Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Judicial Approach to Limitation Periods in Last Two Years
Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods for initiating proceedings. For example, in ["Josco Fashion Jewellers vs State of Kerala - Kerala"], it was held that proceedings initiated beyond the five-year limit under Section 25(1) are barred, stating: the proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 with respect to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are beyond the limitation period of five years. Similarly, in ["PRIYA KHOSLA & ANR. vs RAKESH KHOSLA - Delhi"], the court observed that even after 17th October 2017, nearly five years have passed before the present petition has been filed, highlighting delays exceeding prescribed time frames.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Courts are strict about limitation periods, and delays beyond five years often lead to dismissal or rejection of claims, underscoring the importance of timely filings in recent judgments.
Last Two Years as a Critical Period for Evidence and Conduct
Many judgments focus on the relevance of the last two to three years for assessing conduct or evidence. ["PRIYA KHOSLA & ANR. vs RAKESH KHOSLA - Delhi"] notes that there has been no adverse report against the petitioner for a period of last more than 03 years, and the last punishment was on 25.04.2019, with the petitioner maintaining good conduct thereafter. Similarly, ["Pradip Dhar VS Anil Karmakar (Deceased), Represented By Smt. Supriya Das - Calcutta"] discusses the period of good conduct being last two years under Rule 1210 Sub rule (II) Delhi Prison Rules 2018.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Recent judgments emphasize recent conduct and evidence, often limiting considerations to the last two to three years to assess eligibility or suitability, reflecting a trend towards recency in judicial evaluation.
Judicial Modifications and Considerations Due to Administrative Delays
Courts have shown flexibility where delays are attributable to administrative inaction. In ["Dharmendra Kumar Barnwal, S/o. Late Ganesh Lal Barnwal VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], the court recognized that no regular exercise for recruitment... has been undertaken in the last five years, leading to modifications in age limit considerations to address the plight of aspirants. Similarly, in ["PRIYA KHOSLA & ANR. vs RAKESH KHOSLA - Delhi"], the court considered the delay in recruitment processes and upheld the need for age relaxation due to administrative lapses.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Judgments in the last two years reflect a willingness to modify or relax rules in light of administrative delays, especially when inaction has caused eligible candidates to miss opportunities.
Recognition of Continuity and Long-Standing Practices
Some judgments acknowledge established practices and the importance of consistent application of rules over years. For instance, ["BOYAGODA v. MENDIS et al."] discusses the recognition of longstanding court practices regarding appeal periods, stating that a practice based upon such interpretation should be followed. Similarly, ["ARPANA PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED VS REGMA CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"] refers to the consistent application of limitation periods over years, citing previous rulings that uphold procedural consistency.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Recent judgments uphold the importance of established procedural practices and continuity, emphasizing that long-standing judicial interpretations should be maintained unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.
Impact of Judicial Decisions on Administrative and Recruitment Processes
Judgments have directly influenced administrative procedures, such as recruitment and assessment timelines. For example, ["Dharmendra Kumar Barnwal, S/o. Late Ganesh Lal Barnwal VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"] resulted in courts modifying age cut-offs and recruitment timelines due to prolonged delays. In ["PRIYA KHOSLA & ANR. vs RAKESH KHOSLA - Delhi"], the consideration of last five years' ARs (Annual Reports) influences promotion and assessment decisions, reflecting a trend of recent judgments shaping administrative actions.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Recent courts are actively shaping administrative procedures by emphasizing recent performance metrics and procedural timelines, often to ensure fairness amidst delays.
References:
- ["Dharmendra Kumar Barnwal, S/o. Late Ganesh Lal Barnwal VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]
- ["PRIYA KHOSLA & ANR. vs RAKESH KHOSLA - Delhi"]
- ["Suresh Pal vs The State Of M.P. - Madhya Pradesh"]
- ["Vinay Mohan vs Nidhi Singh - Allahabad"]
- ["BOYAGODA v. MENDIS et al."]
- ["NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (SPECIAL TEAM) - Kerala"]
- ["ARPANA PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED VS REGMA CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"]
- ["Josco Fashion Jewellers vs State of Kerala - Kerala"]
- ["PRIYA KHOSLA & ANR. vs RAKESH KHOSLA - Delhi"]
- ["Pradip Dhar VS Anil Karmakar (Deceased), Represented By Smt. Supriya Das - Calcutta"]
In the Indian judicial system, five-judge constitution benches play a pivotal role in resolving complex constitutional questions, overruling precedents, and clarifying ambiguous laws. These benches are constituted when significant legal issues arise that require authoritative interpretation, often stemming from conflicts between smaller benches or matters of national importance. If you're wondering, What are Five Bench Judgement Last Two Years?, this post dives into five landmark decisions from the Supreme Court of India over the recent period. These rulings have far-reaching implications for land acquisition, motor accident claims, mining regulations, and procedural norms for bench referrals.
This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases. Let's break down these judgments, drawing from official documents and related case law.
One critical ruling addressed the interplay between court-ordered stays and land acquisition timelines under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench to decide whether the period during which possession of acquired land was stayed by court orders should be excluded from the computation under Section 24(2) of the Act. This provision typically deems acquisition proceedings to have lapsed if compensation isn't paid or possession not taken within five years. Excluding stay periods could prevent automatic lapses, providing stability to ongoing projects. Yogesh Neema VS State of M. P. - Supreme Court
This referral underscores the tension between landowners' rights and developmental needs, ensuring higher benches clarify such procedural nuances.
In motor accident compensation claims, the treatment of 'future prospects'—additions to income for potential career growth—has been contentious for self-employed individuals. Unlike salaried employees, their income proof is often inconsistent. The five-judge bench left this question open, referring it to the Chief Justice of India for placement before a suitable larger bench. This decision highlights the need for uniform guidelines to ensure fair compensation without undue speculation. SHASHIKALA VS GANGALAKSHMAMMA - Supreme Court
Relatedly, courts have emphasized considering entire service records in analogous employment disputes, such as premature retirement cases where Annual Performance Reports (APRs) over the last five years must be reviewed holistically. Parvez Ahmad Shah VS State of J&K - 2017 Supreme(J&K) 552 APRs for the last five years have a meaning otherwise what is object of recording APRs.
A significant reference involved 11 questions on Sections 15(3), 2, and 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The five-judge bench deemed it necessary to refer these to a nine-judge bench, citing the need to reconsider the precedent in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra. This move addresses federal-state dynamics in mineral resource allocation, impacting mining leases and regulatory powers. Mineral Area Development Authority etc. VS Steel Authority of India - Supreme Court
In parallel contexts, tender conditions for mining-related contracts have been upheld if rationally justified, with courts deferring to state discretion unless arbitrary. Ladakh Road Lines VS State of J&K - 2018 Supreme(J&K) 737 If State can justify tender conditions in context of particular contract, Courts will not interfere.
Judicial hierarchy demands structured referrals. The Supreme Court ruled that a two-judge bench cannot directly escalate a matter to a five-judge or larger bench. Instead, if it finds a three-judge bench's judgment erroneous, it must refer to another three-judge bench first. This procedural safeguard prevents forum shopping and maintains bench integrity. SHASHIKALA VS GANGALAKSHMAMMA - Supreme Court Prafulla Kumar Das VS State Of Orissa - Supreme Court
This principle echoes in high court decisions, such as those distinguishing writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. For instance, orders of revenue authorities remain amenable to Article 226, unlike pure judicial orders of civil courts. Dinesh Chandra @ Dinesh Chandra Tiwari VS Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur - 2023 Supreme(All) 2433 Judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to Article 226 but may be reviewed under Article 227.
When differences arise between two- and three-judge benches, the Supreme Court stressed referring the issue to a five-judge bench in appropriate cases. This ensures consistency in jurisprudence, particularly on constitutional matters. Chandra Prakash VS State of U. P. - Supreme Court Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese: Communidade Of Cavelossim VS Land Acquisition Collector: Land Acquisition Collector - Supreme Court State Of Tripura VS Roop Chand Das - Supreme Court
Supporting this, a Constitution Bench reference pending for five years was noted in family law disputes, emphasizing timely resolution. Sivasankaran VS Santhimeenal - 2021 7 Supreme 130 We are conscious that the Constitution Bench is examining the larger issue but that reference has been pending for the last five years.
Full bench decisions in state matters, like the maintainability of second revision applications under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, affirm similar procedural rigor post-amendment. Shilpchintamani Co-operative Housing Soc. Ltd VS Prasad Govindrao Jamdar - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1860 The court established that under the amended Sec. 154... a second revision application is not maintainable once a revision has been exercised.
These five-judge bench referrals reflect the Supreme Court's commitment to doctrinal clarity. For example:
- In promotion disputes, departmental committees must apply 'seniority-cum-merit' without undue merit comparison, evaluating last five years' records transparently. Ashok Kumar Vajpayee VS State of M. P. - 2008 Supreme(MP) 12 In the last five years the three years grades at least should be good or higher and for last two years the grade should be good.
- Medically unfit candidates' claims for alternative employment underscore judicial discipline and parity. Union of India VS Shankar Kumar Sharma S/o Morarai Prasad - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 908
- Marital discord cases invoke Article 142 for divorce on irretrievable breakdown, even without mutual consent. Sivasankaran VS Santhimeenal - 2021 7 Supreme 130
| Judgment Theme | Key Issue | Reference |
|---------------|-----------|-----------|
| Land Acquisition | Stay exclusion under Sec. 24(2) | Yogesh Neema VS State of M. P. - Supreme Court |
| Motor Accidents | Future prospects for self-employed | SHASHIKALA VS GANGALAKSHMAMMA - Supreme Court |
| Mining Laws | MMDR Act interpretation | Mineral Area Development Authority etc. VS Steel Authority of India - Supreme Court |
| Referral Procedure | Two-judge to larger bench | SHASHIKALA VS GANGALAKSHMAMMA - Supreme Court Prafulla Kumar Das VS State Of Orissa - Supreme Court |
| Bench Conflicts | Five-judge necessity | Chandra Prakash VS State of U. P. - Supreme Court Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese: Communidade Of Cavelossim VS Land Acquisition Collector: Land Acquisition Collector - Supreme Court State Of Tripura VS Roop Chand Das - Supreme Court |
These judgments typically shape policy and practice, but outcomes may evolve with larger bench decisions. Stay informed on Supreme Court developments, as they influence diverse sectors from infrastructure to personal injury claims.
This post summarizes publicly available legal documents and is not exhaustive legal analysis. For tailored advice, seek professional counsel.
#FiveJudgeBench, #SupremeCourtIndia, #LegalJudgments
State of Jharkhand & Ors.” a coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the issue of whether fixing of the cut-off date can be held arbitrary merely because examinations were not conducted in the last few years. ... According to the petitioners, in the last five years after Advertisement No.12 of 2018 was issued no regular exercise for recruitment to the post of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was undertaken and, in the meantime, they crossed the upper age limit of 35 years#....
The petitioner has put to challenge a judgement and order dated 01.01.2019 passed by a Division Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. ... years. ... TIA/TIA or Cost Accountant in the scales mentioned thereunder for a minimum period of five years in the grade as on 12.03.1994. Last date of submission of application form was fixed on 20.08.1994. ... Firstly, the reason for fixing 12.03.1994 as the date on whic....
It is further argued that even if Rafiq Masih (supra) is deemed to apply to the present case, then as per para 18(iii) of the said judgement, the excess payment made for last preceding five years has to be upheld i.e. from 2019 to 2024 though at best, rest part can be set aside. ... So far as the further contention of the counsel for respondent Corporation that the recovery at least for last five years i.e. from 2019 to 2024 be confirmed, it is seen that the said woul....
-(1) An appeal shall lie from a Judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench Comprising of two judges of the same High Court: Provided that no such appeal shall ... Another judgement cited by the appellant was rendered by a Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Pallavi vs. Shri Raj Kamal : AIR 2008 JHAR 79. We have gone through the said judgement. ... Judge would not lie b....
A perusal of the said judgement of the Full Bench shows that out of the three questions framed for consideration, the first two questions are relevant for the present matter. ... State of Rajasthan (supra), it cannot be said that the reasoning adopted in the Full Bench judgement was in any manner incorrect or that a different view would have been taken if the said judgement was brought to the notice of the Full Bench. ... It was submitted that the Full Bench....
CASE referred under section 54A of the Courts Ordinance for decision by a Bench of Five Judges. The question involved was whether a petition of appeal had been filed within the period of time prescribed by section 754 of the Civil Procedure Code. ... - The question referred under section 54A of the Courts Ordinance for determination by a Bench of Five Judges relates to a preliminary objection to the hearing of Appeal No. 182, District Court (Interlocutory), Colombo, No. 19,574, upon the ground that the petition....
S.Najeem and another [2018(4)KHC 666(DB)], a Division Bench of this Court has held that the period of limitation to determine tax payable is five years as per Section 25(1) of the Act. ... In the case on hand, notice under Section 25(1) of the Act was issued on 17.09.2016, i.e., after five years from the last date of the period, to which the assessment relates, which is perfectly out of time. 5. ... On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is seen that the assessment year is 2010-11, in respect of w....
The case of the present petitioner does not fall in the category of those who have approached this Court after long delay, rather he had approached the learned CAT in 2009 itself five years before the said applicant Champeshwar Rajhansh had approached the learned CAT through O.A. ... The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the similar points were raised in OA no. 65 of 2010 and that OA was referred before the Full Bench due to dissenting opinion between the two members of the Division ....
was Rs. 3,66,75,221(Three Crore Sixty Six Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Only). ... Two Hundred and Thirty Only). ... -I, Chennai’, for getting its due back and that too, with the ‘Principal Sum’ of Rs. 1,91,55,230 (One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Only), together with interest at 24 %, per Annum, aggregating in all, Rs. 1,75,19,991 (One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs Nineteen Thousand ... Annum, on the said ‘Principal Sum’, of Rs.....
The Bench in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] also observed in para 25 of its judgement that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgement distinction in the two articles has been noted. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in re; Suraj Singh (supra), which is based on the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in re: Radhey Shy....
We are conscious that the Constitution Bench is examining the larger issue but that reference has been pending for the last five years.
Thus, the requirement of turnover of a tenderer was Rs.10.00 Crores in a year or Rs.50.00 Cores in last five years. In other words, the turnover of a firm in a particular year may be less than 10.00 Crores, but in any case, it had to be Rs.50.00 Crores in last five years. Crores for last five years instead of accruing in a year for last five years. In the amended terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender, it was provided that annual turnover of the tenderer shall be Rs.10.00 Crores in a year and Rs.50.00
Either it can be said that they have committed some fraud but that is not the case set up by the respondents or it can be said that these officers have committed any mistake while recording APRs. 17. APRs for the last five years have a meaning otherwise what is object of recording APRs. The immediate officers of the petitioner have a clear idea about functioning of the petitioner which they have reflected in the APRs.
In the last five years the three years grades at least should be good or higher and for last two years the grade should be good. (c ). The committee observed that where the comments etc. were not clear the Committee had assessed the concerned officer with their own wisdom and discretion and; (e ). In the last five years the three years grades at least should be good or higher and for last two years the grade should be good. (c ). The grades of last five years should not be bad. (d ). The grades of last five years should not be bad. (d ). The committee obse....
9. In the case of Bhagwan Das Sargaiyan (supra), a bench of this Court has considered similar criteria followed by a Departmental Promotion Committee wherein the DPC had evaluated the case of a employee by fixing the criteria of evaluating last five years ACR and the criteria fixed was that in last five years, three years CR should be good and last two years CR should be invariably good. "The principles of equality is applicable to employment at all stages and in all respects, namely, initial recruitment, promotion, retirement, payment of pension and gratuity. After taking ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
