Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court asserted that Judicial discipline requires coordinate benches to follow earlier decisions or refer the matter to a larger bench if there is disagreement.
“Any undue indulgence and latitude to the ED will be deleterious to the constitutional values of rule of law and life and liberty of persons. An officer cannot be allowed to selectively pick and choose material implicating the person to be arrested. They have to equally apply their mind to other material which absolves and exculpates the arrestee.”
The Court stated that when a decision of a coordinate bench of the same High Court is brought in notice, it is to be respected and is binding to the Bench of such co-equal strength. For taking a different view, it is required to refer the question to the larger bench, as it is the only course of action open to a Bench of a co-equal strength.
“Court must strive to so interpret the statute as to promote and advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the Court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning and there need no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language.”
The Calcutta High Court referred the issue to a larger bench in order to ensure judicial discipline and uniformity.
“Compassionate appointment is never a part of service condition of any employee or a vested right”
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J. observed that, The question of whether, once a bench of the Supreme Court has doubted
Calcutta High Court: The Full Bench of Rajesh Bindal, C.J.(A), I.P. Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen, Arijit Banerjee, JJ., on 28-05-2021 granted
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ., in regard to Triple Talaq observed that, Prima facie it
Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., referred questions of seminal importance for consideration of a larger bench. One significant question in the present
Madras High Court: In the instant case where the issue revolved around the applicability of TDS on interest in Motor Accident Claims;
Supreme Court: A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde will hear from January 13 the issue of allowing
Calcutta High Court: Rajasekhar Mantha, J., has referred to three important questions, which in the Court’s opinion are required to be settled by
Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ has
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of R.K. Deshpande and Arun D. Upadhye, JJ., addressed a petition filed challenging the order
Supreme Court: In the matter where the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had sought direction to all states for mandatorily giving information to
Supreme Court: The Bench of Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, JJ referred the matter relating to framing of guidelines for designation of