Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The effect of dismissal of Special Leave Petition arising from the decision rendered in Rama and Co. (supra):

40. Regard being had to the basic term of reference presently we shall advert to the issue whether the order passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9186/2007 being a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and is a binding precedent regard being had to the earlier decisions of the Apex Court. In this context we think it apposite to refer to certain decisions in the field some of which have been brought to our notice at the Bar.

41. In Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has expressed the opinion as under:

27. A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-peaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismissing the Special Leave Petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared....

45. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation and Anr. , the Apex Court has ruled thus:

8. ...The Division Bench of the High Court in 1989 MPLJ 20 was clearly in error in taking the view that the decision of this Court in Ratna Prabha A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 308 (supra) was not binding on it. In doing so, the Division Bench of the High Court did something which even a later co-equal Bench of this Court did not and could not do. The view taken by the Division Bench of High Court in 1989 MPLJ 20 proceeds on a total misunderstanding of the law of precedents and Article 141 of the Constitution of India, to which it referred. But for the fact that the view of the Division Bench of the High Court proceeds on a misapprehensions of the law of precedents and Article 141 of the Constitution, it would be exposed to the criticism of an aberration in judicial discipline....
The binding effect of a decision does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided.

79. (11) The Apex Court in the case of Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar , while considering the relationship between the Apex Court and the High Court has laid down in Paragraphs 8 and 9 as under:

8. Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Courts both are Courts of record. The High Court is not a Court 'subordinate' to the Supreme Court. In a way the canvass of judicial powers vesting in the High Court is wider inasmuch as it has jurisdiction to issue all prerogative writs conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose while the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court to issue prerogative writs remains confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights and to deal with some such matters, such as Presidential election or inter-State disputes which the Constitution does not envisage being heard and determined by High Courts. The High Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all Subordinate Courts and Tribunals; the Supreme Court has not been conferred with any power of superintendence. If the Supreme Court and the High Courts both were to be thought of as brothers in the administration of justice, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother. There are a few provisions which give an edge, and assign a superior place in the hierarchy, to Supreme Court over High Courts. So far as the appellate jurisdiction is concerned, in all civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court is the highest and the ultimate Court of appeal. It is the final interpreter of the law. Under Article 139A, the Supreme Court may transfer any case pending before one High Court to another High Court or may withdraw the case to itself. Under Article 141 the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts, including High Courts, within the territory of India. Under Article 144 all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India - and that would include High Court as well - shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.