1. Application for clarification on whether a previous judgment overrides Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1448
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, G. T. Nanavati, JJ.
KASHI RAM NAMDEO ZAMBRO, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, RESPONDENT.
I.A. No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 1982,
decided on November 10, 1997.
A judgment does not override a specific statutory provision if that provision was not referenced or considered in the judgment, and it should not be misconstrued to negate the application of that statute.
Headnote:(A) Court Fees Act - Article 15 of Schedule I - Clarification of previous judgment - It is clarified that a prior judgment shall not be construed to mean that it overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act in cases where that provision applies - Since there was no reference to the said provision in the previous judgment, there is no occasion to misconstrue it. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
An application was filed seeking clarification of a previous judgment, as it was being misunderstood by lower courts to mean that it overrode the effect of a specific provision of the Court Fees Act.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the previous judgment does not override the specified provision of the Court Fees Act.
Issues: Whether a previous judgment of the court overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A judgment cannot be construed to override a statutory provision if that provision was not referenced or addressed in the judgment.
Result: IA is disposed of accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission that a prior judgment is being misconstrued as overriding the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. (Para 1 )
3. The court noted a likelihood of misconstruction despite the previous judgment containing no reference to the specific provision of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. A judgment not referencing a specific statutory provision does not override the effect of that provision in cases where it applies. (Para 2 )
5. Clarification provided that the cited judgment does not override Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959; application disposed of. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Does the judgment in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra override Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959?
No, the court clarified that the judgment shall not be construed to mean that it overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 in cases where that provision applies. (Para 2 )
7. What was the basis for the court's clarification regarding the interaction between the previous judgment and the Court Fees Act?
The court observed that there was no reference to Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 in the previous judgment, meaning there was no occasion to misconstrue it as overriding the provision. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant-State of Maharashtra is that the judgment dated 31-10-1995 of this Court in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra ((1996) 1 SCC 289) is being misunderstood by the courts to mean that the same overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and, therefore, to this extent the said judgment requires clarification. It does appear to us that there is a likelihood of the said judgment being so misconstrued, even though it was not intended to say therein that the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is overruled.
2. Accordingly, it is clarified hereby that the abovesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 1982 shall not be construed to mean that it overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 in cases where that provision applies. We may add that there is no reference to this provision in the said judgment and, therefore, there is no occasion to misconstrue that judgment.
3. IA is disposed of accordingly.
