Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 212 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Anr vs K.S. Subramanian on 30 July, 1976

Jabalpur Bus Operators Association And ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 17 December, 2002

This decision and K.S. Subramaniam's case (supra) led to rest the opinion to follow later decision. Moreover, doing so would be clear manifestation of violating precedents and defeat the principle that the High Courts lack competence to sit over the judgments of the Apex Court and give them interpretation they may choose, result of which may cause violence to theory of precedents and hierarchy and the supremacy of Courts. It is well settled that Article 141 gives a Constitutional status to the theory of the precedents in respect of the law declared by the Supreme Court which is essential for proper administration of justice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

Sahendra Pal vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 27 February, 2025

Thus, we cannot apply the rationale of the case of Union of India Vs. K. Subramanyam (supra) in the present case since it gives no general interpretation of the DG, P&T letter No.6/1/72-Disc-I dated 27.07.1972 and referring to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Sri Pal Jain (supra), has only opined that " It is not the view taken by the High Court of Madras and the Tribunal that the show cause notice was issued within six months and the order was passed after six months. The said judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Jeyachandran vs The Director Of Technical Education on 6 January, 2010

"It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. K.S. Subramanian [(1977) I LLJ 5 (SC)] to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is followed by this Court itself."
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Nizamuddin Suleman vs New Shorrock Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., ... on 24 November, 1978

Of course, if the views expressed earlier by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court have been explained even by a smaller Bench in a subsequent decision, the explanation by the smaller Bench of the Supreme Court would be required to be followed by High Courts before whom the earlier decision of the larger Bench and the subsequent explanation of the same judgment by the smaller Bench are cited. Otherwise, as indicated by Beg, J., in Union of India v. K. S. Subramanian (supra) the High Court is bound to follow the decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Kosalai vs The Secretary To Government on 8 September, 2014

"It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. K.S. Subramanian [(1977) I LLJ 5 (SC)] to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is followed by this Court itself."
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhupatji Shakaraji vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2003

The subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Beckodan Abdul Rahiman's case (supra) did not notice the Larger Bench decision in Raghbir Singh's case (supra), and therefore, could not have been followed by the Division Bench in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.S. Subramaniam, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2433, in which the Supreme Court, in Paragraph 12 of its judgment, held as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico ... vs A.V. Joshi, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 29 January, 1979

14. We have started with this caution to ourselves because in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. S. Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433, we find that there is an apparent conflict of decisions regarding the provisions of s. 80K between some decisions of Benches of three judges of the Supreme Court and of Benches of two judges of the Supreme Court. It may be pointed out that under s. 2(45) of the I.T. Act, 1961. "total income" means the total amount of income referred to in s. 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. As already stated, ss. 80J and 80K are part of Chap. VI-A of the Act of 1961. Chapter VI-A contains s. 80A to s. 80VV. Section 80B is the definition section, specially meant for Chap. Vi-A and sub-s. (5) of s. 80B states :
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Amar Singh Yadav And Anr. vs Shanti Devi And Ors. on 22 September, 1986

It seems, however, plain that the same is no longer a good law, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, AIR 1962 SC 83 (Para 10), and the above quoted observations in AIR 1976 SC 2433 (Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian with the greatest respect, the decision in Jamuna Raiv. Chandradip Rai, AIR 1967Pat 178 has, therefore, to be overruled,
Patna High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 38 - N P Singh - Full Document

Subhas Chandra Basu vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 August, 1993

In the case of Union of India v. K.S. Subramanium (supra) the Supreme Court held inter alia that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot override the power of the President under Article 310 of the Constitution and framing of such rules do not make disciplinary proceedings under such rules to be obligatory. But the Supreme Court was never called upon to decide the question if the rules provide for an opportunity of hearing and such hearing is denied even after taking recourse to such rules, whether the termination of an employee would be deemed to be terminated under Article 310 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

National Insurance Company vs Jayashreeben Nandulal Nerkar (Patil) ... on 6 May, 2008

In the case of Union of India and Anr. v. K.S. Subramanian , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when there is a apparent conflict between the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the opinion expressed by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court must be followed in preference to those of Smaller Benches, unless the former can be distinguished by giving reasons.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 3 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next