Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.25 seconds)
Arvind Kumar vs M/O Communications on 15 December, 2023 cites

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Mumbai Shramik Sangha And Ors on 25 April, 2001

In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 246 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 546] the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha [(2001) 4 SCC 448] and Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik [(2002) 1 SCC 1] and held that the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001

In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 246 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 546] the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha [(2001) 4 SCC 448] and Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik [(2002) 1 SCC 1] and held that the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 257 - Full Document

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

"The question therefore is, in the present case was the SLP dismissed by citing reasons or was a simplicitor order of dismissal. We have reproduced the order of SLP in the earlier portion of this judgment. The order records that on facts of this case, the Court was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. While therefore, dismissing the SLP the Court proceeded to observe However, the question of law is kept open. In our understanding neither the expression that on the facts of the case, the Court was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 or that the question of law is 56 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch kept open, would indicate the reasons for not entertaining the SLP. As has been observed in case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359] and Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(2011) 4 SCC 602], SLP can be dismissed for variety of grounds, could be on the ground of delay, latches, equity or simply because the Supreme Court thinks in a given set of facts, it is not appropriate to exercise discretionary power to entertain the SLP. The thrust of the order was that the Court was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Mere expression of disinclination coined in a slightly different phraseology does not amount to giving reasons."
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Sub-Committee Of Judicial ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 August, 1991

5. The learned Attorney General submitted that a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court was binding on smaller Benches and a judgment of three learned Judges was binding on Benches of two learned Judges -- a proposition that learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute. The learned Attorney General drew our attention to the judgment of a Constitution Bench in Sub- Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 97] where it has been said that 'no coordinate Bench of this Court can even comment upon, let alone sit in judgment over, the discretion exercised or judgment rendered in a cause or matter before another coordinate Bench-- (SCC p. 98, para 5).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Kalika Kuer @Kalika Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2003

In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer [(2003) 5 SCC 448] the Court elaborately considered the principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a 51 OA No.2803/2018 and Batch larger Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a request for reference to the larger Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 272 - B Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next