Imp Rulings; Doctrine of Binding Precedents
Index;
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)]
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (2020.03.02) in Dr. Shah Faesal and Ors. vs Union of India and Anr.[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019]
Supreme Court (2010.12.02) in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 2271 2010. - Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7615 of 2009)
Supreme Court (1999.12.14) in Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others [Civil Appeal 5363-64 of 1997] held that;
High Court Bombay (1983.04.20) in K. Subramanian, ITO and Another vs Siemens India Ltd. and Another [(1983) 36 CTR Bom 197, 1985 156 ITR 11 Bom,]
-------------------------------------------
1. 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.
[ Link Synopsis ]
-------------------------------------------
2. Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (2020.03.02) in Dr. Shah Faesal and Ors. vs Union of India and Anr.[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019] held that;
Doctrine of precedents and stare decisis are the core values of our legal system. They form the tools which further the goal of certainty, stability and continuity in our legal system. Arguably, judges owe a duty to the concept of certainty of law, therefore they often justify their holdings by relying upon the established tenets of law.
The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, therefore, there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this Court.”
The two Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 7] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been Stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121] , a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (emphasis supplied)
A judgment of this Court can be distinguished into two parts: ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. The ratio is the basic essence of the judgment, and the same must be understood in the context of the relevant facts of the case.
The rule of per incuriam has been developed as an exception to the doctrine of judicial precedent. Literally, it means a judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or any other binding authority
At the cost of repetition, we note that the rule of per incuriam being an exception to the doctrine of precedents is only applicable to the ratio of the judgment. The same having an impact on the stability of the legal precedents must be applied sparingly, when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the opinions of two coordinate Benches.
[ Link Synopsis ]
--------------------------------------------------
3. Supreme Court (2010.12.02) in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 2271 2010. - Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7615 of 2009) held that;
# 141. This court in Government of A.P. and Another v. B. Satyanarayana Rao (dead) by LRs. and Others (2000) 4 SCC 262 observed as under:
"The rule of per incuriam can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue."
# 142. In a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754, Chief Justice Pathak observed as under:
The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court."
[ Link Synopsis ]
-------------------------------------------------
4. Supreme Court (1999.12.14) in Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others [Civil Appeal 5363-64 of 1997] held that;
Precedents which enunciate rules of law from 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 bounded 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.
[ Link Sunopsis ]
-----------------------------------------------
5. High Court Bombay (1983.04.20) in K. Subramanian, ITO and Another vs Siemens India Ltd. and Another [(1983) 36 CTR Bom 197, 1985 156 ITR 11 Bom,] held that;
The ITO would be bound by a decision of the Supreme Court as also by a decision of the High Court of the State within whose jurisdiction he is (functioning), irrespective of the pendency of any appeal or special leave application against that judgment.
Where there is a conflict between different High Courts, he must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is (functioning), but if the conflict is between decisions of other High Courts, he must take the view which is in favour of the assessee and not against him.
The ITO in making assessment under s. 7 of the said Act is clearly bond by the decision of a single judge or a Division Bench of the court within whose jurisdiction is operating as well as, of course, a decision of the Supreme Court.
The mere fact that an appeal has been preferred against such decision or is pending can make no difference whatever to the binding nature of that decision, so far as the ITO is concerned.
[ Link Synopsis ]
------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment