Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (0.65 seconds)State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991
The above position was highlighted in State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. . To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the Judicial consigns.
Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn.And ... vs Mansaram Nainwal on 28 July, 2006
In Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation v. Mansaram Nainwal , the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed the same view observing that the enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.
Ganga Saran vs Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad And ... on 25 January, 1991
12. A Full Bench of this Court In Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and Ors. , considered as to whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Qamruddin v. Rasul Baksh and Anr. 1990 AWC 308, was having any binding effect as the law laid down therein had impliedly overruled the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and Ors. and came to the conclusion that as the Hon'ble Apex Court decided a case without taking note of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure made by the State of U.P., the said judgment did not have binding effect nor it had overruled the Full Bench judgment of this Court on the issue in Jupiter Chit Fund Private Limited (supra). The Court observed as under:
Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Dwarka Diesh Dayal And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
13. It is settled proposition of law that an issue, which has not been considered by the Court while delivering a judgment, cannot be said to be binding as a decision of the Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the Court must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of the Court. The Court should not place reliance upon a decision without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with a fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analyzing all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and argued on both sides.
H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970
The judgment has to be read with reference to and in context with a particular statutory provisions interpreted by the Court as the Court has to examine as what principle of law has been decided and the decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide (Vide H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Ors. v. Union of India ; Amar Nath Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; Rajpur Ruda Mehta and Ors. v. State of Gujarat ; C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P.)
M/S. Amar Nath Om Parkash And Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Etc on 29 November, 1984
The judgment has to be read with reference to and in context with a particular statutory provisions interpreted by the Court as the Court has to examine as what principle of law has been decided and the decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide (Vide H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Ors. v. Union of India ; Amar Nath Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; Rajpur Ruda Mehta and Ors. v. State of Gujarat ; C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P.)
Rajput Ruda Maha And Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 1979
The judgment has to be read with reference to and in context with a particular statutory provisions interpreted by the Court as the Court has to examine as what principle of law has been decided and the decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide (Vide H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Ors. v. Union of India ; Amar Nath Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; Rajpur Ruda Mehta and Ors. v. State of Gujarat ; C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
The judgment has to be read with reference to and in context with a particular statutory provisions interpreted by the Court as the Court has to examine as what principle of law has been decided and the decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide (Vide H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Ors. v. Union of India ; Amar Nath Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; Rajpur Ruda Mehta and Ors. v. State of Gujarat ; C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P.)
Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993
Ltd., ; Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Anr. ; Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr. ; Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharastra ; I.C.I.C.I. Bank and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. ; Makhija Construction and Enggr.