Narendra Sharma

In State of U.P. Vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others {2005 (5) Suppl.SCR 906 , 2006 (1) SCC 667 , 2005 (10) SCALE 286 , 2006(1) JT19; Date of Judgment: 16/12/2005} hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows.

“In All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers’ Association v. State of Manipur [1991 Supp (2) SCC 643], this Court was confronted with various interim orders passed by the High Court from time to time in several writ petitions.  It was observed that if the direct recruitment takes place on one hand and substituted teachers are also directed to be regularized subsequently, it would create an enormous problem for the department to accommodate both the categories of persons and in the aforementioned situation, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court with a view to avoid further litigation and also to avoid seemingly conflicting interim orders issued by the High Court gave certain directions. Such directions having evidently been issued by this Court in EXERCISE OF ITS POWER UNDER ARTICLE 142 of the Constitution of India DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING PRECEDENT.  Even therein, the scope and ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 vis-`-vis existence of the statue and statutory rules and the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been taken into consideration.” (capitals supplied)

Further, in State of Kerala & Anr. Vs Mahesh Kumar & Ors. {(2009) 3 SCC 654; (2009) 3 JT 424; Decided on 23.02.2009} hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows (in para 20).

“20. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that the aforesaid remaining 8 persons be also given the same benefit as has been given to 40 teaching and 50 non-teaching staff and they shall be so accommodated in terms of their seniority. We, however, make it clear that THIS ORDER IS MADE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS and circumstances of this case and WOULD NOT, therefore, BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT in any other matter.” (capitals supplied).

COMMENTS: In view of aforesaid discussion, THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED by hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S.HARMAN ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. & ANR. Vs M/S. NATIONAL PANASONIC INDIA LTD. {2008 (16) SCALE 317; Decided on 12.12.2008} DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING PRECEDENT, because Supreme Court had EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 142 of the Constitution of India and directed as follows (in para 28):

“Para 28. For the views we have taken it must be held that Delhi High Court (typing error-should be DELHI COURT) has no jurisdiction to try the case. We, however, while EXERCISING OUR JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DIRECT that Complaint Case No.1549 pending in the Court of Shri N.K. Kaushik, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHANDIGARH who shall assign the same to a court of competent jurisdiction. The transferee court shall fix a specific date of hearing and shall not grant any adjournment on the date on which the complainant and its witnesses are present. The transferee court is furthermore directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records of the case on assignment by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.” (capitals supplied) (END)

Note: the views expressed are my personal and a view point only.

Note: The views expressed are my personal and a view point only.

(Author:  Author can be reached at Mobile-9229574214, E-mail: nkdewas@yahoo.co.in)

Click Here to Read Other Articles of the Author

More Under Corporate Law

Posted Under

Category : Corporate Law (3879)
Type : Articles (16743)
Tags : Narendra Sharma (47)

0 responses to “Directions issued by SC under Article 142 of Constitution do not constitute a binding precedent”

  1. Narendra Sharma says:

    Recently, in Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. Vs The State Of Gujarat & Ors. {2011 STPL (Web) 145 SC; (2011) 3 SCC 617; Decided on 18.02.2011} hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows (in para 14).

    “14. In the facts of the present case, we have found that the appellants were not to be blamed for having secured admission in the MBBS course and the fault was entirely of the rule-making authority in making the 2008 Rules and the appellants have gone through the pains of appearing in the common entrance test and have been selected on the basis of their merit and admitted into the MBBS course in the college in accordance with the State Rules, 2008 and have pursued their studies for a year. Hence, EVEN THOUGH UNDER THE MCI REGULATIONS THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION TO THE MBBS COURSE in the academic year 2008-2009, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING COMPLETE JUSTICE in the matter before us, WE DIRECT that the admissions of the appellants to the MBBS course in the college during the academic year 2008-2009 will not be disturbed. THIS DIRECTION SHALL NOT, however, BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” (capitals supplied)

  2. Sourav chatterjee says:

    a rectification petition u/s154 is not responed by the A.O., it was filed before him 9 months ago, relating to the tds refund claim (A.O. ordered to refund tds much lesser than the amount claimed).
    so, what is the appropriate action should be taken and how-
    (1)wait for the rectification order.
    (2)appeal.
    (3)revision.
    (4)sent a letter under RTI act for clarification.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *