1. Conflict between contradictory judicial precedents requiring reconciliation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1603
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha, V.N. Khare and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
State of W.B. - Appellant
Versus
Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 1532-33 of 1993 with IAs Nos. 13-14 with SLPs (C) Nos. 3986 of 1993, 11596 of 1994, CAs Nos. 2350 of 1993, 3518-19 of 1992, SLP (C) No. 17549 of 1994, CAs Nos. 7614 of 1994, 844 of 1995, 5149-54 of 1992, SLP (C) No. 1069 of 1996 with WPs (C) Nos. 247 and 412 of 1995
Decided On : 12-10-1999
Important Points
The need for a Constitution Bench to hear matters due to difficulty in accepting the view taken by Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B. and the consideration of earlier decisions.
Subject
Judicial Decision - Interpretation of Precedent
Headnote
Judgment - Emphasis on Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B. - The court found difficulty in accepting the view taken by Goodricke and decided that the matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench.
Fact of the Case:
The court emphasized the judgment in Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B. and the pending proceedings seeking to reconcile it with the judgment in State of Orissa v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
Finding of the Court:
The court found difficulty in accepting the view taken by Goodricke and decided that the matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench.
Issues: Interpretation of judgments in Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B. and State of Orissa v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., and the need for reconciliation. Also, the consideration of the earlier decision in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench due to the difficulty in accepting the view taken by Goodricke, especially in light of the earlier decision in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Final Decision: The matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State counsel relied upon a three-judge bench judgment to support their position. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed conflicting views between different bench strengths and pending proceedings to reconcile contradictory precedents. (Para 1 )
4. Conflicting judicial precedents of varying bench strengths necessitating reconciliation should be heard by a Constitution Bench. (Para 1 )
5. Matter referred to a Constitution Bench with directions to place proceedings before the Chief Justice. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. When is a matter referred to a Constitution Bench regarding judicial precedents?
A matter is referred to a Constitution Bench when there are conflicting views between judgments of different bench strengths or pending proceedings to reconcile contradictory precedents. (Para 1 )
ORDER :
Great emphasis has been placed by learned counsel for the State of West Bengal upon the judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges in Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B. , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 707 Quite apart from the fact that there are pending proceedings in this Court seeking to reconcile the judgment in Goodricke with that in State of Orissa v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. , 1995 Supp (2) SCC 686 we find some difficulty in accepting as correct the view taken by Goodricke particularly having regard to the earlier decision (of a Bench of two learned Judges) in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1989) 3 SCC 211 . We think, therefore, that these matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench.
2. The papers and proceedings may, accordingly, be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
