Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.55 seconds)The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] this Court has enunciated
the importance of the doctrine of binding precedent in the development of jurisprudence
of law: (SCC p. 766, paras 8-9)
"8. Taking note of the hierarchical character of the judicial system in India, it is
of paramount importance that the law declared by this Court should be certain,
clear and consistent. It is commonly known that most decisions of the courts are
of significance not merely because they constitute an adjudication on the rights
of the parties and resolve the dispute between them, but also because in doing so
they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future
cases. In this latter aspect lies their particular value in developing the
jurisprudence of the law.
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
In the view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Shanker Raju (supra) and Kunhayammed (supra), it appears to this court that
the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench affirmed by the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, is binding
upon the Circle Officer and the state authorities. Even though, the Circle officer
and the State authorities has initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act,1950, which is against the law and not tenable at this juncture.
State Of M.P. & Anr vs Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors on 27 February, 2014
In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh
Narayan Vijayvargiya (supra) and Priya Gupta (supra), it is incumbent upon the
State authorities to adhere to the decision rendered by the Apex Court, which is
binding on them and state authorities cannot disobey it. This Court has no
confusion in observing that the Circle Officers/ Additional Collectors/ Revenue
authorities have no respect for the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and also affirmed by the
Supreme Court of India, as such, they are not only taking law in their hands,
rather they are also attracting proceeding under Contempt of Court's Act for
disobeying and acting against the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
Disobedience of an order of a Court, which is wilful, shakes the very foundation of the judicial
system and can erode the faith and confidence reposed by the people in the judiciary and
undermines the rule of law. The contemnors have shown scant respect to the orders passed by
the highest Court of the land and depicted undue haste to fill up the entire seats evidently not to
attract better students or recognise merit, but possibly to make unlawful gain, adopting
unhealthy practices, as noticed by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481] and various other cases. Once the Court passes an order, the
-9-
parties to the proceedings before the Court cannot avoid implementation of that order by
seeking refuge under any statutory rule and it is not open to the parties to go behind the orders
and truncate the effect of those orders."
East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
It must be remembered that predictability and
certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this
country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the
judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible to
countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required
to lay down the law. (Ref. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of
Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10
SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .) (SCC p. 57, paras 90-91)
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Shanker Raju vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2011
In the view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Shanker Raju (supra) and Kunhayammed (supra), it appears to this court that
the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench affirmed by the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, is binding
upon the Circle Officer and the state authorities. Even though, the Circle officer
and the State authorities has initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act,1950, which is against the law and not tenable at this juncture.