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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more