Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.58 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956
When, therefore, this very point was argued in a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal in Lancester Motor Co. (London)Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675, the Court held itself not bound by its previous decision, Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R., said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been deliberately passedsub silentio by counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. He went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier Court before it could make the order which it did; never theless,since it was decided "without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority", it was not binding and would not be followed. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has even since been followed."
State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991
In State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., reiterating the same view, this Court laid down that such a decision cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India and observed thus :-
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
Following the said decision, this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur , observed thus :-
Arnit Das vs State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2000
In the case of Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, while examining the bindingeffect of such a decision, this Court observed thus (Para 20) :-
State If West Bengal And Others vs Nuruddin Mallik And Others on 18 September, 1998
In State of W.B. and Ors. v. Nuruddin Mallick and Ors., , the Apex Court held as under :-