Which of two conflicting decisions of equal bench strength prevails? Allahabad High Court answers

When a larger bench reference on conflicting judgments of coordinate benches on a question of law is pending, the judgment delivered earlier will prevail in the meantime, the Allahabad High Court recently ruled [M/S Geo Miller Company Private Limited v. UP Jal Nigam and Others]..Justice Shekhar B Saraf laid emphasis on the principle of judicial discipline and said it was essential for maintaining the integrity, coherence, and predictability of judicial decisions.One of the key mechanisms through which judicial discipline is maintained is the doctrine of stare decisis, which literally means “to stand by things decided”, the judge said.As per the doctrine, courts are bound to follow their own previous decisions when confronted with similar legal issues, Justice Saraf said."When a Coordinate Bench issues a judgment on a particular legal issue, that judgment becomes binding precedent for subsequent cases involving a similar issue before another Coordinate Bench. This ensures that similar cases are decided in a consistent and uniform manner, regardless of the particular composition of the Bench," the Court said. .Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the single-judge noted that the existing principle is that the earlier decision of a coordinate bench must be followed until the decision of the larger bench is returned."By following the earlier decision, even in the face of conflicting precedents, courts preserve the integrity of the legal system and uphold the principle of stare decisis – the notion that like cases should be decided like. From a practical standpoint, following the earlier decision until the decision of the larger bench is returned serves to promote certainty and predictability in the administration of justice," the Court said.It added that when conflicting precedents arise, the litigants may be left in a state of limbo, unsure of their rights and obligations under the law..The Court made the observations in its decision on applications moved by two companies under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal.The tribunal in the cases had either failed to publish award within the statutory time limit or it was about to expire.During the hearing on May 7, the Court was informed that a larger bench reference on the issue of the term 'Court' under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was pending before the High Court in the case of M/S Jaypee Infratech Limited v. M/S Ehbh Services Pvt. Limited (2024) In that case, Justice Saraf had noted conflicting views in decisions of two coordinate benches in M/S A'Xykno Capital Services Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) and Indian Farmers Fertilizers v. M/S Manish Engineering Enterprises (2022) on the same question of law..Accordingly, the Court had referred following two questions for decision by a larger bench.1. Whether in a case where the appointment of the arbitrator(s) has been made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, it is only the Supreme Court or the High Court, respectively, that can hear an application under Section 29A of the Act?2. Whether in a case where the appointment of the arbitrator(s) was made under the agreement contained between the parties (including statutory appointments under MSMED Act, NHAI Act, etc.) and not by the High Court or Supreme Court, the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act can exercise the powers under Section 29A of the Act, including the power of substitution contained in Section 29A(6) of the Act?.In the present case, the Court allowed applications for mandate as it relied on Indian Farmers Fertilizers v. M/S Manish Engineering Enterprises (2022) in which a coordinate bench had held the application under Section 29A to be maintainable before the same court which had appointed the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act..[Read Judgment]