Practice of citing several decisions on a particular point of law deprecated by SC

Precedents
Ratio decidendi
Case law - Practice of citing several decisions on a particular point of law - Not useful as courts may, on facts of
different cases, arrive at different conclusions - Need to cite leading decision of largest Bench strength that holds the
field, if there be such a decision - Supreme Court need not discuss each and every decision cited and instead should
follow and apply only those decisions which deal with the aspect of law involved in the case in hand - Court can advance
the law, provided the same should be reconcilable with binding precedent - This approach should be followed by
coordinate or co-equal Benches and smaller Benches of Supreme Court as well as by subordinate courts - If coordinate
Bench doubts ratio decidendi of previous Bench, it should refer the matter for decision by a larger Bench,


Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, (2013) 10 SCC
95

Government Contracts/Tenders
Tender - Qualification - Essential terms for submission of tender - Determination of, and need for strict compliance
therewith - Terms which constitute basic qualification for a valid bid must be strictly complied with so as to be eligible for
consideration of bid offer - One of the terms of Invitation of tender" in present case required submission of latest income
tax return along with the bid - It would assume the character of an essential term if one of the qualifications was either
gross income or net income - In absence of this feature, held, filing of latest income tax return was a collateral term or
salutary stipulation indicative of commercial standing or reliability of tendering entity - Disqualification of appellant
Company on ground of its failure to submit its latest income tax return along with its bid/offer not sufficient reason for
disregarding its bid/offer - In such case, instead of disqualifying the bid for non-compliance with the term in question,
Tendering Authority ought to have brought this discrepancy to the notice of tenderer and if even thereafter no rectification
was carried out, position would be different, (2013) 10 SCC 95-A
Administrative Law
Judicial Review
Subject-matter of judicial review - Impugned order must be examined with reference to grounds set out in the order itself
on which it is based and not with reference to any fresh ground brought out subsequently - Ground not adopted or
expressed in the impugned administrative order cannot be sought to be raised to justify its validity - Order of Tendering
Authority of respondent disqualifying tender submitted by appellant by mentioning only one of the two grounds regarding
non-compliance with essential terms of tender - Validity of order challenged by appellant in writ petition before High Court
- Single Judge of High Court dismissed writ petition on basis of ground stated in the order, considering it unnecessary to
analyse the other ground - Division Bench of High Court in appeal upheld decision of Single Judge justifying order by a
cryptic judgment - In appeal before Supreme Court, held, no reasons having been given by Division Bench of High Court
for its decision, respondent cannot be permitted to go beyond the stand taken in its order and raise contention relating to
the other ground also to justify the order, 
Precedents
Ratio decidendi
Case law - Practice of citing several decisions on a particular point of law - Not useful as courts may, on facts of
different cases, arrive at different conclusions - Need to cite leading decision of largest Bench strength that holds the
field, if there be such a decision - Supreme Court need not discuss each and every decision cited and instead should
follow and apply only those decisions which deal with the aspect of law involved in the case in hand - Court can advance
the law, provided the same should be reconcilable with binding precedent - This approach should be followed by
coordinate or co-equal Benches and smaller Benches of Supreme Court as well as by subordinate courts - If coordinate
Bench doubts ratio decidendi of previous Bench, it should refer the matter for decision by a larger Bench,
Precedents
Long-standing precedents
Decision of Single Judge of High Court followed for long - Held, deserves reverence and adherence,