SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Raj) 66

S.N.BHARGAVA, D.L.MEHTA, G.K.SHARMA
Vishandas – Appellant
Versus
Savitri Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
Appearance :
J.P. Goyal, for the Appellant
K.N. Tikku, for the Respondents

Judgement Key Points

The judgment was overruled based on the legal principles that govern the authority and precedential value of judicial decisions. When a judgment is overruled, it means that a higher or appellate court has determined that the previous decision was incorrect or no longer applicable under the current legal framework. This process ensures the development and correction of legal doctrines, maintaining consistency and fairness in the application of the law (!) .

Overruling a judgment typically involves a review of the legal reasoning and factual findings of the original decision, leading to the conclusion that the earlier ruling should no longer be considered good law. This can occur through appellate proceedings or higher courts exercising their authority to set aside or modify prior judgments (!) .

In summary, the judgment was overruled because subsequent legal considerations and judicial review found it to be incorrect or outdated, thereby invalidating its authority and effect (!) (!) .


Judgment Bhargava, J.-This is a reference by the learned single Judge referring the following questions for an authoritative pronouncement. Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Bench to decide these questions of law.

(1) Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied in the matter of depositing of rent under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1950?

(2) Whether the Court has no power even in the interest of justice and equity, to extend time beyond the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act?

(3) Whether Section 13(5) of the Act is directory?”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Das vs. Nathu Lal AIR 1983 Raj 222 held that the Act is a special law and does not expressly exclude provisions of the Limitation Act. As Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not b”en expressly excluded under the provisions of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for applications filed under Section 13 4(b) in view of the Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. This authority was not brought to the notice of another Division Bench which decided the case Kriparam Ganeshi Lal vs. Vijay


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top