Skip to main content

Trial Courts competent to decide on question of law having no prior judicial precedent

Cause Title : Om Prakash vs The Delhi Pinjrapole Society (Rego.), CM(M) 864/2022 & CM APPL.37131/2022, CM APPL.37132/2022, High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 26.08.2022

Corum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

Citied: 

State of Maharashtra v. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli
M/s. Suvinys Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Verma Beauty Parlor and Hair Dressers
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213
State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu

Background

The appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the decision of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (the learned Pr. DSJ) rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner adjourn RCT 77/2018 (Om Prakash v. The Delhi Pinjrapole Society), till the Division Bench of this Court adjudicated on the questions of law referred to it by a learned Single Judge in a batch of Rent Control Revision Petitions headed by K.S. Bhandari v. International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd.

The Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court had referred the question of whether a public charitable trust carrying on public activities qualifies as a ―public institution for the purposes of Section 222 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to the Division Bench.

The Petitioner was of the view that District Courts are competent only to decide questions of law for which prior authoritative precedents in the form of decisions of High Courts or the Supreme Court exist. 

Judgment

The Hon'ble Court held that the submission is completely misconceived in law.

There is no proscription whatsoever on a Trial Court taking a decision on any question that arises before it whether of fact or of law, irrespective of whether there exists, or does not exist, a prior precedent on the issue or there does not exist a precedent on the issue. Trial Courts are wholly competent to decide all questions of fact and law which may arise before them. Many such questions may be res integra, previously undecided by any superior court. The ld. Trial Court is well within its authority to decide all such issues and, possibly, even be the first judicial authority to take a view on the subject.

There is no principle of law which requires the existence of a prior judicial precedent on a question of law before a ld. Trial Court takes a view on the said issue. If there is any binding judicial precedent, of course, the ld. Trial Court would be bound to follow it unless the ld. Trial Court deems the precedent to be distinguishable for reasons which it would be required to elucidate. As such, even if the precise question of law that arises before the ld. Trial Court stands referred to the Division Bench of this Court, there is no embargo whatsoever on the learned Pr. DSJ taking a view on the issue. Qua the present case, there is no embargo whatsoever on the learned Pr. DSJ taking a view on whether a public charitable trust carrying on public activities qualifies as a ―public institution under Section 222 of the DRC Act, even while that question stands referred to a Division Bench in K.S. Bhandari.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more