LEONARD XAVIER VALDARIS versus JITENDRA RAMNAYARAN RATHOD & ORS.

LEONARD XAVIER VALDARIS versus JITENDRA RAMNAYARAN RATHOD & ORS.

Where a Single Judge disagrees with an earlier Single Judge's decision on the same set of facts and one trial, the proper course is to refer the matter to a Division Bench/two-Judge Bench under Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules rather than pass a conflicting order; accordingly the impugned Single...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Leonard Xavier Valdaris; Respondent: Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Disposed
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; impugned judgment dated 20.4.2023 partly set aside and treated as an order differing with the earlier 16.12.2022 order and as referring the matter to a Division Bench; appeal disposed of.
Legal Topics
Conflicting Decisions, Coordinate Bench, Referring to Larger Bench, Framing of Charge Under Section 302 IPC
Practice and Procedure Criminal Law Conflicting Decisions Coordinate Bench Referring to Larger Bench Framing of Charge Under Section 302 IPC

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Xavier Valdaris

Appellant

Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Single Judge of the High Court can disagree with an earlier order of a Single Judge based on the same set of facts and one trial and pass a conflicting order
  2. 2 Whether a Single Judge who considers an earlier coordinate Single Judge's order unsustainable should refer the matter to a Division Bench/two-Judge Bench under Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960

Ratio Decidendi

Where a Single Judge disagrees with an earlier Single Judge's decision on the same set of facts and one trial, the proper course is to refer the matter to a Division Bench/two-Judge Bench under Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules rather than pass a conflicting order; accordingly the impugned Single Judge order was to be treated as differing with the earlier order and as referring the matter to a larger Bench, and the impugned judgment was partly set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; impugned judgment dated 20.4.2023 partly set aside and treated as an order differing with the earlier 16.12.2022 order and as referring the matter to a Division Bench; appeal disposed of.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 20.4.2023 in CRLWP No.4451/2022 is treated as differing with the judgment/order dated 16.12.2022 and as referring the matter to a larger Bench of two Judges/Division Bench for consideration
  • Impugned judgment/order is partly set aside and the appeal is allowed and disposed of in the terms stated