{"id":292841,"date":"2023-05-24T09:00:25","date_gmt":"2023-05-24T03:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=292841"},"modified":"2023-05-23T20:30:12","modified_gmt":"2023-05-23T15:00:12","slug":"the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/","title":{"rendered":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi<\/i> v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.<\/i>1<\/sup><\/a> (Rathi Steels<\/i>) delivered divergent opinions on an important question of law concerning powers of the Court to entertain a batch of review applications\/petitions under Article 137<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> (the Constitution) and Order 473<\/sup><\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (CPC).<\/p>\n

Nagarathna, J. while relying on the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 as well as several authorities of the Supreme Court was of the view that merely because a judgment is “subsequently overruled by a subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case”, it shall not be a ground for review. Shah, J. on the other hand opined that in light of the peculiar facts of the case before the Court, the review applications\/petitions should be allowed in “larger public interest”.<\/p>\n

Considering the “divergence of opinion” between both the Judges, the Bench directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for “appropriate orders”.4<\/sup><\/a> The question that now arises is that till this conflict is resolved by an appropriate Bench, what is the precedential value of both these opinions? Are the views expressed by both Judges binding? Could both these opinions be judgment of the Supreme Court or not?<\/p>\n

Status of precedential value of the abovementioned opinions, till the conflict is resolved by appropriate Bench<\/h4>\n

The answer to the aforesaid question can be found in a decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd.<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>5<\/sup><\/a> (Shriram<\/i>). In Shriram case<\/i>6<\/sup><\/a>, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court was constituted to resolve a difference of opinion, between two Judges of the High Court on the “question of competence of the State Legislature to enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 19647<\/sup><\/a>”.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The issue before the Court was whether by virtue of Section 18-G<\/a>9<\/sup><\/a> of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951<\/a>, the power to legislate regulating supply, distribution and price of molasses was taken away from the hands of the State Legislature.10<\/sup><\/a> The concurring opinion delivered by Mathur, J. succulently deals with this particular issue of precedential value of divergent views. After a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, rules, and authorities, Mathur, J. opined,<\/p>\n

117<\/i>. A careful examination of the stand and texts and authorities referred to above shows that even according to the wider view, leaving aside the stricter or narrower view, an adjudication, in order to constitute a judgment, must decide any question or issue in the case or any of the rights of the parties. Further the form of the adjudication or the language used is not material, what is to be seen is its effect on the suitor proceeding in which it is made.<\/p>\n

118<\/i>. If that be the real meaning of the word judgment, it follows as a corollary that there can be only one judgment in a case. Two contradictory judgments or judgments at variance with each other will not have the effect of deciding any question or issue in the case or of deciding any of the rights of the parties. It is also plain that such judgments can neither be enforced nor be given effect to. Therefore, if two Judges constituting a Division Bench give contradictory decisions or decisions at variance with each other, in law, such decisions cannot be called as judgments as they do not decide any question or issue in the case or proceeding nor do they decide any of the rights of the parties, the real test being what is the effect of the two decisions on the case or proceedings in which it is made, the language or phraseology used being wholly immaterial having no bearing. In such a situation, the decision so rendered will only amount to the opinions of the respective Judges. This principle will, however, not apply where on account of some statutory provisions like Section 9811<\/sup><\/a> CPC contradictory decisions by their own force lead to a decision of any question or issue in the case for any of the rights of the parties.12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n

Even though the opinion of Mathur, J. is a concurring opinion and does not constitute the majority view, it is a settled principle of law13<\/sup><\/a> when the other Judges of a Bench do not dissent from or contravene the view of a particular Judge on the same Bench, then it is presumed that the other Judges who have not expressed contrary views have agreed with the view expressed by the said Judge.<\/p>\n

The passages from the opinion of Mathur, J. have been referred to and followed by the Allahabad High Court in Prem Chandra<\/i> v. Collector<\/i>14<\/sup><\/a> as well as other High Courts such as the Patna High Court in Amarendra Arya<\/i> v. State of Bihar<\/i>15<\/sup><\/a> and the Bombay High Court in Raju Deganna Shetti<\/i> v. Dinkar Nilay Shetti<\/i>16<\/sup><\/a> (Raju Shetti<\/i>).<\/p>\n

Are the views expressed by both the Judges binding<\/h4>\n

In Raju Shetti case<\/i>17<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court was dealing with a challenge to an order passed by the trial court concerning a suit filed under Section 6<\/a>18<\/sup><\/a> of the Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a> for dispossession. The applicant before the High Court relied on the view expressed by the Supreme Court in East India Hotels Ltd.<\/i> v. Syndicate Bank<\/i>19<\/sup><\/a> (East India Hotels<\/i>) to support its contention. Divergent views were expressed by a Division Bench in the matter before the Supreme Court. However, the said views so expressed by both the Judges “were not adjudicated upon” as the parties in the said matter had settled their dispute amicably.<\/p>\n

The High Court after noting the divergent views expressed by the Supreme Court in East India Hotels case<\/i>20<\/sup><\/a> observed that the High Court “is required to be sensitive to the effect of such findings recorded by the Supreme Court and whether such findings can be given colour of judgment being binding precedent”.21<\/sup><\/a> According to the High Court, since in East India Hotels case<\/i>22<\/sup><\/a> the “pronouncement” was “referred to jointly by both the Judges to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench”, the “said pronouncement cannot be termed as a judgment and as such will lose its efficacy as precedent”.23<\/sup><\/a> To substantiate these observations, the High Court relied on the opinion of Mathur, J. in Shriram case<\/i>24<\/sup><\/a> and went onto hold that East India Hotels case<\/i>25<\/sup><\/a> does not lay down law which is binding on the High Court. Therefore, according to the High Court, since the Judges in East India Hotels case<\/i>26<\/sup><\/a> referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench, the views of both the Judges are not binding.27<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n

It is however submitted that even if there was no reference made in East India Hotels case<\/i>28<\/sup><\/a> to the Chief Justice of India by both the Judges, the divergent views in expressed by them would still not be a judgment as there was no conclusive decision of the issue before the Bench.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the divergent views of Shah and Nagarathna, JJ. in Rathi Steels case<\/i>29<\/sup><\/a> would not be of any precedential value and would not be binding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

† Practising Advocate at the Bombay High Court. Author can be reached at dormaandalal@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 288.<\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Constitution of India<\/a>, Art. 137<\/a>.<\/p>\n

137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/span> — Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Art. 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.<\/a><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, Or. 47 R. 1<\/a><\/p>\n

1. Application for review of judgment.<\/span><\/span> — (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—<\/a><\/p>\n

(a<\/i>) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred;<\/a><\/p>\n

(b<\/i>) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed; or<\/a><\/p>\n

(c<\/i>) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes;<\/a><\/p>\n

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.<\/a><\/p>\n

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.<\/a><\/p>\n

Explanation<\/i>.— The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 288.<\/a><\/p>\n

5.<\/a> 1995 SCC OnLine All 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 1995 SCC OnLine All 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. [pending uploading]<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> 1995 SCC OnLine All 647<\/a>, para 1.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951<\/a>, S. 18-G<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> 1995 SCC OnLine All 647<\/a>, para 2.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, S. 98<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> 1995 SCC OnLine All 647<\/a>, paras 117, 118.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> See<\/i>, Dormaan Jamshid Dalal, “<\/i>Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India and the Unwarranted Reference”, SCC Online Blog, Op.Ed. (5-7-2022).<\/a><\/p>\n

14.<\/a> 1998 SCC OnLine All 299.<\/a><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> LPA No. 1469 of 1995, decided on 25-9-2019 (Pat).[pending uploading]<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 9229.<\/a><\/p>\n

17.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 9229.<\/a><\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a>, S. 6<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29.<\/a><\/p>\n

20.<\/a> 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29.<\/a><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 9229<\/a>, para 18.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 9229.<\/a><\/p>\n

23.<\/a> 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29<\/a>, para 18.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> 1995 SCC OnLine All 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

25.<\/a> 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29.<\/a><\/p>\n

26.<\/a> 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29.<\/a><\/p>\n

27.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 9229<\/a>, para 20.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29.<\/a><\/p>\n

29.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 288.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal†<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":292925,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[57805,7601,57806,38800,57807,57804,31855,37972,5363],"class_list":["post-292841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-appropriate-orders","tag-constitution-of-india","tag-divergence-of-opinion","tag-larger-public-interest","tag-question-of-competence","tag-rathi-steels","tag-specific-relief-act","tag-state-legislature","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-24T03:30:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/\",\"name\":\"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-24T03:30:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"rathi steels\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels | SCC Times","description":"On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels","og_description":"On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-05-24T03:30:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/","name":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp","datePublished":"2023-05-24T03:30:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"On 17-3-2023, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"rathi steels"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":258745,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/18\/can-a-registered-document-be-cancelled\/","url_meta":{"origin":292841,"position":0},"title":"Once a document gets registered, can it be cancelled as per the Registration Act, 1908? Del HC answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Yashwant Varma, J., held that once a document comes to be duly registered, it becomes a fait accompli. In the present matter, the petitioner challenged the validity of a show-cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, the second respondent. The said notice calls upon the petitioner to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":350629,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/14\/bomhc-rejects-transfer-to-open-prison-preeti-rathi-acid-attack-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":292841,"position":1},"title":"Bombay HC rejects accused\u2019s plea of transfer to \u2018open prison\u2019 in Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case","author":"Editor","date":"June 14, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Every prisoner should follow the rules and regulations of the prison and carrying prohibited items with him inside the prison will make him ineligible for transfer to an open prison.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Preeti-Rathi-Acid-Attack-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Preeti-Rathi-Acid-Attack-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Preeti-Rathi-Acid-Attack-case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Preeti-Rathi-Acid-Attack-case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368021,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/28\/law-commission-celebrates-76th-constitution-day-inaugurates-social-media-handles\/","url_meta":{"origin":292841,"position":2},"title":"Law Commission celebrates 76th Constitution Day; inaugurates its social media handles","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"November 28, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA civilisational legacy built upon tolerance, protected by sovereignty, guided by equality and held together by fraternity, ensures justice as also human dignity.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Law Commission celebrates Constitution Day","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Law-Commission-celebrates-Constitution-Day.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Law-Commission-celebrates-Constitution-Day.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Law-Commission-celebrates-Constitution-Day.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Law-Commission-celebrates-Constitution-Day.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287371,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/20\/whether-orders-would-be-reviewed-based-on-judgement-which-was-later-overruled-by-superior-court-supreme-court-division-bench-delivers-split-verdict-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":292841,"position":3},"title":"Can orders be reviewed for relying on a judgment subsequently overruled by a superior Court? Supreme Court division bench delivers split verdict","author":"Editor","date":"March 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The case pertains to the resurrection of controversy surrounding the Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority judgements of the Supreme Court vis-\u00e0-vis Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"split verdict","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-804.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-804.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-804.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-804.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":28041,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/12\/03\/enhance-compensation-for-railways-accident-victims\/","url_meta":{"origin":292841,"position":4},"title":"Enhance compensation for railways accident victims","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 3, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court- Deciding on a writ petition filed wherein it was sought to quash Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; to quash the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1999 providing for Rs.4,00,000\/- as the maximum amount\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":343487,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/11\/ministry-law-and-justice-appoints-dr-anju-rathi-rana-secretary-department-legal-affairs\/","url_meta":{"origin":292841,"position":5},"title":"Ministry of Law and Justice appoints Dr. Anju Rathi Rana as the Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs","author":"Editor","date":"March 11, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr Rana was previously the Additional Secretary in the Department of Legal Affairs.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Dr. Anju Rathi Rana","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Dr.-Anju-Rathi-Rana.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Dr.-Anju-Rathi-Rana.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Dr.-Anju-Rathi-Rana.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Dr.-Anju-Rathi-Rana.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=292841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292841\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/292925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=292841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=292841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=292841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}