Pending special leave petition does not suspend binding High Court precedent absent an interim stay.

A question already answered by an earlier High Court decision could not be treated as a fresh referable question merely because a special leave petition against that decision was pending before the Supreme Court. Pendency of the petition did not by itself modify, annul, or suspend the earlier judgment. In the absence of any interim stay from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no referable question of law arose. The application for reference was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference could be directed on a question already covered by an earlier decision of the High Court, merely because a special leave petition against that decision was pending before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The question sought to be referred had already been answered by the High Court in an earlier decision. The mere filing or pendency of a special leave petition did not by itself modify, annul, or suspend that decision. In the absence of any interim order from the Supreme Court staying the operation of the earlier judgment, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no referable question of law arose.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the application for reference was not maintainable.

---