Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.73 seconds)
Chandra Prakash And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 April, 2002 cites

Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001

A careful perusal of the above judgments shows that this Court took note of the hierarchical character of the judicial system in India. It also held that it is of paramount importance that the law declared by this Court should be certain, clear and consistent. As stated in the above judgments, it is of common knowledge that most of the decisions of this Court are of significance not merely because they constitute an adjudication on the rights of the parties and resolve the disputes between them but also because in doing so they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future cases. The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, therefore, there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this Court. It is in the above context, this Court in the case of Raghubir Singh held that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or similar number of Judges. It is in furtherance of this enunciation of law, this Court in the latter judgment of Parija (supra) held that-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 257 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989

(emphasis supplied) We are in respectful agreement with the enunciation of law made by this Court in the above noted judgments in Raghubir Singh and Parija (supra). Applying the principles laid down in the abovesaid cases, we hold that the judgment of the 2-Judge Bench of this Court dated 23.3.1995 as modified by the subsequent order dated 26.7.1996 by the same Bench does not lay down the correct law, being in conflict with the larger Bench judgment. If that be so, the above writ petitions, from which this reference has arisen, will have to be decided de hors the law laid down by those two judgments of the Bench of two learned Judges. Therefore, having decided the issue that has arisen for our consideration, we think it just that these writ petitions should now be placed before a Bench of three learned Judges for final disposal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 724 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Haradhan Saha & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 August, 1974

In John Martin v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 3 SCC 836, a Division Bench of three Judges found it right to follow the law declared in Haradhan Shah v. Stare of West Bengal, [1975] 3 SCC 198, decided by a Division Bench of five Judges, in preference to Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal, [1974] 1 SCC 645 decided by a Division Bench of two Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 551 - A N Ray - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985

The principle was reaffirmed in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., [1985] 4 SCC 369 which noted that a Division Bench of two Judges of this Court in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, [1981] 1 SCC 11 had differed from the view taken by an earlier Division Bench of two Judges in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., [1979] 2 SCC 409 on the point whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be defeated by invoking the defence of executive necessity, and holding that to do so was wholly unacceptable reference was made to the well accepted and desirable practice of the later bench referring the case to a larger Bench when the learned Judges found that the situation called for such reference."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 574 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next