https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292768 Pre-reorganisation decisions of the former Bombay High Court were not "law in force" preserved under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, because judicial precedents do not operate as territorially extended law in the statutory sense. However, the Gujarat High Court, as the successor court exercising the same jurisdiction over transferred territories, was required to follow those decisions to preserve certainty and continuity in administration of justice. The earlier Bombay precedents were therefore binding on the Gujarat High Court as if they were its own prior decisions, subject to the ordinary hierarchy of later overruling by a larger bench or a superior court. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jan 2021 17:04:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292768 Pre-reorganisation decisions of the former Bombay High Court were not "law in force" preserved under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, because judicial precedents do not operate as territorially extended law in the statutory sense. However, the Gujarat High Court, as the successor court exercising the same jurisdiction over transferred territories, was required to follow those decisions to preserve certainty and continuity in administration of justice. The earlier Bombay precedents were therefore binding on the Gujarat High Court as if they were its own prior decisions, subject to the ordinary hierarchy of later overruling by a larger bench or a superior court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292768