Special Bench rulings bind later Division Benches, which cannot override clear precedent by reinterpreting it differently.

A clear and unambiguous Special Bench ruling binds later Division Benches, and a subsequent Division Bench cannot treat an earlier Division Bench as wrong merely by reinterpreting that ruling. Where a later Bench differs on a point of law, the proper course is reference to a larger Bench, not unilateral departure from the earlier view. The text further states that, where the Special Bench had clearly held that a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is a notice of suit and need not state grounds of ejectment, a later Division Bench was bound to follow that pronouncement and could disregard an inconsistent Division Bench interpretation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether one Division Bench of the High Court has authority to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law or the effect of a prior Special Bench decision; (ii) Whether the Division Bench in AIR 1968 Cal 186 had authority to override the contrary view expressed in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1.

Issue (i): Whether one Division Bench of the High Court has authority to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law or the effect of a prior Special Bench decision.

Analysis: Under the Rules governing references, a Division Bench that differs on a point of law must make a reference to a larger Bench. A later Division Bench cannot treat an earlier Division Bench as wrong on its own authority when the earlier view merely interprets a prior Special Bench decision. Where the Special Bench has spoken in clear and unambiguous terms, the later Bench must follow that pronouncement. A later Division Bench may ignore an intervening Division Bench view only to the extent that it conflicts with the clear law laid down by the Special Bench.

Conclusion: One Division Bench has no authority to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law or the effect of a prior Special Bench decision, save that a later Bench may follow the clear Special Bench ruling notwithstanding an inconsistent Division Bench view.

Issue (ii): Whether the Division Bench in AIR 1968 Cal 186 had authority to override the contrary view expressed in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1.

Analysis: The earlier Special Bench had clearly held that a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is a notice of suit and need not state the grounds of ejectment. The contrary Division Bench view in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1 was not a permissible reinterpretation of that clear answer. A later Division Bench was therefore bound to follow the Special Bench and was entitled, indeed required, to disregard the inconsistent Division Bench interpretation.

Conclusion: The Division Bench in AIR 1968 Cal 186 had authority to refuse to follow ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1 and was bound to apply the Special Bench decision.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by reaffirming that a clear Special Bench ruling binds later Division Benches, and that an inconsistent Division Bench interpretation cannot prevail over it.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear and unambiguous Special Bench decision binds all later Division Benches, and a later Division Bench cannot, by construing that decision differently, dilute or contradict the rule actually laid down.

---