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

MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT, INDORE BENCH
KAUL, SHINDE, DIXIT, A. H. KHAN, CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Chandulal - Applicant
Versus
Babulal - Opponent
Small Cause Ravn. No.49 of 1949
Decided On : 04-10-1950

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Roshanlal Khdbya
For the Opponent : V.R. Nawaskar

The decisions of a Court are binding only on the Courts subordinate to it, and not on Courts of equal rank in other States.

Headnote:

FULL BENCH DECISION - BINDING NATURE - MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT - INDORE HIGH COURT - COVENANTING STATES - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - AUTHORITY AND APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

A Full Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court was convened to consider the binding nature of decisions rendered by the former Indore High Court on the Madhya Bharat High Court and its subordinate courts.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Full Bench decision in Dagdu Madhav v. Tulsiram, 1949 Madh B LR 81, which held that the decisions of the Indore High Court were binding on the Madhya Bharat High Court, was erroneous. 2. The decisions of the Indore High Court or any of the High Courts functioning in the Covenanting States, though entitled to respectful consideration, are not binding on any Courts in Madhya Bharat.

Issues: 1. Whether the Full Bench decision in Dagdu Madhav v. Tulsiram, 1949 Madh B LR 81, was correct in holding that the decisions of the Indore High Court were binding on the Madhya Bharat High Court? 2. Whether the decisions of the Indore High Court or any of the High Courts functioning in the Covenanting States are binding on any Courts in Madhya Bharat?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Indore High Court and the Madhya Bharat High Court were not Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, as they belonged to different political entities prior to the formation of Madhya Bharat. 2. The decisions of a Court are binding only on the Courts subordinate to it, and not on Courts of equal rank in other States. 3. The provisions of Ordinances I and II of 1948, which continued the laws and usages prevailing in the Covenanting States, cannot be interpreted to include judicial decisions.

Final Decision: The Full Bench decision in Dagdu Madhav v. Tulsiram, 1949 Madh B LR 81, was overruled, and it was held that the decisions of the Indore High Court or any of the High Courts functioning in the Covenanting States are not binding on any Courts in Madhya Bharat.

JUDGEMENT :

Chaturvedi, J.

The point referred to us is, "Whether a Full Bench decision reported in 1949 M.B. Law Reporter p. 81 is correct?" In that decision it was held that the decisions of the former Indore State High Court are binding on Madhya Bharat High Court, Sanghi, J. (who has since then retired) felt embarrassed by this decision and was of opinion that "the decision is so clearly wrong that if allowed to stand, it will create confusion and cause much embarrassment to the Judges of this Court." He therefore, desired that the question should be considered by a larger Full Bench, so this matter has been placed before this Bench.

2. Mr. Niwaskar has raised a preliminary objection stating that Sanghi, J., was not competent to make this reference and to criticise the Full Bench decision as he was bound by it.

3. According to S. 29(b), Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act Samvat 2005 (Act 8 of 1949), a case of special or novel character of involving any important point of law or custom having the force of law or of the consideration of any document, set down before a single Judge for hearing, may be referred at his instance, or at the instance of the Division Bench to a Full Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice. Considering this provision in our High Court Act I have no hesitation in holding that Sanghi, J., could entertain a doubt upon the aforesaid Full Bench ruling and could write to the Chief Justice for reconsideration of the ruling by a larger Full Bench. In all such matters it is discretionary for the Chief Justice to form a Special Bench to reconsider the decision of a previous Full Bench. In Enat-Ullah v. Kowsher Ali, 54 Cal 266, the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court was confronted with a request from the Division Bench which felt some doubt about the correctness of a Full Bench decision in Lalla Nowbat Lalla v. Lalla Jewan Lall, 4 Cal 831. Before referring the matter to a Special Bench Sanderson, C.J., made the following note :

"I have made enquiries, and I understand that in a case in which a Division Court doubts the correctness of a Full Bench decision, by which the Division Court is bound, and the Division Court considers that the matter should be considered by a Bench, specially constituted, it has been the practice for the Division Court to bring the matter to the notice of the Chief Justice and to consult him as to the propriety of a Bench being specially constituted to consider the matter. A decision of a Full Bench is binding on all Division Courts, unless it is subsequently reversed by a Bench specially constituted or by a rule laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is obvious that it might lead to serious results if a Division Court, whenever it felt inclined to differ from a decision of a Full Bench, could refer the matter to a Special Bench and the Chief Justice was compelled to form such Special Bench whether he thought it necessary or not. In this case, I think that there are sufficient reasons why the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Lalla Nowbul Lalla v. Lalla Jewan Lall, should be further considered, and that a Special Bench should be appointed when it is possible, having regard to the other work in the Court."

4. This note gives the correct statement of the rule of practice as to when the case should be referred to the Full Bench. Whether the reference is made by a Single Judge or the Division Bench is immaterial. This also shows that the matter is entirely within the discretion of the Chief Justice and once he has exercised that discretion it is not open to any judge or any litigant to question the propriety of his orders. Of course, the learned Judge on the Single Bench was not authorised to criticise the Full Bench decision which was binding on him. In a ease in Allahabad High Court a learned Judge (Niamat Ullah, J.) also expressed his opinion that the view of the Full Bench in Shabir Husain v. Chandoo Lal, 1931 All LJ 865 : AIR 1931 All 567 (FB) w




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top