Top Highlights

• . In so far as the second instance is concerned, the Supreme Court, in plethora of judgments, has held that a coordinate bench or co-equal bench cannot give a decision contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate benc
• h. The rationale for such principle is that precedent law must be followed by all and deviation from it should only be on a procedure known to law. Further, judicial discipline demands that judicial propriety and judicial decorum must be followed in all circumstances. Therefore, coordinate bench should not embark upon the exercise of inquiring abou...
• A second situation can arise when conflicting judgments of coordinate benches of a higher court are cited before a lower court. In that case, it becomes difficult for a lower court to decide which decision correctly lays down the law. For example, (i) conflicting decisions of Supreme Court coordinate benches are presented before a High Court, (ii) ...
• owever, the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered in 2001[2] has observed that even when the High Court was faced with diametrically opposite judgments the Supreme Court, it was expected to decide the case on merit according to its own interpretation of the said judgments.
• This decision was followed as a precedent by the Delhi High Court in Simplex Concrete Piles[3] in which various other judgments of High Courts[4] were cited which have held that in case of conflict between the judgment of the Supreme Court coordinate benches, the High Court should follow the judgment which appears to them to state the law accuratel...

Domain