1. Referral order premised on alleged conflict between two Supreme Court judgments. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2010 Supreme(SC) 1230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., B. Sudershan Reddy, K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, Surinder Singh Nijjar and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Tata Chemicals Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7251-302 of 2000 With Civil Appeal No. 2988 of 2006
Decided On : 4-8-2010
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant in CAs Nos. 7251-302 of 2000 :Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal, Mallika Joshi, Rajiv Kr. Dubey, Gaurav Gogia and Rajan Narain, Advocates.
For the Appellant in CA, 2988 of 2006 :V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav, L. Badri Narayan and M.P. Devanath, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Goolam E. Vahanvati, Attorney General, Rupesh Kumar, Mihir Chatterjee, D.D. Kamat, Arijit Prasad, Rohit Sharma, Nishanth Patil and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Appellant in CAs Nos. 7251-302 of 2000 :Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal, Mallika Joshi, Rajiv Kr. Dubey, Gaurav Gogia and Rajan Narain, Advocates.
For the Appellant in CA, 2988 of 2006 :V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav, L. Badri Narayan and M.P. Devanath, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Goolam E. Vahanvati, Attorney General, Rupesh Kumar, Mihir Chatterjee, D.D. Kamat, Arijit Prasad, Rohit Sharma, Nishanth Patil and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
A referral to a larger Bench is erroneous if the subsequent judgment actually follows the earlier one, as no conflict of law exists between consistent judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise - Conflict of judgments - Procedural propriety of referral to larger Bench - If a subsequent judgment follows an earlier one, there is no conflict between the two - Assumption of conflict in a referral order held to be erroneous. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
An order of reference was issued based on the assumption that a decision in one matter was in conflict with a judgment delivered by another Bench in a separate matter, necessitating a resolution by a larger Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the assumption of conflict was erroneous, as the subsequent judgment actually followed the earlier decision.
Issues: Whether there existed a genuine conflict between two prior judicial precedents that would justify a referral to a larger Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: A referral to a larger Bench is unwarranted when a later judgment is consistent with and follows the principles established in an earlier judgment, as no actual conflict of law exists between them.
Result: Order of reference set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Assumption of conflict between two judgments held erroneous; Triveni Glass follows Mahalakshmi Glass Works. (Para 1 )
3. A judgment that follows an earlier precedent is not in conflict with it. (Para 1 )
4. Referral order set aside; civil appeals to be heard by appropriate bench. (Para 2 )
5. Was the assumption of conflict between two Supreme Court judgments correct?
No, the assumption was erroneous because one judgment followed the other, creating no conflict. (Para 1 )
ORDER :
In view of paragraphs 12 and 17 of the judgment of Three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Triveni Glass Limited v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 2005 (3) SCC 484, we are of the view that the assumption made in the referral Order dated 23rd March, 2006, to the effect that the decision of this Court in Triveni Glass Limited (supra) is in conflict with the judgment of another Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 601, is erroneous. On the contrary, the judgment of this Court in Triveni Glass Limited (supra) in turn follows the judgment in Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Limited (supra).
2. For the above reasons, the Order of reference dated 23rd March, 2006, is set aside and consequently, the civil appeals will be heard by the appropriate Bench in accordance with law. All arguments on merits on both sides are kept open.
