M/s Nidhi Knitwears (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs.Honey Hosiery Mills. - That if a subsequent Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court differs with the view taken by an earlier Bench of equal strength, then the only course open for the subsequent Bench is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. In case, the above option has not been exercised by the subsequent Bench, then it is the view taken by an earlier Bench of the equal strength, which is to prevail.

 HC of Punjab & Haryana (2022.05.05) In M/s Nidhi Knitwears (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs.Honey Hosiery Mills. [CRM-M-13193 -2018 (O & M)] held that;

• That if a subsequent Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court differs with the view taken by an earlier Bench of equal strength, then the only course open for the subsequent Bench is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. In case, the above option has not been exercised by the subsequent Bench, then it is the view taken by an earlier Bench of the equal strength, which is to prevail.

• It is, thus, clear that when two directly conflicting judgments of the superior Court and of equal authority are extent then both of them cannot be binding on the Courts below. 

• In such a situation, it is the plain duty of the High Court in the interest of justice to respectfully follow that which appears to it to state the law accurately or, in any case, more accurately than the other conflicting judgments.

Excerpts of the order; 

# 12. This Court in M/s Anant Tools’s case (supra), has comprehensively dealt with the judgments in JIK Industries’ case (supra) and M/s Meters and Instruments’ case (supra). In Para 12 of the judgment (reproduced hereinabove), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that if a subsequent Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court differs with the view taken by an earlier Bench of equal strength, then the only course open for the subsequent Bench is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. In case, the above option has not been exercised by the subsequent Bench, then it is the view taken by an earlier Bench of the equal strength, which is to prevail. In Hem Lata’s case (supra), the decision in JIK Industries Limited and others (supra) is referred but there is no discussion as to why the Court has chosen to follow the law laid down in M/s Meters and Instruments (supra) and not JIK Industries Limited and others (supra). In the cases of Suba Singh (supra) and Vikas Jishtu (supra), the reliance has been placed on M/s Meters and Instruments (supra) alone and JIK Industries Limited and others (supra) has not been referred to at all.

# 13. In the case of “M/s Indo Swiss Time Limited versus Umrao and others, 1981 AIR (Punjab and Haryana) 213”, this Court has held that when judgments of the superior Court of co-equal Benches and therefore, of matching authority then their weight inevitably must be considered by the rationale and the logic thereof and not by the mere fortuitous circumstances of the time and date on which they were rendered. It is, thus, clear that when two directly conflicting judgments of the superior Court and of equal authority are extent then both of them cannot be binding on the Courts below. In such a situation, it is the plain duty of the High Court in the interest of justice to respectfully follow that which appears to it to state the law accurately or, in any case, more accurately than the other conflicting judgments. Applying the said principle to the present case, apparently, the judgment in Anant Tools (Unit II) Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra) lays down the law more accurately than the judgments in the cases of Hem Lata (supra), Suba Singh (supra) and Vikas Jishtu (supra).

 ---------------------------------------