https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275798 Binding precedent remains a core rule of judicial discipline: a Single Judge must follow a Full Bench ruling of the same High Court and cannot disregard it simply because counsel later raises a fresh constitutional argument. Reconsideration is permissible only where the earlier decision has been overruled, clearly diluted, or is demonstrably per incuriam for failing to notice a binding provision or precedent. The absence of an earlier Article 14 contention did not affect the force of the Full Bench ruling, because the decisive issue had already been settled. The reference for reconsideration was therefore not maintainable, and the matter was to proceed in accordance with the binding Full Bench law. en-us Mon, 31 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:13:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275798 Binding precedent remains a core rule of judicial discipline: a Single Judge must follow a Full Bench ruling of the same High Court and cannot disregard it simply because counsel later raises a fresh constitutional argument. Reconsideration is permissible only where the earlier decision has been overruled, clearly diluted, or is demonstrably per incuriam for failing to notice a binding provision or precedent. The absence of an earlier Article 14 contention did not affect the force of the Full Bench ruling, because the decisive issue had already been settled. The reference for reconsideration was therefore not maintainable, and the matter was to proceed in accordance with the binding Full Bench law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275798