Union Of India & Ors vs M.C.Sharma
- SCC(2012) 5 SCC 633
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a precedent decision of this Court has been overruled by a later decision of a larger Bench, reliance by the High Court upon the earlier overruled decision constitutes material non-disclosure of subsequently developed law, and a judgment resting on such reliance should be set aside even where the High Court would not have erred had it been informed of the later larger Bench decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M.C. SHARMA ... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 19.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Writ Petition No.5607 of 2010.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. The High Court, while granting relief sought for by the
appellants, has primarily relied on a decision of this Court in the
case of Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India,
decided on 7th April, 1988, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 406.
5. At the time of hearing of this appeal, it is brought to
our notice by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the
decision of this Court in the case of Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary
(supra) has been over-ruled by a larger Bench of this Court in the
case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Satish Kumar,decided on October
25, 2005, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 360.
6. In our opinion, had the appellants brought to the notice
of the High Court, the decision of the larger Bench of this Court in
Satish Kumar's case (supra), we do not think the High Court would
: 2 :
have committed a mistake in over-looking the later judgment of a
larger Bench of this Court.
7. In this view of the matter, we cannot sustain the judgment
and order passed by the High Court and the same is set aside, since
the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the
case of Satish Kumar (supra).
Appeal allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)
.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 13, 2012
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free