Union of India v. Raghubir Singh

178 ITR 548Supreme Court of India1989#3124 most cited

What is Union of India v. Raghubir Singh authority for?

Tribunals must follow their own prior decisions unless the prior decision was plainly erroneous and a vital point was not considered or a statutory provision was not brought to the court's notice. An erroneous order does not create a binding precedent.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Raghubir Singh · 178 ITR 548 · assessment procedure · tribunal precedent · binding precedent · erroneous order · per incuriam · judicial conscience · rule of law

Also reported as

2 SCC 754

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 80indiainteresttotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing Union of India v. Raghubir Singh

Laxminarayan Synthetics, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…s in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Hence, decision of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation(supra), is binding on us. 19. In the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of binding precedent has merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. As per the doctrine of precedent, all lower Courts, Tribunals and authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions are bound by the decisions of the High Court ITA.147,234,150,160,201,202,2…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…rroneous, there is a duty of the Court of review it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. A vital point was not considered or when an earlier relevant statutory provision has not been brought to the notice of Court. [Union on India & Anr. Vs Reghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 23].  To perpetuate an error in no heroism [Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs Union of India &ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120]. To justify that the income in dispute (unaccounted income brought out by a search under section 132, which at the primary stage itself is not a ‘mistaken belief’ eventhough this is countere…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…rroneous, there is a duty of the Court of review it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. A vital point was not considered or when an earlier relevant statutory provision has not been brought to the notice of Court. [Union on India & Anr. Vs Reghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 23].  To perpetuate an error in no heroism [Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs Union of India &ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120]. To justify that the income in dispute (unaccounted income brought out by a search under section 132, which at the primary stage itself is not a ‘mistaken belief’ eventhough this is countere…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…t the case. In fact, such a course is stated as impermissible in law (refer para 8.3). The said order/s, in light of the foregoing, is not liable to be followed (Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 23 (SC); Raghubir Singh (Decd) v. Union of India [1989] 178 ITR 548 (SC); Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. UoI [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC); CIT v. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477. [ [[Discussion 8.5 We have already clarified of the detailed arguments and deliberations by the Tribunal in Vinod V. Chhapia (supra), also noting its’ findings (para 8.3). That being the case, the only course available to us is to de…

Sri Kush Nahata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata

ITA 1899/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1899/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kush Nahata Vs. Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1899/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kush Nahata Vs. ITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata 1st Floor, Jyoti Chhaya, 121, Rashbehari Avenue, Gariahat, Kolkata-700029 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : ADDPN 1413 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Respondent by :Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 23/04/2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned…

Pravin Kumar Hetamsaria vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol

Appeal is allowed

ITA 314/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…rroneous, there is a duty of the Court to review it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. a vital point was not considered or when an earlier relevant statutory provision had not been brought to the notice of Court [Union of India & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust vs. CIT 236 ITR 23] To perpetuate an error is no heroism [Distributors (Boaroda) P Ltd. Vs Union of India & ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120] ITA No.314/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Pravin Kr. Hetasmsaria Vs. ACIT, Cir-3 Asl. Page 4 Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law [CIT…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.468 & 469/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ACIT, 10th Floor, Beta Building, बनाम/ Central Circle-3(3), Lodha I Think Techno Park, Room No.1923, Air Vs. Opp. Kanjurmarg Station, India Building, 19th Mumbai-400042 Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAECS5096H ITA NOs.11…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.468 & 469/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ACIT, 10th Floor, Beta Building, बनाम/ Central Circle-3(3), Lodha I Think Techno Park, Room No.1923, Air Vs. Opp. Kanjurmarg Station, India Building, 19th Mumbai-400042 Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAECS5096H ITA NOs.11…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.468 & 469/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ACIT, 10th Floor, Beta Building, बनाम/ Central Circle-3(3), Lodha I Think Techno Park, Room No.1923, Air Vs. Opp. Kanjurmarg Station, India Building, 19th Mumbai-400042 Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAECS5096H ITA NOs.11…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.468 & 469/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ACIT, 10th Floor, Beta Building, बनाम/ Central Circle-3(3), Lodha I Think Techno Park, Room No.1923, Air Vs. Opp. Kanjurmarg Station, India Building, 19th Mumbai-400042 Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAECS5096H ITA NOs.11…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…he decision in the case of Mega in support of the above submission that a decision which is per incurium need not be followed: ( i) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Briti…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…he decision in the case of Mega in support of the above submission that a decision which is per incurium need not be followed: ( i) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Briti…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…he decision in the case of Mega in support of the above submission that a decision which is per incurium need not be followed: ( i) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Briti…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Vishu Impex Pvt Ltd

ITA/431/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…9 of 12 case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273].” 19. In Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “27. However, even assuming that the decision in WP No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judicata, we are constrained to observe that even if the learned Judges who decided WP…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gardenia Shelters (P) Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

ITA 612/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C S Agarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194J

…st Bengal (1997) 108 ITR 345 (SC). (iii) The decision of the Hon'ble ITA T in the case of Addl. CIT(TDS) vs. Canara Bank may not be followed as per the Doctrine of Binding Precedent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in : Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh 178 ITR 548 (SC) (556 &557 ) -Surinder Kumar and others, State of Punjab and others [1992] 194 ITR 434(SC). (C) Without prejudice submission w.r.t default u/s 1941 Without prejudice to the above, the following submission is also made: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that he has verified certain ledger accounts and other documents for A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2009…

Cargill Financial Services Asia Pte Ltd.- in Liquidation, Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

ITA 5260/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora CIT(DR)
Section 2

…nue, of DRP's orders are relied upon. 4. It is Revenue's humble submission and contention that the Hon'ble Tribunal could differ from its earlier decision, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [1989] 178 ITR 548 and that this is a fit case to do so. This aspect is detailed below. CARGILL TSF ASIA PTE L TO, SINGAPORE I AY 2008-09 5. The Ld. AR has relied, inter alia, on the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in AYs 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2007-08 (combined order dated 19.08.2011) which have also been confirmed by the Hon'ble HC, Delhi (combi…

Cargill Tsf Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora CIT(DR)
Section 2

…nue, of DRP's orders are relied upon. 4. It is Revenue's humble submission and contention that the Hon'ble Tribunal could differ from its earlier decision, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [1989] 178 ITR 548 and that this is a fit case to do so. This aspect is detailed below. CARGILL TSF ASIA PTE L TO, SINGAPORE I AY 2008-09 5. The Ld. AR has relied, inter alia, on the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in AYs 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2007-08 (combined order dated 19.08.2011) which have also been confirmed by the Hon'ble HC, Delhi (combi…

Galileo International Inc vs. Director of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/467/2012HC Delhi25 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273].” 19. Similarly, in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 in para 27, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “27. However, even assuming that the decision in WP No. 35561 of 1998 did not operate as res judicata, we are constrained to observe that even if the learned Judges who de…