TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Full Bench Declines Reference; No Specific Questions u/r 35 Led to Jurisdiction Limits and No Further Consideration.</h1> <h3>Ratan Kumar Jain Versus State of M.P. and Ors.</h3> Ratan Kumar Jain Versus State of M.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Clarification/Modification of Interim Order2. Applicability of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules3. Reference to Larger Bench4. Jurisdiction and Scope of Reference JurisdictionSummary:1. Clarification/Modification of Interim Order:In a pending writ petition, an interim order was passed on 09.08.2005. Respondent No. 5 filed an application on 14.03.2012 seeking clarification/modification of this order. The writ petitioner filed a reply on 16.04.2012. The Division Bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the appropriate Bench as per Rule 40 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules (C.H. Rules).2. Applicability of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules:The Full Bench considered Rule 2(2), 3, 4, and 35 of the C.H. Rules. Rule 2(2) and Rule 4 incorporate the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules (M.P. Rules) into the C.H. Rules by the principle of 'legislation by incorporation.' This ensures that any ambiguity in the C.H. Rules can be resolved by referring to the M.P. Rules.3. Reference to Larger Bench:The Division Bench recommended referring the matter to a larger Bench under Rule 35 of the C.H. Rules. Rule 35 allows a Division Bench to refer a matter to the Chief Justice for it to be placed before a Full Bench if it involves reconsideration of a decision by two or more Judges. The Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench on 26.07.2012.4. Jurisdiction and Scope of Reference Jurisdiction:The Full Bench emphasized that it could only answer specific stated questions referred to it and not decide the entire matter unless explicitly referred. The referring Judges did not formulate any specific questions under Rule 35, thus the Full Bench declined to answer the reference. The Full Bench cited several precedents, including Kesho Nath Khurana vs Union of India and Kerala State Science and Technology Museum vs Rambal Co., which establish that a larger Bench cannot adjudicate issues beyond the specific questions referred.The Full Bench concluded that without specific questions formulated by the referring Judges, it could not proceed to answer the reference. The matter was thus declined for consideration, adhering to judicial discipline and the limits of advisory reference jurisdiction. The assistance rendered by the amicus curiae and other counsels was duly acknowledged.
TaxTMI 