court  in\t Gulabchand Chhotalal  Parikh  v.  State  of
\nGujarat<\/a>(1) observed that the provisions of s. 11 of the Code
\nof  Civil  Procedure are not exhaustive with respect  to  an
\nearlier decision operating as res judicata between the\tsame
\nparties\t on the same matter in controversy in  a  subsequent
\nregular suit, and on the general principle of res  judicata,
\nany  previous decision on a matter in  controversy,  decided
\nafter  full contest or after affording fair  opportunity  to
\nthe  parties  to prove their case by a\tCourt  competent  to
\ndecide\tit,  will operate as res judicata  in  a  subsequent
\nregular\t suit.\tIt is not necessary that the Court  deciding
\nthe  matter formerly be competent to decide  the  subsequent
\nsuit  or that the former proceeding and the subsequent\tsuit
\nhave  the same subject-matter.\tThere is no good  reason  to
\npreclude  such decisions on matters in controversy  in\twrit
\nproceedings  under Art. 226 or Art. 32 of  the\tConstitution
\nfrom  operating as res judicata in subsequent regular  suits
\non the same matters in controversy between the same  parties
\nand  thus  to give limited effect to the  principle  of\t the
\nfinality  of  decision\tafter full contest.   The  Court  in
\nGulabchand’s  case(1)  left open the  question\twhether\t the
\nprinciple  of constructive res judicata may be invoked by  a
\nparty  to  the subsequent suit on the ground that  a  matter
\nwhich  might  or ought to have been raised  in\tthe  earlier
\nproceeding  but\t was not so raised therein,  must  still  be
\ndeemed to have been decided.\n<\/p>\n
If  the order of the High Court in appeal from the order  in
\nthe  writ petition operated constructively as res  judicata,
\nit might have been necessary to consider the question  which
\nwas left open by the Court in Gulabchand’s case(1).  But  in
\nour  view  the\tjudgment in the previous  case\toperates  by
\nexpress decision as res judicata.  It is true that in  order
\nthat  the  previous  adjudication between  the\tparties\t may
\noperate\t as res judicata, the question must have been  heard
\nand decided or that the parties must have an opportuntiy  of
\nraising\t their\tcontentions therein.  In the  present  case,
\nGurdev Singh, J., dealt with the question in some detail and
\nheld  that  Mr\tKane  had  no  authority  to  terminate\t the
\nemployment of Nanak Singh.  The High Court in appeal thought
\nthat  the  appeal  could be disposed of only  on  the  first
\nground,\t and they recorded no express finding on the  second
\nground.\t But once the
\n(1)  A. 1. R. 1965 S. C. 1153.\n<\/p>\n
891<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal\twas  allowed  and the petition\twas  dismissed,\t the
\ndismissal  of the petition operated as a rejection  of\tboth
\nthe  grounds on which it was founded.  The judgment  of\t the
\nPrivy  Council on which reliance was placed by\tcounsel\t for
\nNanak Singh-Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass(1), has,
\nin  our judgment, no application.  In that case a  suit\t was
\ndismissed  by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on\t the
\nview that its constitution was defective, and no opinion  on
\nthe merits of the dispute between the parties was expressed.
\nThe  judgment of the Judicial Commissioner was held  not  to
\noperate\t as  res judicata in a subsequent suit\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t to the previous suit, because the dispute  was\t not
\ndecided on its merits in the previous suit expressly or even
\nby   implication.   It\tis  unnecessary\t on  that  view\t  to
\nadjudicate upon the question whether Mr. Kane had  authority
\nto determine the employment of Nanak Singh.
\nThe  appeal  is allowed and the decree passed  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt is set aside.  The decree passed by the Court of First
\nInstance is restored.\n<\/p>\n
When special leave to appeal was granted to the Union,\tthis
\nCourt  passed an order that the Union of India will pay\t the
\ncosts of the appeal in any event.  The Union of India  must,
\ntherefore,  pay the costs of the respondent in this  appeal.
\nThere will be no order as to costs in the Court of the First
\nInstance, the District Court and the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n(1) A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 201.\n892<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1370, 1968 SCR (2) 887 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: NANAK SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/1968 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: 1968 AIR 1370 1968 SCR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-09T19:44:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T19:44:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\"},\"wordCount\":1687,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T19:44:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-09T19:44:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968","datePublished":"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T19:44:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968"},"wordCount":1687,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968","name":"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T19:44:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-nanak-singh-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Nanak Singh on 31 January, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}