STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus M/S. AGM MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 15-06-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS. AGM MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. 
JUNE 15, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Precedent: 
~. 
Reliance on decisions-Principles of-Held: Court should not place 
reliance on decisions without discussing as to how factual situation fits in with c 
fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed-Judgment are not 
to be construed as statutes-Observations of Courts are not to be read as 
Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute taken out of their context-
These must be read in the context in which they appear. 
Judicial utterances-Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different D 
fact make lot of difference between conclusions in two cases-It is improper 
to dispose of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision. 
Respondent-Company filed a writ petition. High Court relying on 
the order of High Court in an earlier decision in Ramesh Chand and Ors. E 
v. The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Jind & Ors., (C.W.P. No. 14360 
of 2005) disposed of the writ petition issuing certain directions. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that the High Court did not indicate as 
to how the decision relied upon by it had any relevance to the dispute F 
raised by respondent No. I; and that the order of High Court on which 
..,-· 
reliance was placed related to refusal to register the sale deed which was 
not the issue in the instant case. 
Remitting the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing, the Court 
G 
HELD: I.I. The Courts should not place reliance on decisions 
,,, 
without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact 
situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of 
Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of 
43 
H 
.,..,. 
44 
SUPREME COllRT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must 
' 
be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments 
of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases 
and provisions of a staltute, it may become necessary for judges to embark 
into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to 
B define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They 
interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as 
statutes. [45-G-H; 46-A-Bl 
1.2. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may 
make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of 
C cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. [46-E-Fl 
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951) AC 737; Home Office 
v. Dorset Yacht Co., [1970] 2 All ER 294 and Herrington v. British Railways 
Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537, referred to. 
D 
2 High Court has not indicted as to the applicability of the decision 
E 
F 
in Ramesh Chand 's case to the facts of the instant case. Thus, the order of 
High Court is set aside. [45-F-G[ 
Ramesh Chand and Ors. v. The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner. 
Jind & Ors., C.W.P. No. 14360 of 2005, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2751 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.2006 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.M. No. 1751 of 2006 (0 & \1) in 
CWP No. 167 of 2006. 
Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the Appellants. 
Raju Ramachandran, A.K. Vashishtha and Yash Pal Dhingra for the 
Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
The State of Haryana, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Faridabad 
and the Sub-Registrar, Faridabad call in question legality of the judgment 
H rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by 
-
• 
\ 
STATE OF HARV ANA"· MIS. AGM MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. [PASAYA T, J.l 
4 5 
which Civil Writ Petition No.167 of2006 filed by the respondents was disposed A 
of. 
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the following 
direction: 
"The only prayer of the petitioner at this stage is that the present B 
matter be disposed of by the respondents by keeping in mind the 
order of this Court appended as Annexure P-7 with application. We 
accordingly issue a direction to the respondents that necessary exercise 
be completed within a period of four months from the date that a 
certified copy of this order is supplied to them." 
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.