Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
"12. *** The directions issued by the Court can normally be categorised
into one, in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the
declaration of law. "Declaration of law" as contemplated in Article 141 of
the Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily implied by the
highest court of the land. This Court in ..... has expounded the principle
and extolled the power of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to new
heights by laying down that the directions issued under Article 142 do not
constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such
power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court has compartmentalised
and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by
exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law
declared. The directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution,
while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the
case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its
basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive
has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by keeping it
outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution and by declaring it a
direction of the Court that changes its complexion with the peculiarity in
the facts and circumstances of the case."
Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar,
reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718, the Supreme Court has sounded caution in the
following words:
Martin Burn Ltd vs The Corporation Of Calcutta on 19 August, 1965
11. At this juncture we may usefully refer to Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation
of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529. At page 535 of the Report the following
observations are found:
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
6. These principles have been culled out from several decisions of the Supreme
Court on the point of compassionate appointment. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, reported in
(2007) 9 SCC 571, SBI v. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475, V.
Sivamurthy v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730, SAIL v.
Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560, Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v.
Union of India, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209, State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar
T. Tiwari, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545, Union of India v. Shashank Goswami,
reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307, are some of such decisions which we have
considered.