“Reliance has been placed on Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975)  2 SCC 671. The word ‘or’ was given grammatical meaning. It was held, the word ‘or’ cannot be read as ‘and’. They should be considered in an ordinary sense. If two different interpretations are possible, Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible.”

– Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra, Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016].

“The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court that the permanent seat of the High Court is at Allahabad is not quite sound. The Order states that the High Court shall sit as the new High Court and the Judges and Division Bench thereof shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint. The word ‘or’ cannot be read as ‘and’. If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they are bound to be construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute may be unjust does not entitle a Court to refuse to give it effect. If there are two different interpretations of the words in an Act, Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things. If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all; there would be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning. Where the words are plain, Court would not make any alteration.“

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.

Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 not only overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 but also observed, all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed are also overruled.

This is not a ground for review and recall of Pune Municipal Corporation and all other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation. Otherwise, Pandora’s Box.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016] decided on 17.03.2023.

_____

Two-Judge Bench on 17.03.2023 caused this Three-Judge Bench.

_____

We have been addressed, our distinguished colleagues on Bench have been right and wrong at same time. We record our sincere appreciation for valuable assistance rendered.

It can be said, each Bench speaks for Court as a whole, contributing to intricate symphony of justice which defines Supreme Court of India. Court might speak through a singular voice or several voices. In any event, these voices, though marked by their individual tone(s), enjoin to form a collective melody, akin to a choir of justice; dignity and decency would demand, Reference to a Larger Bench does not sound like ‘critical observations and adverse comments’ in respect of a Coordinate Bench’s primary decision.

Three-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 held, Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 per incuriam and Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled by a Five-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. Pune Municipal Corporation has since been wiped out of existence.

Three-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412, at highest, could have doubted Pune Municipal Corporation and Referred to a Larger Bench but could not have, by any stretch of reasoning, declared it per incuriam. We restrain ourselves from declaring Three-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 as per incuriam notwithstanding our firm conviction in this behalf.

– Three-Judge Bench, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, [Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016] decided on 17.05.2024.