Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.52 seconds)J.K. Jain & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 26 September, 1995
Writ Petition Nos. 3876 of 1992 titled Prem Chand v. Union of India and
Anr. CWP 2787 of 1990 J.K. Dhingra v. DDA, CWP 728 of 1991 Vinod Kumar
Gupta v. DDA and CWP 1327 of 1991 Maha Nand Sharma v. DDA also filed on the
same grounds and for the same were dismissed on 24th May, 1993, 16th May,
1991, 22th October, 1991 and 15th January, 1992 respectively.
Bareilly Development Authority & Anr vs Ajai Pal Singh & Ors on 17 February, 1989
Inconsistency and contradiction in the orders passed by the same Court on
the same point regarding the same scheme cannot be allowed to be continued
or perpetuated. If contention of the learned counsel is accepted then an
anomalous situation would arise by which the price fixed for few of the MIG
flats in the scheme would be much less than the price fixed for the
remaining flats allotted in the same year which cannot be permitted. The
law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the
territory of India and the law laid down by a High Court is binding on all
courts within its jurisdiction. It is a cardinal principle of rule of law
of that inconsistency and contradiction in the orders has to be avoided at
all costs to bring about a certainty in the mind of the Subordinate courts
and the litignat public. This principal would stand violated in case two
binding principles on the same point of the same Court are allowed to
operate simultaneously.
1