TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ysore Road Transport Corporation (1974) 1 Kant LJ 344 that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is the later of those two decisions which must be followed by High Courts and other courts. The correctness of this view is doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rudrayya v. Gangawwa (1976) 1 Kant LJ 409 in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point in Mattulal v. Radhelal . The Full Bench of three Judges which has made this reference, felt that the decision of the earlier Full bench in Aramhas case, did not contain any reason for its opinion. 3. In Mattulal's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed at page that if it is not possible to reconcile the observations of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger Bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger Bench whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed 'by High Courts and other Courts. However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Courts . Jagannatra Shetty, J. 6. Amid the diversity of decisions of this court in A. J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation, and Rudrayya v. Gangawwa, a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges the following question: When there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 8 observed: .....No doubt, the law declared by this Court binds Courts in India but it should always be remembered that this court does not enact ........... In Shama Rao v. Union Territory Of Pondicherry p. 1486 Para 8, Shelat, J. speaking for the majority view observed : ......it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion ciple laid down therein . The question presented, therefore has to be examined on these principles. 9. In Aramha's case, a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court - held that if several decisions of the Supreme Court are irreconcilable, the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court should be followed by the High Court. But in Rudrayya's case, a Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Judge said: ... .... we do not think that the High Court acted correctly in skirting the views expressed by larger Benches of this Court in the manner in which it had done this. The proper course for a High Court, in such a case, is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger Benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by this Court itself. The practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by this Court. 10. It may now be said without contradiction that High Courts should follow the views -expressed by a larger Bench in preference to that expressed by a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court. Before adopting this rule, the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of justice, we may as well ask the question, why not the High Court follow the former of the two rulings when both of them are of equal sanctity. Why alone the later carries the obligation and not the former? The adherence to one practice would be as good or as bad as adherence to the other. In our view, a conservative approach to any of these, may deny justice in a given case or series of cases and those clients may not be in a position to approach the Supreme Court for the redressed of their grievances. When confronted with two inconsistent co-ordinate authorities, Kay., in Miles v. Jarvis (1883) 24 Ch D 633 at p. 636 said : ........The question is which of these two decisions I should follow, and it seems to me that I ought to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
