Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.30 seconds)
1.Govt. Of A.P. & Others vs T.Gangadhar & Others on 17 April, 2014 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005

9. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The applicants retired from service on the dates mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph no.4 viz. one day prior to the RPS Rules, 1999, RPS Rules, 2005 and RPS Rules, 2010 came into force. It is the specific case of the Government that all the applicants retired from service one day prior to the aforesaid Rules came into effect and based on the pay drawn by them prior to the Rules came into force, their respective pensions have been fixed besides granting all retirement benefits. It is not in dispute before this Court that there is no arbitrary action in putting a cut off date for implementation of the revision of pay scales and for calculation of other consequential benefits such as gratuity, earned leave encashment and commutation of pension, etc. On this aspect, the Tribunal also relied upon a decision in State of Punjab & others v. Amar Nath Goyal & others , wherein it is held thus (para 33):
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 348 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

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

In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh and others AIR 2003 SC 2443 this Court held that when an earlier decision may seems to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the latter bench of coordinate jurisdiction. The Court held that easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 272 - B Kumar - Full Document

Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors vs Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors on 13 July, 1989

In this respect reference may also be made to the Judgment of this Court in Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 806, Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others AIR 1990 SC 261 and Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel AIR 1968 SC 372 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 469 - K J Shetty - Full Document

S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999

At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is oppposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate Court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior Courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 421 - Full Document

Shri Bhagwan And Anr vs Ram Chand And Anr on 1 March, 1965

"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was bidning upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J. in Pinjare Karimbhai's case (1962 (3) Guj LR 529) and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas's case (AIR 1922 Bom 149) did not lay down the correct law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it. Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C. J. observed in Lala Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, (AIR 1965 SC 1767).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 270 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989

c) in Union of India & another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. , wherein it is held thus: (para 28) WHAT then should be the position in regard to the effect of the law pronounced by a Division Bench in relation to a case raising the same point subsequently before a Division Bench of a smaller number of Judges? There is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the Courts sanctified by 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 44 - Cited by 724 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next