IN JUDGMENTS USE OF EXPRESSIONS LIKE ‘FELL INTO GRAVE ERROR’ IS NOT DESIRABLE IN VIEW OF COMPLEXITY OF LAWS – a point of view.

[DEVKUMAR KOTHARI]

Complexity of law:

Complexity of law is very much and certainty of law is very difficult. This is evident from experience we gain from past judgments. Even judgment of the Supreme Court may not be final, if challenged / considered by larger bench. We find many judgments of division bench of the Supreme Court referred for reconsideration and then different view is taken on the matter by larger bench, /constitutional bench. For this, there are specific provisions and procedures also.

Law is complex, applicability of law and different judges may consider selection of applicable law differently.

Mood factor should not affect judgment, but after all mood is a natural factor in life of judges also. Therefore, sometimes mood factor also play a role while considering any matter and delivering judgment.

Qualification and experience of judges:

At different level, qualification of judges may be equal but experience and expertise may be different in different fields. Many of judges of High Courts are eligible for elevation as judge of the Supreme Court. May be judges of High Court who rendered judgment are even more senior than judge deciding the matter in the Supreme Court.  Likewise, may of members of Tribunals are eligible for elevation to judge of High Court.

Difference of opinions not necessarily mistakes:

Interpretation of law and application of the same vis a vis facts of any case and delivering judgment are not  exact  science. To some extent, application of settled rules can be called akin to application of  science but due to involvement of natural factors, nature of people involved, human intervention in different manner at all levels, the matter before a judge is a complex subject and is mix of art and science both.

Therefore, a judgment rendered in a way or other is likely to be difference of opinion and not necessarily due to a mistake, or error or grave error.

From some judgments:

Some parts or portions from some judgments are mentioned below with highlights added for relevance:

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER VERSUS M/S WIPRO LIMITED [2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT]

From submissions of counsels:

“ 3. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Revenue has vehemently contended that in the present case, as the conditions mentioned in Section 10B (8) of the IT Act are not complied with, inasmuch as the declaration was not filed before the due date of filing of return, both, the ITAT and the High Court have committed a grave error in allowing the assessee’s claim for carrying forward of losses under Section 72 of the IT Act.”

From the judgment

“ 14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The same is erroneous and contrary to the unambiguous language contained in Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. We hold that for claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The orders passed by the High Court as well as ITAT taking a contrary view are hereby set aside and it is held that the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act on noncompliance of the twin conditions as provided under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

S. RAMACHANDRA RAO VERSUS S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS. [2022 (11) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS . 7691-7694 OF 2022

Dated: - 19-10-2022

16. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the aforesaid orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 operate as res judicata and create a bar in raising of the issue again as regards capacity of the wife of the appellant in these matters. The High Court has fallen in grave error in ignoring the said previous inter partes binding decisions.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, KANPUR VERSUS M/S. A.R. POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ETC. [2023 (3) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9569 - 70 OF 2019

Dated: - 21-3-2023

18. Further, It is important to note that the tribunal in its reasoning for passing the impugned judgment only considered whether the goods in question were notified by way of a gazette, and did not consider the other four relevant conditions laid down by the Jayanti foods judgment. By not considering other relevant considerations, it is our opinion that the tribunal has committed a grave error in law, and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Observations of author:

In both above cases we find that there was difference of opinion and not necessarily mistake or error committed by High Court / Tribunal. The difference was due to application of underlying  law  and formation of opinion at the time of rendering judgment. In personal view of author, therefore, use of expression like fell into grave error or committed grave error and similar expressions deserve avoidance by counsels and judges also.

We find in some  reported judgments  use of language by counsels and judges of superior court like with due respect we differ with opinion of ......

In search on this website with criteria case laws , ‘anywhere’ and text ‘ with respect we differ’’ and any court  author found 10524 records.

On further refined search with addition in criteria Supreme Court result found are 1522 records. Which is 14.46%

 In these results, there can be use of the expression many times even in a single judgment, if we estimate only 10 percent of judgment in which judges might have used the expression number would be 1052 judgments. This need a study, readers can also make an effort and send their feedback.