CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1997) 05 SC CK 0092

State of Tripura and Another vs Roop Chand Das and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 9 May 1997 · Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3997 : (1998) CriLJ 54 : (1997) 7 JT 722 : (1997) 6 SCALE 6 : (1997) 7 SCC 518 : (1997) 3 SCR 700 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · D. P. Wadhwa, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Slps (C) No. 9914 Of 1997 And No. 10096 Of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

In Babua Ram v. State of U.P and Union of India v. Karnail Singh benches of two Judges have taken the view that the limitation of three months for seeking a reference under Section 28-A would begin to run from the earliest of the awards given by the Reference court. However a contra view was taken by a bench of three Judges in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari. When the matter was referred to a Constitution bench, the bench of three Judges in Jose Antonio Cruz. DOS R. Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector had the two questions referred to a five-Judge bench before them namely:

"1. Whether the award of the court i.e., civil court made under Section 26 on reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the appellate court under Section 54?

2 Whether each successive award or judgment and decree (if answer on Question 1 is positive) would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A; if so construed, does not such a construction violate the language used in Section 28-A when Parliament advisedly did not use such expressions?"

2.

The three-Judge bench answered that so far as the first question of the reference is concerned there is no difference of opinion between the benches. On the second question, on the facts in that case it did not arise for the reason that even the second reference asked for was beyond a period of three months and that, therefore, in that case it was held that there is no need for awaiting a decision by a Constitution bench. In para 6 it was pointed out that if and when such a question arises in an appropriate case perhaps reference to a five-Judge bench may become necessary. In this case that question in fact has arisen and that, therefore, the matter requires consideration by a bench of five Judges

3.

Leave granted. Printing dispensed with. Appeal can be disposed of onthe basis of the material on record. The matter may be placed before Hon''ble the chief justice for constitution of five-Judge bench and for disposal at an early date since several matters constantly keep coming up. Interim stay in the meanwhile.Court Master