Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.38 seconds)Chandi Prasad & Ors vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors on 1 October, 2004
The decision in Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad (Supra) was
followed by a two-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shanthi v. T.D.
Vishwanathan reported in (2018) SCC OnLine SC 2196 wherein it has
been held at paragraph 7 which reads as under:-
Randhir Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 30 October, 2012
56. Exactly the similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Randhir Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. affirmed by
the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 467 of 2012.
Shanthi vs T.D.Vishwanathan And Ors on 24 October, 2018
The decision in Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad (Supra) was
followed by a two-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shanthi v. T.D.
Vishwanathan reported in (2018) SCC OnLine SC 2196 wherein it has
been held at paragraph 7 which reads as under:-
State Of Bihar vs Kalika Kuer @Kalika Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2003
In State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer, the Court elaborately considered the
principle of per incuriam and held that the earlier judgment by a larger
Bench cannot be ignored by invoking the principle of per incuriam and the
only course open to the coordinate or smaller Bench is to make a request
for reference to the larger Bench.
Central Board Of Dawooodi Bohra ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2023
The
Court further held that such a practice would be detrimental not only to the
rule of discipline and the doctrine of binding precedents but it will also lead
to inconsistency in decisions on the point of law; consistency and certainty
in the development of law and its contemporary status - both would be
immediate casualty (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community case,
SCC p. 682, paras 12 & 10).
Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd vs Mumbai Shranik Sangha & Ors on 13 January, 1998
In Central Board of Dwaoodi Bohra Community vs. State of
Maharashtra, the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to
various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs.
Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Pradip Chandra Parija vs. Pramod Chandra
Patnaik and held that "the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench
of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal
strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges
starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges.
Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001
In Central Board of Dwaoodi Bohra Community vs. State of
Maharashtra, the Constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to
various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs.
Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Pradip Chandra Parija vs. Pramod Chandra
Patnaik and held that "the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench
of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal
strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges
starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges.
U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors vs Daya Ram Saroj & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh vs. Daya Ram Saroj, the Court
noted that by ignoring the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench, a Division
Bench of the High Court directed that part-time tube-well operators should
be treated as permanent employees with same service conditions as far as
possible and observed: "26. Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an
inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that
when the decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought
to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of
course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the
decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the question or the
case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be
maintained by judicial fraternity."
R.N. Gosain A vs Yashpal Dhir on 23 October, 1992
with
L.P.A. No.615 of 2017
with
Cont. Case (C) No.1151 of 2019
It is settled position of law that the condition stipulated in the
appointment letter binds the parties. Herein, in pursuance of the
condition stipulated in the appointment letters, the writ petitioners
after accepting the same had joined as Tutors and now is
questioning the condition as stipulated under clause 12. The same is
not permissible due to the principle of approbate and reprobate, i.e.,
accepting the part of the document which suits and not accepting
the part which does not suit. Reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R. N. Gosain vs.
Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683. Paragraph-10 of the said
judgment is being reproduced as hereunder: