Page:Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr.pdf/23

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN Talkies v. State of Karnataka; (5) State of Karnataka v. Ranganath Reddy; (6) Kerela State Electricity Board v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu and Bros.; (7) Prag Ice and Oil Mills v. Union of India; (8) Saraswati Industries Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India; (9) Murthy Match Works v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise; (10) T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N. and (11) Narender Kumar v. Union of India.


 * The changes have been underlined.

15. Other corrections

For example,

a. Clauses numbered in terms of answers to questions framed by learned Judge have been renumbered correctly in terms of questions framed, as (3)(e) actually has been found to be answer to (3) (c) and vice-versa. a1. Similarly, clause has been changed to subclause.

Raw text obtained from Registry:

SCC Page:

(c) It is not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward class that it is situated similarly to the Schedule Castes/Tribes. (Paras 87 and 88)

(d) ‘Creamy layer’ can be, and must be excluded. (Para. 86)

(e) It is not correct to say that the backward class of citizen contemplated in Article 16 (4) is the same as the socially and educationally backward classes referred to in Article 15(4). It is much wider. The accent in Article 16(4) is on social backwardness. Of course,