Whether high court Judges at principal seat can set aside order passed by division bench at Nagpur?

The petitioner has raised the grounds in the petition, which are akin to an appeal. As we have already adverted to and indicated with sufficient clarity that we are not a court of appeal. We are not a superior or higher court. We are but a coordinate Bench of the same court. The principal seat of this court cannot be said to be an appellate court and which can set aside a judgment of the Division Bench of this court rendered at Nagpur. Similarly, it has no powers by which it can issue binding directions to its own Benches or overturn or reverse their orders and judgments. If there is any defect or lacuna of such serious nature as is projected in this petition, it was open for the petitioner to have brought it to the notice of the very Bench. Even if that plea was of recusal, on rejection thereof, it was open for him to complain to the higher court. It was also open to him at that stage to request for transfer of the proceedings from Nagpur to the principal seat. That the petitioner awaits, till the final judgment is delivered, for such a plea to be raised, is undisputed. We are called upon and engaged in deciding the correctness and propriety, legality and validity of a final judgment of the coordinate Bench and which, the petitioner knows, binds him. We agree with Mr. Patil that if we follow the course suggested by the petitioner, it would set a very bad precedent. Then every litigant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders and judgments delivered at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa (for which State this is a common High Court) would rush to this court's principal seat at Bombay and challenge it. The rule of law would be subverted if routinely such challenges are entertained at the principal seat. Then, nobody would resort to appellate remedies available in law and approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court as is the position before us. Apart from violating judicial discipline, such challenges, if entertained, would mean no order or judgment is final and binding within this court. The successful adversary or litigants like the petitioner would be harassed and vexed repeatedly. There would be no certainty and no finality to any proceedings and orders. Apart therefrom, there will be disharmony and discontent amongst the Judges of this court. No Bench will respect and have due regard to final orders and judgments of another Bench or the principal seat and vice-versa. Fraternity amongst the judges and real brotherhood would have to be preserved and protected at all costs. Disenchantment and disharmony within the judges of this court cannot be allowed and encouraging it would not be conducive to smooth and efficient administration of justice. That will be a casualty and irrespective of where the cause of action arises every litigant will institute proceedings wherever he finds it convenient and comfortable. Lawyers and litigants will take their chances and even if the Hon'ble Chief Justice does not exercise his/her power of transfer the proceedings can sometimes go on in a parallel manner before the Benches and the principal seat. The warning sounded by the learned counsel, therefore, ought to be take in the right spirit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2017

Decided On: 04.06.2017

Satish Mahadeorao Uke Vs. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Dharmadhikari and P.D. Naik, JJ.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 202

Print Page

Whether single Judge can criticize decision of Division Bench?

In this backdrop, it is indeed unfortunate that the learned Single
Judge has embarked upon an adventure to disagree with the decision of a 
Division Bench in Ultra Home (supra), albeit, as a student of law‘. It is
not open to a Single Judge (and more particularly a trial court) to differ
from or critically appraise a decision of a Division Bench (and more
particularly of an appellate court). Once it is recognized that the decision
of the Division Bench is binding on the Single Judge, there is no need to
express any difference of opinion or disagreement or purport to give
reasons for the said difference of opinion or to even suggest that the
decision of the Division Bench may need re-consideration. That is only in
the domain of another Bench of co-equal strength. In any event, the
findings and observations of the learned Single Judge with respect to its
interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Dalia (supra), to the
extent they are contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in Ultra
Home (supra), are set aside.
 Lastly, and with some anguish, we may observe that we find it
difficult to comprehend as to why the learned Single Judge went to such
lengths so as to devote 18 paragraphs spanning from page 29 to page 43 of
the impugned judgment to record his difference of opinion with the
decision in Ultra Home (supra) when, according to the learned Single
Judge himself, the so-called difference of opinion did not come in his way 
in deciding the present case as it had no relevance‘, according to him, to
the present case. Such an unnecessary pursuit and adventure has been
undertaken by the learned Single Judge while at the same time the learned
Single Judge rued over the fact of overflowing dockets and heavy
workloads of courts. Why was such a fruitless and futile academic‘
exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge? This would remain a
mystery?
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 03.08.2016
 FAO(OS) 145/2016
M/S RSPL LIMITED 
v
MUKESH SHARMA & ANR ..
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Print Page

Supreme court; Every High Court must give due deference to enunciation of law made by another High Court

The Defendant-Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in
the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in
being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that
every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by
another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction.
However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants arethe same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless
restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably
erupt since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in
the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order. Anarchy would
be loosed on the Indian Court system. Since the Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more.

 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2006

Neon Laboratories Ltd. V Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors.

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Dated;October 5, 2015.
Citation;(2016)2 SCC 672

Print Page

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
 M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd V Rupee Co­operative Bank Ltd., 
    
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
        CORAM  : B.R. GAVAI AND
              INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
        DATE      : 18.06.2015
Citation;2016 (1) MHLJ382,2017(1) ALLMR605

Print Page

Members of Subordinate judiciary look up to High Court not only for discipline but also for dignity.

 The High Court for the reasons which are not stated decided to depute the Director of Vigilance to hold an enquiry. It is indeed strange that the High Court which had control over the judiciary asked the Government to hold an enquiry through the Vigilance Department. The members of the subordinate judiciary are not only, under the control of the High Court but are also under the care and custody of the High Court. The High Court failed to discharge the duty of preserving its control. The request by the High Court to hold an enquiry through the Director of Vigilance was an act of self abnegations. The High Court should have conducted the enquiry preferably through District Judges. The members of the Subordinate judiciary look up to High Court not only for discipline but also for dignity. The enquiry officer nominated by the Director of Vigilance recorded the statements of witnesses behind the back of the appellant. The enquiry was to ascertain the truth of allegations of misconduct. Neither the report nor the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer reached the appellant. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on allegations of misconduct. The High Court accepted the report of Enquiry Officer and wrote to the Government that in the light of the report, the appellant was not a suitable person to be retained in service.

Supreme Court of India

Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974

Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2192, 1975 SCR (1) 814

Print Page