Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In Rapidur (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others , the Division Bench discussed in detail several decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject and in particular, the decisions in D. Cawasji's and Vyankatlal's cases. The Division Bench also made a reference to a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of this Court (Jahagirdar, J) in Parle Products Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another, which was not at the relevant time reported but is, at the present, . The Division Bench accepted as correct the view taken in Parle's case and also the view taken in I.T.C. Limited v. M. K. Chipkar and Others deciding the difference of opinion between Lentin and Sawant, JJ. The Division Bench further considered the decision in Shalimar Textile Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others and bearing in mind that the interpretation given to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the said two cases (Parle Products Limited and Shalimar Textile Mfg. Pvt. Ltd.) was binding in it as held in Panjumal Hassomal Advani v. Harpal Singh Abnashi Singh Sawhney and Others, , held the view that D. Cawasji's case was still good law and the decision in Vyankatlal's case was distinguishable, not only for the reasons given in Parle Products Limited but also because Vyankatlal's case was dealing merely with a statutory order dealing with prices and not with a fiscal statute as such. We reiterate that we are bound by the decisions of the Divisions Benches of this Court in the cases cited above and therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Nadkarni as regards the revival of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.