9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he administration of justice are of paramount importance. But, if the earlier judgment is erroneous or adherence to the rule of precedents results in manifest injustice, differing from the earlier judgment will be permissible. It is thus beyond dispute that a decision which is per incuriam is not a binding judicial precedent. It is also well-settled that when it is not open to a High Court Bench to differ from the decision of a Bench of equal strength, it cannot also be open to a Bench of this Tribunal to differ from the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of equal strength. The only option in case one doubts the correctness of such a decision is to refer the matter for constitution of a larger Bench. A decision ignoring this rule of precedent, which is duly approved by the Hon ble Courts from time to time, cannot but be viewed as per incuriam. Therefore, following the Hon ble AP Court Full Bench decision in the case of B.R. Constructions [ 1992 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , such a decision of the co-ordinate Bench was no precedence value. Accordingly, following Hon ble AP Full Bench judgment in the case of B.R. Constructions (supra), we decline to be guided by the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no bearing on the question before the Tribunal. Once a co-ordinate Bench comes to this conclusion, it is not open to another co-ordinate Bench to come to any other conclusion on that issue. This is so held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P.) Ltd. To that extent, Tribunal s decision in the case of Prince SWR Systems (P.) Ltd. ( supra ) appears to be in our humble understanding, per incuriam. In the case of Paras Laminates (P.) Ltd. ( supra ), Hon ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows : "It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. This is particularly true when the earlier decision is rendered by a larger Bench. The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. Persons affected by decisions of Tribunals or Courts have a right to expect that those exercising judicial functions will follow the reason or ground of the judicial decision in the earlier cases on identical matters. Classification of particular goods adopted in earlier decisions must not be lightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993] 202 ITR 222 1 (FB). In his inimitable style, Justice S.S.M. Quadri (as he then was) has articulated the views of the Full Bench of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court as follows : "In a country like ours which is governed by rule of law, law has to be certain and uniform which is fundamental to the rule of law. In Mamleshwar v. Kanahaiya Lal AIR 1975 SC 907, Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, observed (at page 909) : Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts all flowering from the same principle-converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. In this concurring judgment in State of U.P. v. Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. [1991] 4 SCC 139, 163, the observation of Sahai, J. on this aspect is : Uniformity and consistency are the core of judicial discipline. That is why the doctrine of stare decisis is part of our judicial system. This doctrine means to abide by former precedents . Blackstone elucidated the doctrine thus : For it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation : as well as to keep the scale of justice even and steady and not liable to waiver wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and confusion that otherwise would prevail. The effect of binding precedents in India is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the courts. Indeed, article 141 of the Constitution embodies the rule of precedent. All the subordinate courts are bound by the judgments of the High Court. A single Judge of a High Court is bound by the judgment of another single Judge and a fortiori judgments of Benches consisting of more judges than one. So also, a Division Bench of a High Court is bound by judgments of another Division Bench and Full. A single judge or Benches of High Courts cannot differ from the earlier judgments of co-ordinate jurisdiction merely because they hold a different view on the question of law for the reason that certainty and uniformity in the administration of justice are of paramount importance. But, if the earlier judgment is erroneous or adherence to the rule of precedents results in manifest injustice, differing from the earlier judgment will be permissible. When a Division Bench differs from the judgment of another Division Bench, it has to refer the case to a Full Bench. A single judge cannot differ from a decision of a Division Bench except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reasoning does not destroy its binding force. In Choudhry Bros case [1986] 158 ITR 224 , as noticed above, the Division Bench treated the judgment in Ch. Atchaiah s case [1979] 116 ITR 675, as per incuriam on the ground that the earlier Division Bench did not notice the significant changes the charging section 3 has undergone by the omission of the words or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually . In our view, this cannot be a ground to treat an earlier judgment as per incuriam . The change in the provisions of the Act was present in the mind of the Court which decided Ch. Atchaiah s case [1979] 116 ITR 675. Merely because the conclusion arrived at on construing the provisions of the charging section under the old Act as well as under the new Act did not have the concurrence of the latter Bench, the earlier judgment cannot be called per incuriam. Though a judgment rendered per incuriam can be ignored even by a lower court, yet it appears that such a course of action was not approved by the House of Lords in Cassell Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] 1 All ER 801, wherein the House of Lords disapproved the judgment of the Court of Appeal treating an earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
