Whether findings of facts given by court or judgment on concession is binding as precedent?

 So far as the first question is concerned, Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law. It is, therefore, an essential function of the Court to interpret a legislation. The statements of the Court on matters other than law like facts may have no binding force as the facts of two cases may not be similar. But what is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of facts. It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence. To determine whether a decision has 'declared law' it cannot be said to be a law when a point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a decision. A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. An 'obiter dictum' as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight. The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. So far as constitutional matters are concerned, it is a practice of the Court not to make any pronouncement on points not directly raised for its decision. The decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court (see AIR 1970 SC 1002 and AIR 1973 SC 794). 

Supreme Court of India

Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court can cancel the bail granted to accused even when there are no supervening circumstances

However, the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the learned ASG and discussed hereinabove, vest courts with the power and discretion to cancel bail even when there are no supervening circumstances. The principles that can be gleaned from these judgments to guide the courts in such situations may be illustratively stated as below:-

a) Where the court granting bail ignores relevant material and takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature;

b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the position of the accused qua the victim especially if the accused is in some position of authority such as a policeman and there is prima facie, a misuse of position and power, including over the victim;

c) Where the court granting bail ignores the past criminal record and conduct of the accused while granting bail;

d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds;

e) Where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice;

f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place, given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified;

g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 1468/2020

Decided On: 06.05.2020

 The State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Chawla

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Asha Menon, J.

Print Page

Whether an order can be reviewed on ground that it was passed due to misconception of court?

It  is an error apparent on the face of the record  if  the
judgment   does  not  deal  effectively  and  determine   an
important  issue in the case on which depends the  title  of
the plaintiff and the maintainability of the suit.
To decide against a party on matters,which do not come with-
in the issues on which parties went to trial clearly amounts
to an error apparent on the face of the record.
Where the error complained of is that the Court assumed that
a  concession had been made when in fact none had been made
or  that the Court misconceived the terms of the  concession
or  the scope and extent of it or the attitude taken, up  by
the  party  and has been misled by a misconception  of such
alleged  concession,  such  error  must  be  regarded  as  a
sufficient  reason analogous to an error on the face of  the
record within the meaning of Order 47, rule I of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
Such error will not generally appear on the record and will
have  to  be  brought  before  the  Court  by  means  of  an
affidavit.

Supreme Court of India

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos ... vs The

 Most Rev. Mar Poulose ... on 21 May, 1954

Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR SC 526, 1955 SCR 520

BENCH:
JAGANNADHADAS, B.
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
HASAN, GHULAM

Print Page

Whether concession by counsel on question of fact is binding on client?

It is also clear that the High Court has recorded in the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2009 that the counsel agreed with instructions from the plaintiff and reiterated this fact in its order dated 28.08.2009 in Misc. Civil No. 13474 of 2009 in the above-mentioned RFA while rejecting the plea of the counsel for the appellant herein that he did not give consent that he had no instructions from his clients A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact is binding on the client, but if it is on a question of law, it is not binding.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Gokhale

Citation: (2011) 12 SCC 658

Print Page

Whether concession made by counsel on question of fact is binding on client?

 It is also clear that the High Court has recorded in the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2009 that the counsel agreed with instructions from the plaintiff and reiterated this fact in its order dated 28.08.2009 in Misc. Civil No. 13474 of 2009 in the above-mentioned RFA while rejecting the plea of the counsel for the appellant herein that he did not give consent that he had no instructions from his clients A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact is binding on the client, but if it is on a question of law, it is not binding. [vide:

Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao & Anr.1

Supreme Court of India

Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Gokhale

Print Page

Whether concession made by govt advocate on the question of law can be said to be binding upon Govt?

It is well settled in law that there can be no estoppel against law. Consent given in a court that a controversy is covered by a judgment which has no applicability whatsoever and pertains to a different field, cannot estopp the party from raising the point that the same was erroneously cited.

In Union of India vs. Hira Lal and Others[6], it has been held that the concession made by the government advocate on the question of law could not be said to be binding upon the Government.

In B.S. Bajwa and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others[7], a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had granted the relief on the basis of concession given by the learned Additional Advocate General without considering the effect of the same or of taking into account the inconsistency with its earlier finding. This Court held that the concession on the point, being one of law, could not bind the State and, therefore, it was open to the State to withdraw and it had been so done by filing a review petition in the High Court itself.

Supreme Court of India

State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Surendra Mohnot And Ors on 30 June, 1947

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Dipak Misra

Citation;2014 ALLSCR3624

Print Page