Team  SoOLEGAL

VIEWS IN THE LAID JUDGMENTS TO ACT AS BINDING PRECEDENTS IF NO CONTRARY OPINION IS EXPRESSED: Supreme Court

Team SoOLEGAL 18 Mar 2019 2:04pm

VIEWS IN THE LAID JUDGMENTS TO ACT AS BINDING PRECEDENTS IF NO CONTRARY OPINION IS EXPRESSED: Supreme Court

In Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji vs. Union of India, Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari gave answer to the question that whether a view on a legal issue expressed in a lead judgment delivered by one of the judges of a Supreme Court bench is a binding precedent if the other judges of the bench in their concurring opinions did not express any opinion on it?

The bench relied on one of the judgments of House of Lords in The Guardians of the Poor of the West Derby Union vs. The Guardians of the Poor of the Atcham Union to arrive at its conclusion and observation that:

"We are of the considered view that law laid down in the lead judgment in Express Newspaper (supra) is the law by three Hon'ble Judges who constituted the Bench and thus binds all the Courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution. It satisfies the test laid down by Lord Esher M.R. in the case of The Guardian (supra)."

Further, the bench noted that in State of Rajasthan vs. Padavati Devi, this judgment had been followed by Supreme Court and it was held that the State Government cannot take recourse to a summary remedy of eviction of a person under the State Revenue Laws from the land when such person raises a bona fide dispute about his right to remain in occupation over such land.
The petitioners contended that the provisions of  the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 Act are applied only on the properties which belong to the Central or State Govt. So, the proceedings under the PP Act can be initiated against a person only when he is found to be in its unauthorized occupation without any lawful authority from its real owner i.e. the Central/State Government. Also, that in situations where there is a bona fide dispute between the two rival claimants over a property about their ownership such as the one which has arisen in the case at hand, the remedy of the parties lies in filing a civil suit in the civil court and seek a declaration of their ownership over the property in accordance with law but not to take recourse to any summary remedy to evict a person.

Tagged: SupremeCourt   JusticeAbhayManoharSapreJusticeDineshMaheshwari   Precedent   Judgment  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Send
Digital Payment Systemview all

Active Members

Have you activated yours ?

New Members view all
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.