2011 (9) TMI 1079 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflicting judgments by coequal benches of the Supreme Court.
2. Applicability of conflicting Supreme Court decisions.
3. Doctrine of merger.
4. Interpretation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
5. Meaning and application of "per incuriam" and "sub silentio."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflicting Judgments by Coequal Benches of the Supreme Court:
The primary issue before the Full Bench was determining which principles to follow when faced with conflicting judgments rendered by coequal benches of the Supreme Court. The court noted that this situation presents a significant challenge to High Courts and Subordinate Courts.

2. Applicability of Conflicting Supreme Court Decisions:
In the case at hand, the petitioners relied on conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, including Ratansingh v. Vijaysingh, Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, and State of Kerala v. Kondottyparamban Moosa. The respondents cited Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal. The Full Bench analyzed these cases to understand the legal principles and their applicability.

3. Doctrine of Merger:
The court examined the doctrine of merger, particularly in Chandi Prasad's case, where it was held that when an appellate court passes a decree, the decree of the trial court merges with the appellate court's decree. This doctrine does not apply when an appeal is dismissed due to delay in filing, as clarified in Chandi Prasad and Kondottyparamban Moosa.

4. Interpretation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India:
Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. The court discussed the impact of this article, especially in light of conflicting judgments by coequal benches. It noted that various High Courts have taken different views on whether to follow the later decision or the one that more explicitly and correctly lays down the legal principles.

5. Meaning and Application of "Per Incuriam" and "Sub Silentio":
The court delved into the principles of "per incuriam" (decisions rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent) and "sub silentio" (decisions where a particular point of law is not perceived by the court). The court emphasized that a decision rendered without considering an earlier binding decision or statutory provision may be considered "per incuriam."

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that in cases of conflicting decisions by coequal benches of the Supreme Court, the later decision should be followed. The court reiterated that the essence of a decision is its ratio decidendi, and not every observation within the judgment. The court also emphasized that High Courts and Subordinate Courts must follow the binding decisions of the Supreme Court as per Article 141, and they should not critique or characterize such decisions as "per incuriam" without proper grounds. The court underscored the importance of judicial discipline and the need to follow the hierarchy of precedents to ensure consistency and certainty in the law.