Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)
Sanjeeb Kumar Kar vs Anadi Charan Giri & Another .... ... on 21 July, 2025 cites

The Punjab Land Development And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. ... on 28 September, 2000

32. The view that the subsequent decision shall be declared per incuriam only if there exists a conflict in the ratio decidendi of the pertinent judgments was also taken by a five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court [Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] : (SCC pp. 706-07, para 43) "43. As regards the judgments of the Supreme Court allegedly rendered in ignorance of a relevant constitutional provision or other statutory provisions on the subjects covered by them, it is true that the Supreme Court may not be said to "declare the law" on those subjects if the relevant provisions were not really present to its mind. But in this case Sections 25-G and 25-H were not directly attracted and even if they could be said to have been attracted in laying down the major premise, they were to be interpreted consistently with the subject or context. The problem of judgment per incuriam when actually arises, should present no difficulty as this Court can lay down the law afresh, if two or more of its earlier judgments cannot stand together."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 383 - M S Gill - Full Document

M/S. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd on 4 May, 2001

47. Therefore, I am of the considered view that a prior decision of this Court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a later case. In exceptional circumstances, where owing to obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. The said principle was also noticed in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 356 : AIR 2001 SC 2293] 5.3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 138 - S V Patil - Full Document

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

In this context of the precedential value of a judgment rendered per incuriam, the opinion of Venkatachaliah, J., in the seven-Judge Bench decision of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372] assumes great relevance : (SCC p. 716, para 183) "183. But the point is that the circumstance that a decision is reached per incuriam, merely serves to denude the decision of its precedent value. Such a decision would not be binding as a judicial precedent. A coordinate Bench can disagree with it and decline to follow it. A larger Bench can overrule such decision. When a previous decision is so overruled it does not happen -- nor has the overruling Bench any jurisdiction so to do -- that the finality of the operative order, inter partes, in the previous decision is overturned. In this context the word "decision" means only the reason for the previous order and not the operative order in the previous decision, binding inter partes. ... Can such a Page 17 of 29 // 18 // decision be characterised as one reached per incuriam? Indeed, Ranganath Misra, J. says this on the point :
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Digambar Pradhan vs Arjuna Pradhan on 7 December, 1971

6.6. In view of the clear provisions contained under sub-section 3 & 4 of Section 38 of the Act and the decisions in the case of Jindal Export Ltd., Hyder Consultancy (UK) Ltd. and Shah Faesel as cited (supra), the view expressed by this Court in the case of Niranjan Sahu, so followed in the case of Sasmita Pradhan as per the considered view of this Court are per in curium and has got no binding effect. Not only that decision in the case of Niranjan Sahu was also rendered, without following the earlier decision of this Court rendered in the case of Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjun Pradhan, 1972(1) CWR 74. This Court in para 4 of the said decision held as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next