Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.53 seconds)
M/S. Bhowmick Enterprise (India) vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 July, 2021 cites

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

We are in a fix when the learned Advocate appearing in support of the review application relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kunhayammed (Supra) which basically deals with the concept of merger of an order. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that the dismissal of the special leave petition at the threshold does not tantamount to merger of the order of the High Court into the order of dismissal of the special leave petition. The aforesaid judgment is misplaced for the simple reason that the petitioner of the review application neither applied under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court nor any other forum was approached except with an application for review before us. The aforesaid judgment is pointer to an issue as to when the order of the High Court would deem to have merged with the order of the Supreme Court and, therefore, can best be applied on a facts compatible with the facts involved in the said judgment. It is a matter of great concern that 7 innumerable judgments are cited at the Bar without realising whether the ratio involved therein has any manner of application to the given case. It is simply making the judgment voluminous as a point may have been taken that the judgment which have been cited are not dealt with by the Judge while passing the final order/judgment. The counsel appearing for the parties has to be cautious and circumspect in citing the judgments and the proposition of law laid down therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

K.G. Derasari And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 December, 1999

In case of K.G. Derasari (Supra), the point which fell for consideration was whether the Tribunal can wish away or do away with the judgment of the Supreme Court having direct impact and implication to the given facts and such order is amenable to be reviewed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Had it been a case that the judgment having direct bearing on the facts of the case has not been cited, such judgment may have some binding effect but not when the judgment was considered by the court and interpreted in the way as it was understood which may not be palatable to the litigant. If the court considers the judgment and interpreted the same with the categorical findings, it cannot be said unless there is a patent error apparent from the said judgment that review jurisdiction is to be exercised as it would be deemed that such judgment has not been considered by the Judge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 77 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Srinivasiah vs Sri Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores on 20 November, 1998

In Srinivsiah (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India exercised the powers of review as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the civil appeal proceeded on an assumption which the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently found to be not correct. It is no gainsaying that the review jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court upon finding the error of fact borne from the record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Rashmi Metaliks Limited And Another vs The Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 2 July, 2013

When the proposition of law laid down by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court was referred to in the judgment under review and the same was taken into consideration while passing the said judgment, it was not essential for this court to discuss the subsequent judgment passed by a bench of lesser strength on a similar question of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rashmi Metaliks (supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 145 - S Banerjee - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

"7. This Court, and even more so the High Court as well as the subordinate courts have to face lengthy arguments in each case because of the practice of citing innumerable decisions on a particular point of law. The correct approach is to predicate arguments on the decision which holds the field, which in the present case is Tata Cellular v. Union of India rendered by a three-Judge Bench. The rule of precedence, which is an integral part of our jurisprudence, mandates that this exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller-Benches and subordinate courts. We hasten to clarify that if a coordinate Bench considers the ratio decidendi of the previous Bench to be of doubtful efficacy, it must comply with the discipline of requesting the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. Furthermore, there are some instances of decisions even of a Single Judge, which having withstood the onslaughts of time have metamorphosed into high authority demanding reverence and adherence because of its vintage and following in contradistinction of the strength of the Bench. This is a significant characteristic of the doctrine of stare decisis. Tata Cellular has been so ubiquitously followed, over decades, in almost every case concerning government tenders and contracts that it has attained heights which dissuade digression by even a larger Bench. The law of precedence and of stare decisis is predicated on the wisdom and salubrity of providing a firmly founded law, without which uncertainty and ambiguity would 11 cause consternation in society. It garners legal predictability, which simply stated, is an essential.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Siemens Public Communication Networks ... vs Rail Tel Corporation Of India Ltd. on 16 September, 2003

Our research has revealed the existence of only one other three-Judge Bench decision which has dealt with this aspect of the law, namely, Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd, v. Union of India, which is in actuality an anthology of all previous decisions including Tata Cellular. The sheer plethora of precedents makes it essential that this Court should abjure from discussing each and every decision which has dealt with a similar question of law. Failure to follow this discipline and regimen inexorably leads to prolixity in judgments which invariably is a consequence of lengthy arguments."
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 59 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next