Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S.Mohan, J.
Vishnu Traders
Versus
State Of Haryana
Case No. : 17110 , 17111 of 1993
Date of Decision : 11/2/93
Advocates Appeared: John K.J. : Malhotra Indu : Parekh Manish : Salve Harish N. : Venugopal Pratap
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court heard arguments from Shri Harish Salve, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Indu Malhotra, counsel for the respondent, who was asked to take notice (!) .
The petitioner raised concerns regarding inconsistency in the conditions for granting stay orders in different benches of the High Court. Specifically, a division bench had previously ordered an unconditional stay, whereas in the present case, the bench imposed a condition requiring payment of 25% of the demand (!) .
The court noted that while principles of binding precedents do not strictly apply to interlocutory orders, there is a need for consistency, uniformity, and predictability in judicial approach to similar matters. This is important to prevent grievances arising from discriminatory treatment and to ensure fairness in judicial discretion (!) .
The court set aside the order under appeal and granted an interim stay for a period of eight weeks. It was indicated that the final hearing was scheduled for a later date, and if the matter was not disposed of within the stipulated period, the petitioners could seek further stay. The Chief Justice of the High Court was instructed to list all similar and connected matters before a specific bench to ensure uniformity (!) .
The special leave petitions were finally disposed of in accordance with the court's directions (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this document.
(1) WE have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Indu Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent who was asked to take notice.
(2) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the conditions for grant of stay vary widely from bench to bench in the High court and that while in an earlier case CWP No. 6074 of 1993 and connected cases, a division bench had ordered unconditional stay on 17/6/1993 and continued the same order on 7/9/1993, in the present case the bench had imposed a condition of payment of 25 per cent of the demand.
(3) IN the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedents cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasions forgrievances of discriminatory treatment requires that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach.
(4) WE set aside the order under .appeal. There will be an interim stay for eight weeks. It is submitted that the matters are listed for final hearing on 30/11/1993. If the matters are not disposed of before eight weeks, petitioners may seek further stay and the prayer in that behalf be listed before the appropriate bench. The chief justice of the High court will list all similar and connected matters before some specific bench whichever it might be.
(5) THE special leave petitions are finally disposed of accordingly. court Masters
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
