Subsequent SC Decisions Which Have Considered & Distinguished Earlier Judgments Binding On High Courts

Case: Gregory Patrao vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: CA 4105-4107 OF 2022

Court Observation: “Thus, it was not open for the High Court to not follow the binding decision of this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra) by observing that in the subsequent decision in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) have not been considered. The High Court has not noted that as such while deciding the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), this Court did consider the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) and had clearly distinguished the same. Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Being a subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court”

“We see no reason to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra) that the MRPL being a subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a “person interested” for the purpose of determination of compensation”

Previous Posts

(Matrimonial Offences) Burden Lies Upon Prosecution To Prove First Marriage & Legality Of Second Marriage: MP High Court

Provision Enabling Employee To Get Higher Gratuity Prevails Over One That Limits The Gratuity Amount: Kerala High Court

If Party Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property Is Aware About Sale In Favour Of A Third Party, It Must Implead The Latter As An Objector: Delhi HC

If Tender Conditions/ Award Of Contract Is In Public Interest, Court Can’t Interfere Even If Procedural Aberration/ Error In Assessment Made Out: Delhi HC

Can’t Interfere With Discretionary Order Condoning Delay In Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 Unless There Is Total Non-Application Of Mind: Delhi HC

Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable By Person Already Enlarged On Bail As He Is Under Constructive Custody: J&K&L High Court

Section 27 Evidence Act- Discovery Of Weapon At The Instance Of Accused By Itself Does Not Prove That He Had Concealed Or Used It: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Action Based On Subjective Opinion/Satisfaction Of Authority

Supreme Court Remands Appeal In 1964 Suit To High Court For Fresh Decision After 16 Years

GST – Provisional Attachment Power ‘Draconian’; Not Intended To Authorize Commissioners To Make Preemptive Strikes On Assessee’s Property Download Judgement

Keywords

Subsequent SC Decisions, Distinguished Earlier Judgments