Judicial decisions generally apply prospectively unless explicitly stated retroactively, reaffirming principles of natural justice.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The writ order dated 29.08.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.13699, 21416 & 16254 of 2019 is sought to be assailed in the present intra-court appeal. 2. The initial question raised before this Court is whether the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Jah Developers Case reported in 2019 (6) SCC 787 would have prospective or retrospective application in respect of the cases for declaration of willful defaulter prior to the pronouncement of the Judgment.

3. The second question raised by the respondent would be that a copy of the order passed by the Identification Committee and the Review Committee have not been served on the respondents, which is in violative of the Reserve Bank Master Guidelines and in violation of the Rules of natural justice.

4. Mr.M.L.Ganesh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Bank would submit that Jah Developers case cited supra would have only prospective application and the principles have already been reiterated subsequently by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In support of his contention, in the case of P.V.George and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) SCC 557, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the principle regarding the application of Jah Developer's Case, whether prospective or not. In para.13 of the Judgment, Justice S.B.Sinha, J. reiterated that the legal position is clear that the decision of the Courts will have normally prospectively applied, unless it is specifically directed. Para.13 and

14 of the said Judgment reads as under:

"13. The ratio laid down by this Court, as noticed hereinafter, categorically shows the effect of a decision which had not been directed to have a prospective operation. The legal position in clear and unequivocal terms was stated by a Division Bench of this Court in M.A.Murthy v. State of Karnataka and Ors. MANU/SC/0662/2003 : [2003] 264 ITR 1 (SC) in the following terms:

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is erroneous as the law declared by this Court is presumed to be the law at all times. Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. The doctrine of prospective over-ruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to the normal principle of law, was imported and applied for the first time in L.C.Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B.Karunakar and Ors., the view was adopted. Prospective over-ruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to by this Court while superseding the law declared by it earlier. It is a device innovated to avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. In other words, actions taken contrary to the law declared prior to the date of declaration are validated in larger public interest. The law as declared applies to future cases. (See Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Baburam v. C.C.Jacob. It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective over-ruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective over-ruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to be consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error b