Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors on 16 May, 2017 cites

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

"Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma (supra) was rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why divergent opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income of future prospects there should be an authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 2700 - R M Lodha - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pushpa Singh Chauhan & Ors on 20 March, 2015

Further, the divergence of opinion in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors., CC No. 8058/2014, decided on 02.07.2014 and the concluding paragraph while making reference to the Larger Bench, it was observed as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 127 - K Singh - Full Document

Safiya Bee vs Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi on 16 December, 2010

4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-06-2017 23:52:29 ::: XOBJC-209-CII-2015 IN/AND -5- F.A.O No. 246 of 2015 repeated affirmation over a century of time. It cannot be doubted that in order to promote consistency and certainty in the law laid down by a superior Court, the ideal condition would be that the entire Court should sit in all cases to decide questions of law, and for that reason the Supreme Court of the United States does so. But having regard to the volume of work demanding the attention of the Court, it has been found necessary in India as a general rule of practice and convenience that the Court should sit in Divisions, each Division being constituted of Judges whose number may be determined by the exigencies of judicial need, by the nature of the case including any statutory mandate relative thereto, and by such other considerations which the Chief Justice, in whom such authority devolves by convention, may find most appropriate. It is in order to guard against the possibility of inconsistent decisions on points of law by different Division Benches that the rule has been evolved, in order to promote consistency and certainty in the development of the law and its contemporary status, that the statement of the law by a Division Bench is considered binding on a Division Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. This principle has been followed in India by several generations of Judges. We may refer to a few of the recent cases on the point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 310 - C Joseph - Full Document

John Martin vs The State Of West Bengal on 21 January, 1975

In John Martin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 836, a Division Bench of three Judges found it right to follow the law declared in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198, 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-06-2017 23:52:29 ::: XOBJC-209-CII-2015 IN/AND -6- F.A.O No. 246 of 2015 decided by a Division Bench of five Judges, in preference to Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal, (1974) 1 SCC 645 decided by a Division Bench of two Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 168 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Haradhan Saha & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 August, 1974

In John Martin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 836, a Division Bench of three Judges found it right to follow the law declared in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198, 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-06-2017 23:52:29 ::: XOBJC-209-CII-2015 IN/AND -6- F.A.O No. 246 of 2015 decided by a Division Bench of five Judges, in preference to Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal, (1974) 1 SCC 645 decided by a Division Bench of two Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 551 - A N Ray - Full Document

Bhut Nath Mete vs The State Of West Bengal on 8 February, 1974

In John Martin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 836, a Division Bench of three Judges found it right to follow the law declared in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198, 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 05-06-2017 23:52:29 ::: XOBJC-209-CII-2015 IN/AND -6- F.A.O No. 246 of 2015 decided by a Division Bench of five Judges, in preference to Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal, (1974) 1 SCC 645 decided by a Division Bench of two Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 185 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next