Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, I am of the considered view that the judgment in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (supra) will create a binding precedent regarding the interpretation of expression "falls due" under Section 4A(1) of the Act and amount of compensation becomes due on expiry of one month from the date of accident. Thus, interest becomes payable not from the date of order/award of the Commissioner, but on expiry of one month from the date of injuries sustained by the workmen. Accordingly, I uphold the judgment of the Commissioner and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ã ... vs Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. Ã .Respondents on 1 February, 2007
The judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (supra) was rendered by two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas the judgment in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (supra) was rendered by four Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme' Court. It is settled principle of law that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court creates a binding precedent on all the courts in the country. However, in the event of conflict between two judgments on any question of law or interpretation of statute, it is the later view which needs to be followed, provided both the decisions are of the Bench of equal strength. In the event, the conflict is between a judgment of a Constitution Bench rendered earlier and a Hon'ble Division Bench delivered later in time, the Constitution Bench judgment is to be followed under the doctrine of stair decisis. Otherwise where the conflict is between a larger Bench judgment and a Bench of lesser strength, the opinion of the larger bench is to be followed, notwithstanding the fact that the decision of the larger bench is earlier in time.
Section 19 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar vs Trilok Nath Mehrotra And Ors. on 1 October, 1997
4. We do not find any conflict in the law laid down in the case of R.M. Chidambaran Pillai with the law laid down in the earlier two cases. The decision in the case of Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji was rendered by a Bench of three Judges.
Union Of India & Anr vs K.S. Subramanian on 30 July, 1976
22. ...It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1975, decided on July 30 1976 to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is followed by this Court itself.