Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)
Dilip Singh Chauhan & vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam on 3 April, 2013 cites

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

In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we are inclined to adopt the same course as was adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decision in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija and Others Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Others (supra). Hence, we are of the view that all the matters could only have been referred to a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges (Division Bench). We accordingly order that the matters shall be placed before the Division Bench, as may be ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side, preferably on 15.4.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 257 - Full Document

Rama Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 13 October, 2000

In the case of Rama Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra), when the Full Bench of this Court considered and decided the matter on 13.10.2000 for giving interpretation to Gujarat High Court Rules, the above referred decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija and Others Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Others (supra) was not there, inasmuch as the decision of the five Hon'ble Judges' Bench of the Apex Court has been delivered on 4.12.2001 i.e. subsequent to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra). Therefore, in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court for making observations for principles of judicial discipline and propriety, we find that the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court would stand diluted to that extent, inasmuch as, at the first instance, the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, as the case may be, under Rule 5(1) or under Rule 5(2) when finds that the decision of the earlier Bench, may be of the Division Bench or of the Larger Bench requires reconsideration or a fresh look, the matter shall be referred, at the first instance, by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, as the case may be, to the Bench of equal number of Hon'ble Judges and it is only thereafter if Coordinate Bench takes the view that the earlier view cannot be agreed with or there are reasons for disagreement, the said Bench may refer the matter to the Larger Bench.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd vs Mumbai Shranik Sangha & Ors on 13 January, 1998

3. We may point out, at the outset, that in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Ors., [2001] 4 SCC 448, a Bench of five Judges considered a some what similar question. Two learned Judges in that case doubted the correctness of the scope attributed to a certain provision in an earlier Constitution Bench Judgment and, accordingly, referred the matter before them directly to a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench that then heard the matter took the view that the decision of a Constitution Bench binds a Bench of two learned Judges and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, the Bench of two learned Judges could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 44 - M J Rao - Full Document

Sub-Committee On Judicial ... vs Union Of India And Ors., Etc on 29 October, 1991

5. The learned Attorney General submitted that a Constitution Bench judgment of the 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 on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors., [1992] 4 SCC 97 where it has been said that "no co-ordinate 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 co-ordinate Bench". The learned Attorney General submitted that the appropriate course for the Bench of two learned Judges to have adopted, if it felt so strongly that the judgment in Nityananda Kar was incorrect, was to make a reference to a Bench of three learned Judges. That Bench of three learned Judges, if it also took the same view of Nityananda Kar, could have referred the case to a Bench of five learned Judges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 105 - B C Ray - Full Document
1