SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., K.S. Paripoornan, S.C. Agarwal, S.P. Bharucha, Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
BUTA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS., PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA, RESPONDENT.
SLP (C) No. 1672 of 1994, decided on February 21, 1995.
ORDER
In Buta Singh v. Union of India a two-Judge Bench of this Court after noticing the decision in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and the subsequent decision of this Court in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, observed that the decision rendered by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Chand Kaur v. Union of India raised a conflict which was needed to be resolved by a Constitution Bench of this Court. That is how this Bench is required to consider whether there is any conflict at all, and if so, whether it was necessary to resolve the same. Having perused the decisions referred to above, including the decision rendered in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, we are of the opinion that the decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench in the case of Chand Kaur had failed to notice the decisions rendered subsequent to the decision in the case of Bhag Singh, in particular the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. which explained the earlier two decisions. It is, therefore, obvious that the decision rendered in the case of Chand Kaur is per incuriam, inasmuch as, the attention of the Bench was not invited to a three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. which was holding the field. The decision in Chand Kaur case, thus being per incuriam, does not in fact consciously differ from the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. We, therefore, put the matter beyond the pale of doubt by stating that the law as laid down in the decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. is correct and should hold the field; we approve of it and, therefore, the subsequent decision in the case of Chand Kaur to the extent it conflicts with the view taken in that case cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. We dispose of the reference to this Bench accordingly and the matters will now go back to the appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd., hereby affirmed and approved by us.
affirmed : Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India
held per incuriam : Chand Kaur v. Union of India
considered : Buta Singh v. Union of India
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.