Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Shah Samir Bharatbhai on 20 December, 2023 cites

Pinjare Karimbhai Dedubhai vs Shukla Hariprasad Manishankar on 5 December, 1961

(para 10) 5.3.3 It was held that if the learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that Full Bench decision in Pinjare Karimbhai (supra) did not lay down the correct law, it was open to him to recommend the Chief Justice that the question be considered by Larger Bench. It was observed that "Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that lie should not ignore it". It was succinctly observed "Our system of administration Page 15 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 21 20:41:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1371/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/12/2023 undefined 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".
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

U.P. Land Development Corporation & Anr vs Mohd. Khursheed Anwar & Anr on 5 July, 2010

Another decision in Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation Vs. Mohd. Kursheed Anwar [(2010) 7 SCC 739] was also relied on to submit that the factors were indicated in the said decision for applying the regular pay scale even to the persons employed on contractual basis and that even though such persons may not be entitled to regular pay scales, they would be considered for minimum of the pay scale. The post in that case was that of Assistant Engineer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 53 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi And Ors. on 31 October, 1961

He urged that under the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court which originally extended over the territory now forming part of the State of Gujarat, ceased when a new High Court was set up in the State of Gujarat, but it was held by a Full Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in State of Gujarat v. Gordhandas(1) that the decision of the Bombay High Court will be regarded as binding since the Gujarat High Court had inherited the jurisdiction. power and authority in respect of the territory of Gujarat. When pressed with the observations made in the two cases cited at the Bar, Raju. J.. found an easy way out. He observed that the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court had "no existence in law". for in the absence of a provision in' the Constitution and the Character Act of 1861, a Judge of a High Court had no Power to refer a case to a Full Bench for determination of a question of law arising before him. and a decision given on a reference "had no existence in law".
Gujarat High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Siri Bhagwan Son Of Sh. Ram Chand Son Of ... vs Sh. Bhagirath Lal Son Of Sh. Ram Chand Son ... on 1 December, 2009

5.4 In Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Shri Ram Chand, [(1965) 3 S.C.R. 218], the Supreme Court observed, "It is hardly necessary to emphasise that consideration of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need ,to be re-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Jaisri Sahu vs Rajdewan Dubey And Others on 28 April, 1961

5.5 The observations in Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, [(1962) 2 S.C.R. 558], are also beckoning. It was observed that if decisions of the same or superior court are ignored, even though directly applicable by judge in deciding a case arising before him, on the view that every judge is entitled to take such view as he chooses, to the question of law arising before him then, "law will Page 16 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 21 20:41:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1371/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/12/2023 undefined be bereft of all its utility if it should be thrown into a state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions".
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 225 - Full Document

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

5.6 The proposition of law of precedent and binding nature thereof was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754], "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 Page 17 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 21 20:41:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1371/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/12/2023 undefined 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 724 - R S Pathak - Full Document

M/S Rspl Ltd. vs Mukesh Sharma & Anr. on 5 April, 2016

(para 27) 5.7 In RSPL Limited v. Mukesh Sharma & Anr., [2016 SCC OnLine Del 4285], the Delhi High Court, after considering the decision on the point, observed in paragraph 30 as under, "Judicial discipline and propriety requires that a Single Bench should follow the decision of a Division Bench without demur as the Single Bench is bound by it. It is all the more so when the Division Bench decision is of an appellate court and the Single Bench happens to be the trial court. It is a matter of judicial propriety that the hierarchical system is followed. A decision of an appellate court may in the view of the trial court be right or wrong, but the trial court has no option but to Page 18 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 21 20:41:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1371/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/12/2023 undefined follow it. In fact, a Single Judge cannot even refer a matter for decision by a Bench comprising of more than two judges. Furthermore, the Single Judge can only refer a matter to be placed before a Division Bench of two judges if the Single Judge finds that there is a conflict of decisions of Single Benches. If there are conflicting decisions of Division Benches of co-equal strength, it is, of course, open to the Single Judge to follow the later decision. But, in such a situation, the learned Single Judge cannot seek a reference to a Full Bench of three or more Judges."
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 38 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 Next