Supreme Court

A case which does not decide any question of law or enunciate any principle of law and is a leave declining order does not pass as a binding precedent.

Scope of discretionary powers of the Chief Justice and his duties under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 in relation to constitution of benches and allocation of cases stated.

Not an enunciation of law by the Supreme Court.

Decision given by the Supreme Court on a point of law would be binding on concerned departmental functionaries who would be obliged to apply such legal principle in other similar cases regardless of whether or not a civil servant had litigated the matter in his own case

In view of Art.189 and 190 of the Constitution, a civil servant would be entitled to make a departmental representation or initiate legal proceedings before a competent forum to enforce a legal principle enunciated by the Supreme Court

Failure of a State functionary to apply a legal principle which was clearly and unambiguously attracted to a case, might expose him to proceedings under Art.204(2)(a) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court is not a court of appeal to reappraise evidence while exercising power under Art.212 (3) of the Constitution

Findings of fact given by Service Tribunal cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction.

Contention of the counsel for petitioner, in support of review petition, was that he (the counsel) was not in a proper frame of mind due to 'blood pressure' and other ailments at the relevant time, therefore, the concession attributed to him in the judgment of the Supreme Court may be recalled

Validity

Petitioner having been represented by another counsel as well, Supreme Court declined the review of judgment on the ground urged by the counsel of the petitioner.

Supreme Court does not express opinion on matters which do not arise directly out of lis before it or are abstract and academic proposition of law.

Constitution of India, Art. 129.

Constitution of India, Art. 141.

Such function could not be assumed by any other Court including the High Court.

Appraisal of evidence was not function of Supreme Court in circumstances.

Where out of 17 Judges of the Supreme Court, one Judge could not sit as he was respondent in the case and the other Judge refused to sit as his personal interest was involved and other five Judge declined to sit on the Full Court sitting, remaining 10 Judges constituted the Full Court in law, as no Judge could be compelled against his wish to participate in the Full Court proceedings.

Where out of 17 Judges of the Supreme Court, one Judge could not sit as he was respondent in the case and the other Judge refused to sit as his personal interest was involved and other five Judges declined to sit on the Full Court sitting remaining 10 Judges constituted the Full' Court in law as no Judge could be compelled against his wish to participate in the Full Court proceedings.

Permitted as question raised concluded by decision of the Supreme Court.

Court to ensure notice given to party.

Constitution of India, Art. 136

Supreme Court being at the apex has a Constitutional duty to do complete justice, thus, it can not be inhibited by any restraint and has an abiding duty to attend to all aspects and to take an overall view of the case in dispensing justice.

Supreme Court, after hearing of appeals, came to the conclusion that considering the subject-matter of appeals; it would be conducive to future amicable dealings between the parties if all future avenues of co-operation between them be explored, notwithstanding the small and insignificant matter involved in appeals

Counsel of parties were asked to help-their clients in reaching some amicable settlement .on the dispute

On perusal of the communications received from the parties in that behalf, Supreme Court observed that a sound basis had been provided for further progress and ultimate settlement of the dispute

Court, without commenting on the contents of the said communications or on the merits of the appeals, considered it just and proper to dispose of the appeals with the direction that the parties should proceed in-settling the dispute in accordance with the foundation laid down in the said two communications.

Court acting under rules framed by virtue of the Constitutional power was not bound to follow any other statutory dispensation which came in conflict with the independence of judiciary

Supreme Court was not even bound by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 in so far as regulation and control of practice and procedure of the Court itself was concerned.

Elaborate arrangement for liberal grant of adjournment and adjustment having been provided by the Supreme Court office, members of the Bar were desired to avail the facility instead of seeking adjournment at the time of hearing.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.191. Adjournment].

If Supreme Court while delivering judgment had referred to some judgments of Supreme Court bearing on the question in controversy not cited at the bar in the course of arguments, it could not be said that the other party was prejudiced or that it was being taken by surprise and that it had been prejudiced

Counsel of the parties should be cognizant of all the relevant judgments of Supreme Court bearing on the controversy and if on account of their lack of industry or ignorance they had failed to cite them, Supreme Court would be fully justified to refer to them while dealing with the controversy, it would indeed prejudice the litigants if the precedent law of Supreme Court was not taken into account while deciding cases since their decisions would be cited as a precedent in future.

General observations made by Supreme Court in a Criminal matter must be understood with reference to the facts of that particular case

Indiscriminate use of such observations was likely to result in miscarriage of justice.

When a judgment of the Supreme Court had been passed by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court and the review petition directed against said judgment was dismissed by a Bench of five Judges, if it is found that the rule laid down in the said judgment required to he varied, dissented from or overruled, a larger Bench of seven Judges could alone be in a position to do so.

[Practice and procedure].

Observation of Judges of Supreme Court that "difference of opinion existing between two Full Benches of different High Courts on the question involved in this appeal "should" be considered by a larger Bench", did not declare it as a law that such a decision by Bench of two Judges of Supreme Court, would

Question whether promotees could be considered and appointed on a promotion post not from the date of their selection or appointment or taking over of appointment, but from the date when the vacancies occurred having already been resolved by Supreme Court in earlier litigation between the parties, was final and binding and not open to questioning.

[Civil service].

Normal practice is that an affidavit is filed in Supreme Court stating that a point was argued but had not been dealt with by the High Court

Such practice meets ends of justice and is required to be followed

No such affidavit having been riled, Supreme Court was unable to hold that such point was raised before the High Court. [Affidavit

Practice and procedure].

Supreme Court will interfere if acquittal is perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust.

Failure to indicate statements so based-Affidavit is liable to be rejected.

Question of limitation, if related to the Trial Court, then unless it is taken up and pressed before the intervening higher Courts, Supreme Court would not entertain it.

Supreme Court refused to go into such question at appeal stage.

While interpreting and applying law Supreme Court certainly considers view taken by other Courts and authorities but it is not bound by their conclusions.

Supreme Court declined to go into question of fact at appellate stage or upset finding recorded by Courts below particularly in absence of the evidence led at the trial which had not been placed on the record.

[Practice and procedure].

Supreme Court declined to express any opinion in the matter. [p. 67] F

Affirmative findings of Appellate Courts on the point-Supreme Court declined to interfere.

Courts, in appealable cases, should pronounce their opinion on all the relevant points which arise or have been raised in a case

Court has to look into all relevant points, though not raised or argued at the bar-Omission on the part of the lower Courts from whose orders the appeals are permissible to the Supreme Court to decide all such points, is a grave omission and cannot lightly be ignored.

[Practice and procedure].

Normally Supreme Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below unless the discretion is shown to be capricious or against the interest of justice or established principles of administration of criminal justice.

[Practice and procedure].

Legal point even if not agitated before the lower Courts can be taken up for the first time before Supreme Court.-[Jurisdiction].

Rule stated therein not only requires to be interpreted and applied in circumstances of present case but may also require modification or further amplification-Matter to be heard by a larger Bench of at least 5 Judges.

Supreme Court - Judgment-Ejectment against nationalized school-Inconvenience -or hardship likely to be suffered by students-Held : If Government was willing to remove any difficulty and make any-adjustment in that behalf, but was hesitant to do so because of judgment of Supreme Court, Government would be at liberty to make any application to Supreme Court for clarification on question of adjustment to be specified in application which could be considered on its own merits.

Supreme Court declined to consider in appeal a question of law on which leave was not granted and which was not urged before High Court and Court did not have benefit of view of High Court on that point.

Supreme Court being a Court of ultimate jurisdiction has power to give an authoritative pronouncement on any question of law.

Normally does not undertake a purely academic exercise but on basis of an hypothetical case, Supreme Court deals with only live issue.

Supreme Court-Appeal (civil)-Appellant not pressing issue before 1st appellate Court nor raising before High Court - Judgment of High Court showing other issues discussed and decided - Appeal dismissed as having no merits by Supreme Court.

Judicial practice-Single Judge-Bound by his previous opinionSuch Judge subsequently feeling necessity of his earlier opinion being reviewed, matter to be referred to a larger Bench.-[Practice and procedure]. Mirza Abdur Rashid, Advocate and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) f

Supreme Court-Jurisdiction-Bias-Transfer of cases -Objections relating to bias in Judge-Must be raised before Judge concerned-Matter ordinarily to be left to such Judge to decide according to his conscience and circumstances of case-Supreme Court, held not empowered to order transfer of a caw,- from file of a Judge of High Court.-[Bias-Transfer of eases].

Better course adopted to dismiss appeal leaving aggrieved party to agitate issue before Supreme Court-Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), S. 167(81)-Practice.

Appreciation of evidence-Supreme Court not a Court of error in regard to appreciation of evidence.

Practice-Document not produced before Courts below-Not allowed to be brought on record of Supreme Court.

Supreme Court-Appeal-Supreme Court would not interfere with legal sentence unless some question of principle Involved.