Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.44 seconds)
Narayani Krishnan vs The Union Of India on 11 January, 2021 cites

Mukund Lal Bhandari And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993

"Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India relied upon two decisions of this Court viz., Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India [1990 CriLJ 2148] and Union of India v. Mohan Singh (cited supra) to the effect that pension could be sanctioned only as per proof as required in the Pension Scheme and in no other manner. We think there is great force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. We find that the High Court could not have travelled beyond the Pension Scheme to find that there was substantial compliance with the prerequisites as to suffering of imprisonment. In order to get the benefit of the Pension Scheme, the proof required must be as provided in the Pension Scheme itself. As long as such proof was not available, the benefit could not have been granted. Therefore, we set aside the order by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by Respondent 1. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 193 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 April, 1977

"25. Our attention is drawn to a disquieting feature in the procedure adopted by the learned single Judge (G. N. Vaidya, J.) in disposing of the appeal. The learned Judge ignored the decision of another single Judge of the same Court (J. M. Gandhi, J.) who had earlier held in a similar case that the appeal by the State was not competent under Section 377(1) Cr.P.C. It is true that the decision is pending before this Court in appeal by special leave. That, however, cannot be sufficient reason for the learned Judge to ignore it and observe that it is "unnecessary to keep back this matter till the Supreme Court decides the matter". When there was a decision of a co-ordinate court, it was open to the learned Judge to differ from it but in that case the only judicial alternative was to refer it to a larger bench and not to dispose of the appeal by taking a contrary view. Judicial discipline as well as decorum should suggest that as the only course. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 63 - P K Goswami - Full Document

S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999

"12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of W. A. No. 1663 of 2020 -23- administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 421 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next