STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GORDHANDAS KESHAVJI GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Full Bench has been constituted in order to consider the question relating to the binding nature of the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to 1st May, 1960, on this High Court. This very matter was considered by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court including the then Chief Justice in the case of Anand Municipality v. Union of India, reported in : AIR1960Guj40 . Later on, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Raju and Mr. Justice Bakshi found it difficult to accept the view expressed by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case and made a request for referring the question to another Full Bench for a re -consideration of the matter. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (1960) 1 Guj LR 82 : (AIR 1960 Gujarat 40) (FB) that the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to the 1st of May, 1960, i. e., the day on which the State of Gujarat came into being fell within the ambit of the words 'the law in force immediately before the appointed day' in Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act of 1960, and were binding on this High Court. Section 87 of the aforesaid Act runs as follows :

(2.) A question then arises as to the meaning of the expression 'law in force immediately before the appointed day' in this section. It has been strongly urged by Mr. Vakil, in support of the construction placed upon these words by the Full Bench, that the expression 'law' embraces within its ambit not merely statutory law or enacted law, but also personal law, customary law and judicial precedents of case law. It is urged that there is no reason why the expression 'law in force' should be confined to statutory or enacted law. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, it has been stated in the Full Bench decision in : AIR1960Guj40 as under:

(3.) IN India, some High Courts have both Original and Appellate jurisdiction and an appeal lies in certain matters from a decision of a single Judge of a High Court to a Division Bench of that Court. A decision of a High Court Judge of a State is regarded as binding on all the subordinate courts in that State. A decision of a Division Bench of a High Court is regarded as binding on Judges of the same High Court sitting singly in the High Court. A decision of a Full Bench, i, e., a Bench of at least 3 Judges of a High Court is considered binding on all judges of the same High Court sitting singly and on all Division Benches of the same High Court. A decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all the High Courts. By Article 141 of the Constitution of India it is laid down that the law declared, by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts Within the territory of India. A decision of one High Court is not binding on another High Court. Even a decision of a Full Bench of one High Court is not binding on a Judge sitting singly in another High Court. A decision of a High Court Judge sitting singly is not legally binding on another Judge of the same High Court sitting singly. So also a decision of a Division Bench of a High Court is not legally binding on another Division Bench of the same High Court. A decision of a Full Bench is not legally binding on another Full Bench of the same Court. One Judge of a High Court has, however, no right to overrule the decision of another Judge of the same High Court nor has one division Bench of a High Court the legal right to overrule another decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court. In connection with the question whether a larger Full Bench can overrule a decision of a Full Bench of lesser number of Judges, Sir John Beaumont in a decision reported in 43 Bom LR 864. : (AIR 1941 Bom 408) Emperor v. Ningappa Ramappa Kurbar, observes at P - 868 (of Bom LR) : (at p. 409 of AIR) as follows: