Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243 and Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, (2006) 8 SCC 322 were not brought to notice of this Court in Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173. In absence of consideration, we find Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape will not lay down a binding precedent.
– Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta, Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate v. Nana Dinkar Yadav, [Civil Appeal No. 10197 of 2010] decided on 13.08.2021.
Every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.
– Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal, 2021 (3) BLJ 373.
A binding precedent is of utmost importance in administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. There is this need for consistency in enunciation of legal principles in decisions of this Court.
– Five-Judge Bench, Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 SC 1652.
“It is also clarified, those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions run counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.”
– Constitution Bench, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Mere over-ruling of the principles will not have the effect of uprooting or diluting the binding effect of the final adjudication between the parties and set it at naught. The decision in question itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner known to or recognized by law.
– Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021] decided on 17.08.2021.