Precedent - Law of Precedent

Conflicts between Benches

Law of Precedents

There are three mutually repugnant streams of precedents:

(i) Subordinate court may follow the earlier precedent, i.e., view of the earlier vintage will prevail.

(ii) Later Decision will prevail: Joseph v. Special Tehsildar (2001) 1 KLT 958 (FB). Vasant Tatabo Hargude & Ors. v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari, AIR 1980 Bom. 341; Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1980 Kant 92)

(iii) Better in point of law:

Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanti Devi, AIR 1987 Pat. 191 (FB) Where the law has been laid down more elaborately and accurately.

In Swin Times Limited v. Umrao & Ors., AIR 1981 P&H 213 (FB), contradiction in two judgments of the Supreme Court in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, AIR 1980 SC 1118; and Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandanlal Shamal Das Patel (1971) 3 SCC 821, on the line of representation of the entity for which the land is acquired in land acquisition cases for determination of amount of compensation (It was held positively in 1980 case but repelled in 1971 case).

Vedica Procon Private Ltd. v. Balleshwar Greens Private Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3103, the Supreme Court found contradiction in two judgments of the court of equal strength on the issue of opening of sale in liquidation proceedings in Navalkha and Sons vs. Ramanuja Das & Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 537; and Divya Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, (2000) 6 SCC 69, observing that in the latter case, the Supreme Court departed from the principle laid down in 1969 case – unnecessarily, thus 1969 case followed.