CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J.

( 1 ) A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges the following question:

"when there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the Country?

( 2 ) A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court (which consisted one of us) opined in J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation (1974) 1 Kant LJ 344 that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is the later of those two decisions which must be followed by High Courts and other courts. The correctness of this view is doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rudrayya v. Gangawwa (1976) 1 Kant LJ 409 in view of the pronouncement of the supreme Court on this point in Mattulal v. Radhelal AIR1974 SC 1596 , (1974 )2 SCC365 , [1975 ]1 SCR127 , 1974 (6 )UJ348 (SC ). The Full Bench of three Judges which has made this reference, felt that the decision of the earlier Full bench in Aramhas case, did not contain any reason for its opinion.

( 3 ) IN Mattulal's case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document