The literal meaning of precedent is something that has happened before.A
precedent is statement of law found in a judicial decision of a High Court or
superior court, meant to be followed by the same court as also by subordinate
courts. The judges to be free to decide contrary to decisions in decided cases,
and then the law and the fate of the litigants would hang on the fancy of
individual judges following. As far as sensible and practicable, the principles
conflict-a wilderness, hardly law.
Several authors and philosophers defined the doctrine of precedent some of them
are given below.
- According to Salmond
Precedent is the making of law by the recognition and application of new rules
by the courts themselves in the administration of justice. 
- According to Bentham Judge made law
- According to Gray 'Precedent covers everything said or done, which
furnishes a rule for subsequent practice'
- According to Keeton 'A judicial precedent is judicial to which authority
has in some measure been attached
- According to Austin precedents are judiciary's view
According to me, the precedents are the decisions have some binding value and
that is very helpful to not only to judges but also advocates to assist their
Precedent As A Source Of Law
Judicial precedent when considered with authority, the embodied principle
becomes binding for future cases and it thus becomes a source of law. Blackstone
clearly pointed out that it is an established rule to abide by the former
precedents where the same points come again in litigation. It has been important
to note how precedents operate as an important source of law.
precedents are widely view on the basis of the legal source of law, in so far as
they are binding on the judges. And persuasive precedents are a historical
source of law, in so far as they have only a persuasive or guiding (but not a
binding) efficacy, and thus provide a historical basis on which a law may be
built by the judge if he is favorably inclined to that precedent and accepts it.
In all the things have a history and have a story behind that:
The concept of doctrine of precedent has evolved from the English law and is
pari materia to India. The wording of Mahabharata says 'that Path is the right
path which has been followed by virtuous men' The concept of precedent is based
on this theory. The edifice of common law is made up of this theory
- Ancient law:
- Medieval Times:
- During the British Rule
- After independence
The court were normally local area based and decided most of the things orally.
The ancient courts known as kula, sherni, puga, and shashan of which the former
three were the tribal, professional, and local tribunals respectively. They
decided the cases falling within their respective jurisdiction.
In this period also, there is no traces of any theory of the precedent. Although
Mohammedan rulers establish courts and had appointed Qazis to administer
justice, most of the disputes in villages were decided by panchayats. In the
absence of a well structured judicial system, no doctrine of precedent developed
in India as it developed in England. It is after the organization of the British
rule that present theory of precedent stared developing and from that time
onwards, we can trace ongoing development of the doctrine.
During the British Rule
After the foundation of British rule in the country for quite a while, the
English people directed equity as per the Personal law of the gatherings with
the assistance of pandits and maulvis. By the 'Regulation Act' a Supreme Court
was formed at Calcutta. Later on, Supreme Court was set up in other Presidency
towns too. After at some point, High Courts were established in areas. There was
no connection between the Supreme Court and the High Court and they were
autonomous of one another.
After the independence the Indian constitution was established and Indian
Constitution 1950: After independence of the country, the Privy Council stopped
the appellant court in India and Federal Court was nullified. By the Indian
constitution, 1950, a Supreme Court was established and which is the final
appellant tribunal. In states there are High Courts and District Courts were
established the Art141 was incorporated the doctrine of precedent and it cover
and render a good assistance in the judicial system and it removes all the
difficulties that were existed in the earlier system.
Art 141 Of The Indian Constitution
Law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. The decisions of
supreme court and as well as the High Court are followed by the lower courts. It
refers only to courts other than the Supreme Courts. Thus, the Supreme Court is
not bound by its own decisions, except to the extent of that a smaller Bench is
bound by the decisions of a larger Bench and that of a Co-equal Bench.
Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan
In this case several guide lines was made by the supreme court of India and that
is a binding precedent. The guide lines are absolutely binding in nature.
Mohd Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano Begum
It was held that the Supreme Court's interpretation of religious texts is a
binding precedent. The lower court has the duty to follow the decisions of
Pandurang Kalu v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court held that the decisions of the High court will binding until
and unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
Commissioner of Income tax V. Ram Chandra Rao
The decisions held by One High court is not necessary binding nature to another
High court. Its create a persuasive effect only and it is highly considerable.
Precedent Sub- Silentio
- If any question involved in a case is incidentally covered by
the decision, without discussion, it is called the 'Precedent sub-
- At best, it also may have only some persuasive effect, but no
authoritative binding effect.
Uptron India Ltd v. Shammi Bhan
A wrong concession on a question of law cannot constitute a just ground for a
Kinds Of Precedent 
The already declare law or rules are applied the new case is called the
The original precedents are the application of the new law or making a new rule
to the case.
The authoritative precedent is again classified in to two that are:
- Absolute authoritative
- Conditional Authoritative
The absolute authoritative precedent has absolutely binding by the lower courts
and conditionally authoritative must be specify the reasons for reject.
For e.g. – all court in India is absolutely bound by decisions of courts higher
to itself because of hierarchy.
The persuasive precedent is have no absolute binding but its highly considerable
for example the decision of a one high court have no need to bound the another
high court, because of they are enjoying the Co-ordinate equal power but it must
be highly considerable.
Elements Gaining Weight To Precedent.
They are lots of points give weight to the precedents. The important points are
- The unanimity
The unanimity of the court giving decision that brings the precedent are more
valuable and its get an more strong also.
- Approval by the courts
The approval of that decision by other courts, it will gain added authority if
it's affirmed by a superior court.
- Eminence of judge
The eminence of the judge of giving the decision helps the precedents are
more strong and large acceptance.
- Expert opinion
The consultation with the experts of the profession helps to avoid the mistakes
and find out new methods and new aptable law for the existing facts of the
Disregard Of Precedent
The precedent ceases to apply because of following points.
- Dissenting from
- Prospective over ruling
- Dissenting from
- Per incuriam
If they have any dissenting from the part of the other courts that will affect
The decisions are overruled by the same equal strength or larger bench, and then
they have no value for that precedent.
- Prospective over ruling
Prospective overruling is slight different than overruling, the earlier decision
is applied to the particular case also and future cases are not applicable the
The facts are in similar nature is only applicable by the precedent, the
entirely different facts and cases are not bind by the precedent decisions.
- Per incuriam
Meaning; through lack of care or carelessness.
This is a decision of a court arrived at without attention being drawn to the
relevant statute or authority. it is usually not binding
Merits of Judicial Precedents:
- Consistency and predictability:
Due to the presence of judicial precedents, the lawyers become capable to aid
their clients regarding specific subject matter after observing the precedents
prevalent in such field. It provides assurance that every case will be treated
and decided in a manner that is similar to pass decisions. There is building a
consistency and predictability that everyone can rely upon it.
Precedents carry the flexibility in judicial system, The Supreme Court is not
bound by its own decisions. The rules established by the Supreme Court in a
particular subject matter remain in force except they have not been overruled by
the Supreme Court. They form the law according to the changed conditions and
thus carry flexibility to the law.
- Save time of the courts:
The judicial precedents give great feasibility to decrease the effort of judges
and lawyers. Formerly the difficulty concerning a few specific matters is
resolved then it is not required to re-argue the same question in the future
similar cases also so It will help to save the time of courts.
Demerits of precedents
There are so many case laws as a result it creates complexity. The judge issues
his own point of view on matter to create more precedents. Decisions are very
wide, and it becomes burden for the lawyers and judges working on the similar
matter to decide that what is applicable or not. It is tedious task to find out
relevant case law on particular matter.
- Possibility of overlooking of authorities:
The immensely increasing number of cases has an irresistible result on the
judges and the lawyers, thus there is prospect of overlooking of authorities. It
becomes not easy to trace out the wide variety of authorities on the very point.
occasionally, the conflicting decisions of higher courts put the judges of lower
courts into a dilemma.
The practice of judicial precedents brings inflexibility in the system for the
reason that the lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts. The
society is not fixed and there is change in social, economic, and other
situation with time. Changed status may require a different interpretation of
law. In fact binding precedents can hold back the advance of law.
Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase; it means the rationale for the decision.
the ratio decidendi is the position in a case that determines the judgment or
the principle that the case establishes. Ratio decidendi is a part of a case
,which is about that principle of law on which a decision is based, when a judge
passes judgment in a case, the judge applies law to such facts and arrives at a
decision, the reasons are stated, such reasons behind the decision called ratio
Bridges V. Hawkeworth
The case gives a good picture for ratio decidendi. In this case a customer found
some money from the floor of a shop. The court applied the rule of
'finders-keepers' and awarded possession of the money to him rather than to the
shopkeeper. The ratio decidendi of this case is with the purpose of finder of
goods is the keeper i.e., has the right of possession over it.
Donogue V. Stevenson
The case is famously known as ginger beer case. In this case the manufacture is
liable for the negligence caused. The reason is that the manufactures has the
duty towards the consumer.
State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Shekhar Mishra
The ratio decidendi can be extracted by finding the material facts of the case
and the law applicable to the given law. The judgment must be based on the
combined of that.
Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others V. M.R. Apparao and Another
The issue of ratio decidendi has been explained by the Supreme Court in wherein
it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Article 141 of the
Constitution unequivocally direct and means that the law declared by the Supreme
Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.
State of U P. V. Ajay Kumar Sharma
The court held that the main dis advantages are to find out the ratio decidendi,
if there are number of reasons. The division can be made on facts to avoid
tiresome precedents. while it speaks of the law declared, it means only the
ratio decidendi of the decision and it may also include obiter dictum, provided
it is upon a legal point raised and argued.
The obiter dicta are a mere say. They have no any binding effect, it is the
discussions held during the decision and this is the un necessary part of a
judicial decisions Obiter dicta are more or less presumably unnecessary to the
decision. it may be an expression of a viewpoint or sentiments which has no
binding effect.. A mere stray observation of the Supreme Court would not amount
to a precedent. The statements which are not the part of the ratio decidendi
constitute obiter dicta and are not authoritative.
Professor Goodhart defined obiter dicta as, "a conclusion based on a fact the
existence of which has not been determined by the Court
In this case. Justice Field expressed a view by way of obiter dicta that even if
the prosecution succeeds in proving that the alleged tort was committed by the
accused, he shall not be guilty of manslaughter until the jury finds him guilty
for this offence
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The doctrine of stare decisis literally means "let the decision stand in its
rightful place". It is expressed in the maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere
which means "to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled". The
underlying logic of the doctrine is to Attorney general V. Uganda law society
The justification of stare decisis is for promoting uniformity in judicial
decisions. and also ensuring stability, certainty and predictability of the law.
M. Lakhani v. Malkapur Municipality
It was remarked that a Supreme Court decision is binding on High Courts.
A Critical Analysis
By analyzing those all are it s easy to understand how much importance of
precedents in our judicial system. The judicial precedent have its own merits
and as well as the de merits also. In my point of law the doctrine of precedent,
ratio decidendi and as well as obiter dicta are plays a significant role. My
opinion is the precedent is very good not only for judges but also a good
solution for advocates and aware of such laws. At the same time there is a need
to curb out the demerits of such over exercise of power.
Examples Of Good Precedent
Vishaka V. state of Rajasthan
Several guidelines are passed and it is leads to enactment of Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Mukesh & ors. V. State of Delhi
The case popularly known as Delhi Gang Rape case, a juvenile, who was few
months less to 18 years have been sentenced to 3 years custodial sentence,
however, it was held that he was the active member in the rape case. As a
outcome of amendment, on 8th August, 2014, Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection)
Act, 2014 where the age of the juvenile was reduced from 18 years to 16 years,
that is, any child who have alleged for the heinous crime under the age of 16 to
18 years shall be tried as an adult.
PUCL V. UOI
Popularly known as Right to food case. Right to food is a fundamental right and
right to live with human dignity
Ashok kumar Thakur V. UOI & Unnikrishnan V. State of AP
Right to education is ensured and free and compulsory education was incorporated
Article 21 A of the Indian Constitution
NALSA V. UOI
Transgender rights were ensured and third gender was recognized.
Keshavanda Barati V. State of Kerala
This is one of the good precedent relates to fundamental right amendment. The
first Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan and Sankari Prasad V. Union of
case was overruled by I .C.Golakh nath v. State of Punjab and it is
overruled by Kesavananda Barati case.
Precedent In Other Countries
Precedent In England
The edifice of common law is made up of this theory of Mahabharata that is the
follow the right path way. The doctrine of precedents grew in England in absence
of law requires not over turning precedents too often.
In England, the high court and the court of appeal are each bound by their own
previous decisions, but the supreme court of UK is able to deviate from its
earlier decisions, although in practice is rarely does so. Divisional court also
bound by its decisions
Judicial Precedent is not bind in following situations
- Conflict between two decisions
- Ignorance of statute .
Precedent In America
Stare decisis -Decisis means literally and legally, the decision. Usually the
Judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The
doctrine is followed to maintain stability and uniformity. And at the same time
it is treated and Considered as a judicial restraint. The concept Viewed as a
tradition or a practice rather than a legal doctrine. But they generally not
Burnet V. Coronado oil & Gas Co
Correction through legislative action is not practically possible even the court
is overruled the previous decisions.
Precedent In Canada
- Canada judicial system follows the precedent.
- Same province or jurisdictional may assist judges in
reaching a decision.
- Other common wealth jurisdiction has persuasive
- House of lord can overrule their previous decision.
Precedent In Europe
There is no concept of precedent prevail in Europe. In Europe the court of
justice is based on civil Roman law system, Court of justice of the European
Union (CJEU) the National courts-apply its own decisions. There is Absence of
Judicial precedent and same as Opposed to practice of English Courts. And not
based on previous decisions.
Precedent In Germany
No binding precedent found in Germany. The Federal Supreme court and Federal
administrative court and separate court like Federal Tax court, Federal Labour
court and Federal Social court functioned based on their respective
Precedent In France
No binding precedent.
2 distinct and separate hierarchy of court
Judicial and administrative orders
Precedent In Italy
Italy also there is no binding effect. There is existence of Court on original
jurisdiction and Court on special jurisdiction they are not treated Precedent is
not a source of law. The mere Persuasive effect is considered
Related Case Laws
State of U. P V. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd
The Court held that any declaration here lacking of the application of mind or
carry in absence of any reason it cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or
authority of a general nature binding as precedent. A decision without reference
to relevant provision of law is weaker than even casual surveillance.
Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana
The court held that High Courts are Court of record under Article 215 of the
Constitution. The provisions deals in Article 227, the High Courts have power of
superintendence over all Courts and tribunals in their respective jurisdiction.
it means all Courts and Tribunals in the respective State will be bound by the
decisions of the High Court.
Raval & Co V. K G Ram Chandran
The court clarify the full form of the principle is Stare decisis et non quieta
, which means stand by decisions and do not move that which is quite
There are vertical and horizontal stare decisis. The horizontal one is a rule of
prudence, and may be weak by factors e.g. apparent error, distinction on facts.
Union of India V. Raghubir Singh
The Supreme Court held that the binding precedent is necessary to be followed in
order to uphold consistency in judicial decision and it enables an natural
development of the law. It also provides a guarantee to a person as to the
consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs.
Tribhovandas P. Thakker V. Rattilal Motilal Patel
Precedents form foundation of administration of justice
The court held that:
Precedents is enunciate the rules of law outline the
foundation of administration of justice in our system. It has been held time and
again that a single Judge of a High Court is normally bound to accept as correct
judgments of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and the Division Benches and of
the Full Benches of his Court and of the Supreme Court. The reason for the rule
which makes a precedent obligatory lies in the craving to protected uniformity
and certainty in the law.
Surinder Singh V. Hardial Singh
The court held the Precedents keep the law predictable
Union of India V. Amrit Lal Manchanda
The court held that the precedent is the Follow it to mark Path of Justice
Bengal Immunity Co. V. State of Bihar
The Supreme Court overruled its own decision in State of Bombay v. The United
observing that the Supreme Court can depart from its previous
decisions if it is persuaded of its mistake and its baneful result on the
general interest of the public. The overruling of a decision is permitted, if
the rule of construction accepted by the Supreme Court is inconsistent with the
legal philosophy of the Constitution
Maganlal Chagganlal (Pvt) Ltd. V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
The Supreme Court held that if the earlier decision is erroneous and has given
rise to public cause inconvenience to and hardship, there is no harm in
overruling such decision.
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija V. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra
The apex court held as:
One must remember that pursuit of the law, though
glamorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench. In a multi judge Court,
the Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They perhaps will use their
discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no
State of Orissa V. Mohd. Illiyas
The court held that every decision contains three basic postulates:
- Findings of material facts, direct and inferential,
- The statements of the principles of law, and
- The judgment based on the combined effect of the above.
The Court has consistently held that in case of conflicting judgments of
co-equal benches, it is desirable to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
Zenith Steel Tubes and Industries Ltd. V. SICOM Ltd
The Precedents are not to be read as a statute. The bench should not place
reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the circumstances fits in
with the factual situation. The Circumstantial flexibility, one addition or a
different fact, makes a difference between conclusions in two cases. (Union of
India V. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Haryana Financial Corporation V. Jagdamba
Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P
The apex court held that, the High Courts of the judicial discipline and
adherence to the rule of precedents, observing that when there is a difference
of views among coordinate Benches of one and the same strength, the matter
should be referred to a larger bench, instead of passing any order. Also re
iterated in Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewon Dubey 
Union of India V. Nirala Yadav
The Decisions of a smaller Bench prevails, which deals with and explains the
decision of larger Bench.
Joseph V. Special Tehsildar
Court clarifies the most conflicted area in precedent as follows.
Conflicts between Benches:
There are three mutually repugnant streams of precedents:
- Subordinate court may follow the earlier precedent, i.e., view of the
earlier vintage will prevail.
- Later Decision will prevail
- Better in point of law:
The same opinion was held in Vasant Tatabo Hargude & Ors. V. Dikkaya Muttaya
and Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi V. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. &
Parsaraja Manikyala Rao V. State of A.P
Court held that each criminal case depends on its own facts. Thus one should
avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against
the colour of the other. To provide quick and effective justice, it is required
to avoid the propensity to refer to and rely upon precedents to appear at
findings of fact in criminal cases. Same was held in Naib Singh V. State of
Vedica Procon Private Ltd. v. Balleshwar Greens Private Ltd. & Ors
The Supreme Court found inconsistency in two judgments of the court of equal
strength on the issue of opening of sale in liquidation proceedings in
Navalkha and Sons vs. Ramanuja Das & Ors
.and Divya Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.
v. Union Bank of India
 observing that in the latter case, the Supreme
Court departed from the principle laid down in 1969 case – unnecessarily, thus
1969 case followed.
Commissioner of Income Tax V. Ms Sun Engineering Works Private Limited
The Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
While applying the judgment to a latter cases, the court should carefully aim to
ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of Supreme Court and not
to pick out words or sentences from the judgments divorced from the context of
question under consideration by the court to support their reasoning. Any
temporary order passed even by Supreme Court is limited to that particular case
and should not to be used as precedent for others cases exclusively when the
Supreme Court itself has previous authoritatively determined the question which
is squarely involved in the latter case.
Suganthi Suresh Kumar V. Jagdeeshan
Supreme Court observed that, It is impermissible for a High Court to overrule
the verdict of the Apex Court on the view that the Supreme
Court laid down legal position without bearing in mind any
other point. High Court cannot question the rightness of the
decision of the Supreme Court even although the point sought
after before the High Court.
Union of India v. Maniklal Banerjee
The court held that, only ratio decidendi is binding and has precedent value.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra and Ors
it was held by the Apex Court that the judgment of a larger strength is binding
not only on a judgment of smaller bench but the judgment of a co-equal strength
is also obligatory on a Bench of Judges of co-equal strength. If the court
doubts the correctness o judgment, the only proper course would be to make a
request to the Chief justice to refer the subject to a larger bench of
State of mp V. Mala banergee
Court held that if the Conflict between co- equal benches, it is desirable to
refer the matter to a larger bench.
- The precedents are very important but they have some dis regards also,
so while making judicial precedents the courts are nee to more cautious.
- The court must be ensuring the ratio decidendi in each case.
- While making a law the consideration of the lower court ensure, that
brings to reduce the overruling and dis regards.
- The ratio decidendi in that particular case is must be mentioned more
clearly that helps the future cases for easy access of the decisions.
- The obiter dictum maintain a separate way that also helpful in future
- The doctrine of precedent as recognized under the constitution is an
instrument of certainty, creativity, and predictability of judicial
interpretation of the statue, but while overruling its own decisions the
courts need to be more cautious.
- That the High Court acts as an intermediary between Supreme court and
the subordinate courts needs to be more careful that their decisions must be
in accordance with the Judgments of the Supreme Court and should act with
utmost care that their decisions should not be reversed in the Supreme Court
as it affects lot many cases decided in the lower court relying on the
decisions of the High Court.
- The High Court must not take a different view from the view taken by
their counterparts in other states; this persuasive value attached to the
precedents needs to be reduced by passing decisions at High Court taken into
account passed by the other High Courts.
Precedent provides legal authority for an action precisely because it occurred
before These words are quoted by Ari melber.
The precedents are the judge made law or that is also known as the judiciary's
law. Through this writing clearly understand the importance of precedent as well
the judiciary's role of making a law. The ratio decidendi is the binding part of
a precedent. Its state the reason behind the judgment. Obiter dicta are the mere
say things that are the discussions were made it and have no any binding value.
Through this writing clearly understand that the importance of precedent in the
current scenario in a legal perspective.
- DR.J.N PANDEY, Constitutional law of India, central law agency, fifth
edition, p 565
- AIR (1997) 6 SCC 241
- AIR 1985 SC 945
- AIR (2000) 6 SCC 269
- AIR (1999) 236 ITR 51 Mad
- Ibid 299
- AIR 1998 SC 1681
- PROF. K, MONY .,USHA, Legal Drafting Conveyancing Professional Ethics and
Advocacy, Usha publications,15th edition p 299
- E. SHERWIN,, 'A Defence of Analogical Reasoning in Law', University of
Chicago Law Review 66: 1179–1197 (1999)
- White, J., 'Analogical Reasoning' in A Companion to the Philosophy of
Law and Legal Theory, Patterson (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell p235 (1996)
- Ibid 565-566
- (1851) 21 LJ QB 75
- AIR 1932 AC 562
- AIR 1967 SCR (2) 154
- AIR 2002 SC 1598
- (2016) 15 SCC 289).
-  UGSC 2
- (AIR 1970 S.C.1002)
- (1997) 6 SCC 241
- (2013) 8 SCC 320
- 1997 SC 568
- 2007 (2) SCT 655 (SC)
- 1993 AIR 217
- AIR 2014 SC 1863
- (1983) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
- AIR 1965 SC 845
- AIR 1951 SC 458
- AIR 1967 SC 1643
- AIR 1991, 4 SCC 139
- AIR 2017 SC 2072.
- AIR 1974 SC 818.
- AIR 1989 SC 1933
- AIR 1968 SC 372
- AIR 1985 SC 89
- AIR 2004 SC 1625
- AIR 1955 SC 661
- AIR 1953 SC 255
- AIR 1974 SC 2039,
- AIR 1990 SC 261
- (2006) 1 SCC 275
- (2008) 1 SCC 533
- 2004) 3 SCC 75
- (2002)3 SCC 496).
- (1996) 6 SCC 303
- AIR 1962 SC 83
- (2014) 9 SCC 457
- (2001) 1 KLT 958 (FB)
- AIR 1980 Bom. 341
- AIR 1980 Kant 92)
- AIR 2004 SC 132
- AIR 1986 SC 2192
- AIR 2015 SC 3103
- (1969) 3 SCC 537
- (2000) 6 SCC69,
- AIR 1993, SC 43)
- (2002)2 SCC 420
- (AIR 2006 SC 2844)
- (2011) 1 SCC 694
- (2014) 6 SCC 723