MADAN MOHAN GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on citing the judgment of this court in Padmini Polymers Ltd. v. Unit Trust of India 2003 (I) A.D. (Delhi) 88 in support of his application for recalling the summoning order, learned ASJ remarked that since this judgment is of the High Court, it be cited before the High Court is true it is a very serious matter and verges on contempt of Court. Every court subordinate to this court is bound by the judgments of this court unless the judgment has been overruled by a Superior Court or is no more a good law. Court has to not only refer to the relevant judgments cited by the counsel but also deal with the same effectively. Even if it is found that the subordinate court has tried to efface or find out a way to deliberately whittle down the ratio of the law laid down by the High Court by circumventing the facts or distinguishing the indistinguishable facts, that court is guilty of gross contempt. Thus the subrodinate courts have no escape than to follow the judgment of this court in letter and spirit.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention here that not only the aforesaid judgment was referred to and relied upon in the written arguments submitted by the petitioner but the said judgment was most relevant on the question of law involved for determination in the application for recalling the summoning order. On this short ground alone, the impugned orders dated 31.5.2003 and 8.7.2003 are liable to be set aside.

(3.) Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside with the direction to the learned ASJ to decide the application for recalling the summoning order afresh keeping in mind the relevant judgments referred to and cited by the counsel for the petitioner particularly in the written arguments.