Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur versus Ratilal Motilal Patel
How later courts have used it
- The authority's propositions on the Bombay Public Trusts Act are not applied in any judgement in this sample.1,2
- The authority is often cited for the rule that a coordinate bench cannot disapprove an earlier coordinate bench decision without referring to a larger bench.3,4,5
- Order XXI Rule 89 CPC requires a mandatory deposit of 5% of the purchase money before an application to set aside a sale is entertained.6
- A single-member bench may clarify or modify orders passed by a division bench under the doctrine of necessity.1,7
- Multiple judgements relied on the authority for the proposition that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.8,9
- Penalties under Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act require a finding of guilt or compounding under Section 200, and a writ court cannot predetermine fines.8,10,11,12
Read the full overviewShow less· 2 paragraphs
The judgements below cite the authority on a range of disparate topics, with many invoking it only as a general statement on judicial discipline. The authority's own propositions on the Bombay Public Trusts Act did not surface in any of the cited decisions, and none of the judgements here applied its Section 36(a) or Section 56B holdings. Several judgements used the authority to support the rule that a coordinate bench must not disapprove an earlier coordinate bench decision without referral to a larger bench. The Rajasthan High Court decisions referred to the authority in the context of invalid arbitration clauses, while the appellate tribunal decisions referred to it on the powers of a single-member bench to clarify division bench orders.1,3,5,4,13,14,7
A different strand of judgements relied on the authority for procedural propositions. The Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on it in holding that an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC requires a mandatory deposit of 5% of the purchase money, even for an applicant with only an interest in the property. The Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions cited the authority on the binding nature of coordinate bench pronouncements and on compliance with statutory preconditions, but the factual contexts differed from the authority's own facts, and some were expressly distinguished. The Telangana High Court decisions relied on the authority for the proposition that statutory remedies must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction, and that penalties cannot be imposed without proof of guilt or compounding.6,15,3,4,8,16,17,10,11,9,12
Citing judgements
The Acting Chairman held that a single-member bench of the Appellate Tribunal under the PBPT Act, 1988, is empowered to clarify orders passed by a division bench under the statutory provisions and the doctrine of necessity.
DoubtedOpenGurudas Narayan Salgaonkar (Sin.Dec.) through Legal Representatives., Vs Avduta Savlaram Aras.
Outcome: DismissedDistinguishedTenants challenged eviction for rent arrears on the ground that no written lease existed. The court rejected the contention that Section 34 imposed a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and dismissed the petition, leaving the eviction order undisturbed.
DismissedDistinguishedOpenSant Lal Gupta & Ors. versus Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Outcome: AllowedRelied onSant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 (SC, 18.10.2010); Delhi Co-operative Societies Act 1972 S.80; Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules 1973 R.36(3); expulsion of society members; Registrar's prior approval mandatory; resolution effective from date of approval;
AllowedRelied onOpenLicence inspector's complaint filed on permission of a delegate under s. 69 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act was held invalid; only authorities mentioned in s. 481 read with s. 69 can launch proceedings; appeal dismissed.
DismissedFollowedOpenBatch of writ petitions challenged seizure of goods vehicles for overloading. The High Court held such writ petitions ordinarily not maintainable; owners must apply under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
DisposedRelied onOpenOverloaded vehicle seizures ordinarily require recourse to statutory release remedies rather than direct writ petitions. The court disposed of the petitions without ordering repossession of released vehicles, preserved prosecution powers, and directed roadworthiness certification, expedited release decisions, video…
DisposedRelied onOpen
Show 6 more
Seizure of overloaded transport vehicles ordinarily requires recourse to statutory release remedies, not direct writ petitions. The court disposed of the petitions with directions for roadworthiness certification, timely release decisions and enforcement. Vehicles already released were not ordered repossessed;
DisposedRelied onOpenPandu goud Voruganti Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Outcome: DisposedRelied onGoods vehicle owners challenged seizure for overloading. The Court held such writ petitions ordinarily not maintainable, requiring applications under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
DisposedRelied onOpenAppeal against rejection of objections to set aside an auction sale of property under partition decree. Court dismissed appeal and objections, holding that failure to deposit 5% of purchase money is a mandatory condition precedent under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC, rendering inadmissible other contentions regarding…
DismissedRelied onOpenS.I. Rooplal and Anr. versus Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors.
Outcome: AllowedReferredBSF Sub-Inspectors permanently absorbed into Delhi Police sought counting of their parent-department service for seniority. The Tribunal had denied relief contrary to its own earlier coordinate Bench ruling.
AllowedReferredOpenThe High Court dismissed an appeal against an order setting aside an arbitration award. The court held that the dispute resolution mechanism in Clause 23 of the agreement was not an arbitration clause as it lacked attributes of a private tribunal and was non-adjudicatory, ruling instead in favor of court jurisdiction…
DismissedReferredOpenSingle Bench held clause 23 is not a valid arbitration clause per SPML judgment but allowed non-arbitration adjudication via standing committee mechanism under clause 23 to be constituted within four weeks.
PremptoryReferredOpen
The Appellate Tribunal, in these insolvency appeals by a Successful Resolution Applicant, upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order. It ruled that the approved Resolution Plan is binding and mandatory. Consequently, the appellant was directed to pay an upfront consideration of Rs.
ExplainedOpenAbhijit Guhatnakurta Monitoring, Agency of the Corporate Vs Royale Partner Investment Fund Ltd.
ReferredThe Tribunal held that a reconstituted Bench cannot interfere with or stay proceedings reserved by an earlier coordinate Bench upholding judicial discipline, succeeded on Appeal No. 287 of 2020 and dismissed Appeal No. 327 of 2020.
ReferredOpenThe Tribunal held that a single member bench can clarify orders passed by a division bench under the PBPT Act using the 'doctrine of necessity' to avoid stalling investigations. It clarified that the stay did not bar necessary fresh notices or proceedings.
ReferredOpenOwners challenged seizure of overloaded transport vehicles and sought release. The court required recourse to statutory remedies and rejected routine release on predetermined fines.
DisposedRelied onOpenBatch of writ petitions challenging seizure of goods vehicles for carrying excess load and seeking release of the vehicles on payment of penalty. The court held that owners must avail the statutory remedy of applying for release under Section 207(2) rather than invoking Article 226, that penalties under Section 194…
DisposedRelied onOpenOverloaded vehicle seizures ordinarily require recourse to statutory release remedies, not direct writ petitions. The court disposed of the petitions without ordering repossession of released vehicles, preserved prosecution and compounding, and directed roadworthiness certification, expedited applications, seizure…
DisposedRelied onOpen
Show 4 more
Seizure of overloaded transport vehicles ordinarily requires recourse to statutory release remedies, not direct writ petitions. The court disposed of the petitions with directions for roadworthiness certification, expedited release applications and stricter enforcement.
DisposedRelied onOpenBatch of writ petitions challenging seizure of goods vehicles for carrying excess load and seeking their release on payment of penalty. The court held such writ petitions ordinarily not maintainable and that owners must apply for release under Section 207(2);
DisposedRelied onOpenThe petitions challenged seizure of goods vehicles for carrying excess load. The court held that owners must first seek release under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 rather than invoke Article 226 directly, and that penalties under Section 194 cannot be collected before guilt or compounding.
DisposedRelied onOpenOverloaded transport vehicle seizures ordinarily require resort to statutory release remedies, not direct writ petitions. The court disposed of the petitions without ordering repossession of vehicles already released, preserved prosecution powers, and directed roadworthiness certification, expedited applications,…
DisposedRelied onOpen