Whether different benches of high court can be permitted to pass contradictory orders?
Time and again we have observed that the Court acts as one
Court. The Judges sitting at different Benches at the same Seat or on
different Benches at the Principal Seat and its Benches cannot be permitted
to pass the orders contrary to the orders passed by other Benches. At least
in a lis between the same parties, there has to be consistency in the orders
passed by different Benches. If this is not done and every Judge is
permitted to pass the orders contrary to the orders passed by the other
Bench, it would create chaos. This would lead to a situation of crisscross
and it would hit at the basic doctrine of 'Rule of Law'.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of
Official Liquidator...Versus...Dayanand and others, reported in (2008)
10 Supreme Court Cases 1, in paragraph no.78, has held as under :
“78. There have been several instances of
different Benches of the High Courts not following the
judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger Benches. In
some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of
ignoring the law laid down by this Court without any
tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in
which smaller Benches of this Court have either ignored or
bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches
including the Constitution Benches. These cases are
illustrative of nonadherence to the rule of judicial discipline
which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. In
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. this
Court observed : (AIR p.941, para 19)
“19. …...If one thing is more necessary in
law than any other thing, it is the quality of
certainty. That quality would totally disappear if
Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court
start overruling one another's decisions. If one
Division Bench of a High Court is unable to
distinguish a previous decision of another
Division Bench, and holding the view that the
earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that
view the result would be utter confusion. The
position would be equally bad where a Judge
sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that
the previous decision of another Single Judge on
a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that
view instead of referring the matter to a larger
Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know
how to advise their clients and all courts
subordinate to the High Court would find
themselves in an embarrassing position of having
to choose between dissentient judgments of their
own High Court.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.867/2013
PETITIONER : M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd.,
...Versus...
Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 18.06.2015
Citation;2016 (1) MHLJ382
Court. The Judges sitting at different Benches at the same Seat or on
different Benches at the Principal Seat and its Benches cannot be permitted
to pass the orders contrary to the orders passed by other Benches. At least
in a lis between the same parties, there has to be consistency in the orders
passed by different Benches. If this is not done and every Judge is
permitted to pass the orders contrary to the orders passed by the other
Bench, it would create chaos. This would lead to a situation of crisscross
and it would hit at the basic doctrine of 'Rule of Law'.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of
Official Liquidator...Versus...Dayanand and others, reported in (2008)
10 Supreme Court Cases 1, in paragraph no.78, has held as under :
“78. There have been several instances of
different Benches of the High Courts not following the
judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger Benches. In
some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of
ignoring the law laid down by this Court without any
tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in
which smaller Benches of this Court have either ignored or
bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches
including the Constitution Benches. These cases are
illustrative of nonadherence to the rule of judicial discipline
which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. In
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. this
Court observed : (AIR p.941, para 19)
“19. …...If one thing is more necessary in
law than any other thing, it is the quality of
certainty. That quality would totally disappear if
Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court
start overruling one another's decisions. If one
Division Bench of a High Court is unable to
distinguish a previous decision of another
Division Bench, and holding the view that the
earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that
view the result would be utter confusion. The
position would be equally bad where a Judge
sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that
the previous decision of another Single Judge on
a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that
view instead of referring the matter to a larger
Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know
how to advise their clients and all courts
subordinate to the High Court would find
themselves in an embarrassing position of having
to choose between dissentient judgments of their
own High Court.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.867/2013
PETITIONER : M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd.,
...Versus...
Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 18.06.2015
Citation;2016 (1) MHLJ382
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/02/whether-different-benches-of-high-court.html
