Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)M. S. Sheriff vs The State Of Madras And Others on 18 March, 1954
In'the matter of M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397) (supra), the Supreme Court was required to consider a case where two persons filed a civil suit for recovery of damages. It was contended by them that they were illegally detained by two Sub Inspectors of police, the Police Inspectors made the statements in proceedings under Section 491. Cr.P.C. that these petitioners were not in their custody. As there was a factual dispute, the High Court in that case directed the District Judge to make an enquiry. After the enquiry report was submitted before the High Court, the High Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioners were telling truth and not the Sub-Inspectors. The High Court also found that after the illegal detention of the said petitioners, the petitioners were regularly arrested after their petitions and before the High Court's order. On these set of facts, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar to make a complaint against the said Sub-Inspectors. The said petitioners thereafter filed two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement. Two criminal prosecutions under Section 344, I.P.C. for wrongful confinement, one against each Sub-Inspector were also filed. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the simultaneous prosecution of the said matters was likely to
embarrass the accused, though it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, two criminal prosecutions were closed with liberty to file fresh complaints. The Supreme Court, however, found it fit to decide as to which proceeding requires to be stayed. The Supreme Court observed that between the civil and the criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence. Observing that there was some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on the said point, the Supreme Court further observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and was also of the opinion that it was not required to be considered nor would it be a relevant consideration that there was possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts. It was observed that "The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. "The Supreme Court in para 16 of the judgment observed as under:-
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan vs M/S.Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries ... on 12 February, 1996
If the defendants prove that me goods were not sold by them in the local market, then the question of interest alone would be affected. The liability of the defendants to pay money under the loan agreement in any case shall not be affected. When the act of the defendants provides a cause of action to the plaintiffs for instituting a civil matter, then the civil matter can continue but if the civil matter is the direct result of criminal action, then the Court may stay the civil matter. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan (1996 (3) SCC 87) (supra) has certainly provided the guidelines to the Courts that civil matters are ordinarily not required to be stayed. The observations made by the Supreme Court would certainly provide guidelines to every Court because in the matter of Sheriff, (AIR 1954 SC 397) a larger Bench of the Supreme Court has simply observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for such matters and the discretion of every Court would by itself be the best guide.
London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956
In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675, 677, the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered 'without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority'.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
It was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Durnam Kaur, (1989) I SCC 101 : (AIR 1989 SC 38). The Bench held that 'precedents sub-silentio and without any arguments arc of no moment'. The Courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reason nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is nol ratio dccidcndi.
B. Shama Rao vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 20 February, 1967
In B. Sharma Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry. AIR 1967 SC 1480 if is observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding 'not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles laid down therein'. Any .declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law."
State Of U.P vs Ram Chandra Trivedi on 1 September, 1976
11. He also submits that in the mutter of State of U. P. v. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547, the Supreme Court clearly observed that in a case where the High Court finds any conflict between the viewsexprcssed by larger and smaller benches of the Supreme Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High court in such a case is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by the larger benches of Supreme Court, in preference to these expressed by smaller benches of the Court.