https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288717 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. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:06:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288717 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288717