Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (2.19 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Subbarayudu, V.C. & Ors on 22 January, 1998

M. Chummi Ahmed Lrs. Of Zeenat Ahmed vs Kelis Thabah And Anr. on 24 July, 2007

26. As discussed above, the learned first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 decreed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant in Title Suit No. 9(T) of 1982, which has been affirmed by the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991 by a single bench of this court, ignoring the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended by the 1977 Amendment as well as notification dated 7.6.1978 imposing total ban on transfer of land in favour of non-tribal, issued there under, thereby permitting some thing, which cannot be allowed under the law. Such a situation when brought to the notice of the Court has to be corrected even if no appeal was preferred by the present respondent against the Judgment and decreed passed in the said suit, as the Court's function is not to perpetuate the illegality but to rectify it, whenever it is brought to its notice. The Judgment and decree passed in ignorance of the provisions of law imposing total ban on transfer of land to a non-tribal was rendered per in curium and therefore cannot have any binding effect. However, it is true that the learned single Judge in FA No. 8(SH) of 1995 from which the present LPA arises, would have placed the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench, having not agreeing to the Judgment passed by another single bench in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991, as judicial discipline requires the same. Normally the decision rendered by a bench of co-equal strength is to be followed by another bench of co-equal strength. If a subsequent bench of co-equal strength expressed its opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier bench of co-equal strength, the judicial propriety requires placing the matter before a bench consisting of a forum larger than one, which pronounces the decision laying down the law, the correctness of which is doubtful. (See State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh and State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu reported in (supra). However, as the matter is presently before the Division Bench of this Court, we have considered the Judgment and decree dated 6.11.1990 passed by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 and order dated 26.5.1995 passed by a single bench of this court in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991 and hold the said decision per in curium, as discussed above. Hence we are of the view that the Judgment and decree dated 6.11.1990, passed by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 as well as the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 9(SH) of 1991 are not binding, the same having been passed in ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended and the notification issued there under and without noticing the provisions of the said Act.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H N Sarma - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Affection Investments Ltd. [Alongwith ... on 19 February, 2003

(j) State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbaryudu and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 516 It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a second Division Bench was of the opinion that it had to take a different view than that taken by the first Division Bench, the matter should, as a matter of propriety, have been referred to a larger Bench, it is certainly a question of self-discipline which the Court should observe.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 66 - Cited by 209 - Full Document

Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya And Grofed ... vs Laxmanbhai Arshibhai Zala on 7 November, 2000

(A) State of A.P. v. V.C. Subharayudu and Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 848 : 1998 (2) SCC 516 was relied upon to contend that this matter should be referred to a larger Bench if a view different from the one taken in Muljibhai's case is likely to be taken. From para 10 of the judgments, it would be noticed that it was contended before the Supreme Court that since the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions filed by SAS Accountants had been affirmed in appeal earlier by the Division Bench, the other Division Bench could not have dismissed the petitions and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and in context of this contention the Supreme Court said that if the second Division Bench was of the opinion that it had to take a different view from that taken by the first Division Bench, the matter should as a matter of propriety have been referred to a larger Bench.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya And Grofed ... vs Laxmanbhai Arshibhai Zala on 7 November, 2000

(A) State of A.P. Vs. V.C. Subharayudu & ors. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 516 was relied upon to contend that this matter should be referred to a larger bench if a view different from the one taken in Muljibhai's case is likely to be taken. From para 10 of the judgement, it would be noticed that it was contended before the Supreme Court that since the judgement of the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by SAS Accountants had been affirmed in appeal earlier by the Division Bench, the other Division Bench could not have dismissed the petitions and set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge and in context of this contention the Supreme Court said that if the second Division Bench was of the opinion that it had to take a different view than that taken by the first Division Bench, the matter should as a matter of propriety have been referred to a larger Bench.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next