Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.83 seconds)The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976
C.N. Rudramurthy vs K. Barkathulla Khan & Others on 8 October, 1998
A three-Judge Bench of this Court in C.N. Rudramurthy
v. K. Barkathulla Khan and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 275 has
examined the nature and effect of over-ruling by necessary
implication and held that when the law as declared by the
Supreme Court contradicts what has been stated in another
case, that case stood impliedly overruled.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) By Lrs. on 16 September, 1992
A contrary view of a two-Judge Bench decision in
Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 60 was
brought to the notice of this Court and this Court held that in
view of the three-Judge Bench decision in Hari Krishan Khosla
case, the ratio of Rao Narain Singh case is no longer a good
law.
Dadaji Alias Dina vs Sukhdeobabu & Ors on 7 November, 1979
2. Whether a two Judge Bench decision of this Court
in Dina v. Narayan Singh 38 ELR 212 (for the
sake of brevity 'Dina I') and the decision rendered by
another two Judge Bench of this Court in Dadaji
alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC
621 (for the sake of brevity 'Dina II') are over-ruled
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Milind Katware (2001) 1 SCC 4?
Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 366 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993
A contrary view of a two-Judge Bench decision in
Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 60 was
brought to the notice of this Court and this Court held that in
view of the three-Judge Bench decision in Hari Krishan Khosla
case, the ratio of Rao Narain Singh case is no longer a good
law.
Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970
5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in
Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar and Dina v.
Narain Singh did not lay down law correctly in
stating that the inquiry was permissible and the
evidence was admissible within the limitations
indicated for the purpose of showing what an
entry in the Presidential Order was intended to
be. As stated in Position (1) above no inquiry at
all is permissible and no evidence can be let in,
in the matter."
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Raj Rani And Ors. on 21 March, 1996
The same view was reiterated in the case of Union of
India & Ors. v. Raj Rani and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 704.
1