Login ID:
Password:

Forgot Password?
New user? Free SignUp
Enrolment Forms
Online Payment Polls
Library
My Library
Right to Information Clinic

The Journal of the BCAS-the BCAJ has an online Avatar.

Jhancar - ‘Togetherness & Networking Carnival’ for Chartered Accountants

48th Residential Refresher Course

Fraud and Forensic Audit: Why should it concern you?

Tax Audit Workshop (Advanced)

Lecture Meeting on International & Domestic Transfer Pricing - Recent Developments

More Events...

Useful Links
Bulletin Board
WE CA
Chat Room
   

BCA Journal
September 2014 Journal Index
Sep 14

 
  Archives   Subscribe Now  
    Latest Publication
Taxation of Expatriates (Including Certain Non-Tax Aspects)
 
  By Mr. Sushil U. Lakhani
Mr. Nitin P. Shingala
Mr. Nandkishore C. Hegde and Ms. Niji A. Arora
Chartered Accountants
Price: Rs.100/-
Member Rs.100/-
Students Rs.100 /-
 
Other Publications

Supreme Court decisions— Whether always binding ?

Subject : Income Tax Law
Month-Year : Jul 2003
Author/s : Dilip K. Sheth
Chartered Accountant
Topic : Supreme Court decisions— Whether always binding ?
Article Details :

Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India "the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the Courts within the territory of India". The general belief, thus, is that the Supreme Court decisions are always binding on lower Courts. How-ever, can such belief be regarded as a rule without any exceptions ? For an answer, finer aspects of this question are examined.

1. Conceptual aspects :

At the outset, important conceptual aspects may be critically re-viewed.

1.1 Supreme Court ‘makes’ law :

In terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is enjoined to declare law. The term ‘declared’ is wider than the term ‘found’ or ‘made’. To declare means to announce opinion. Indeed, the term ‘made’ involves a process, while the term ‘declared’ expresses result. The law declared by the Supreme Court is the law of the land. It is a precedent for itself and for all the Courts/Tribunals and authorities in India1. To deny this power to the Supreme Court on the footing that it only ‘finds’ law but does not ‘make’ it, is to make ineffective the powerful instrument of justice placed in the hands of the highest judiciary2.

While the position of the Supreme Court is subordinate to the Legislature, it must be recognised that in the Supreme Court’s efforts to achieve its purpose of ‘declaring’ the law, creativity is involved2. A statute is binding; but it is the statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court that is binding on all the other Courts3. The Supreme Court is not a mere interpreter of the existing law. As a wing of the State, it is a source of the law4.

1.2 Purposive interpretation preferred to literal interpretation :

In the aforesaid background, rising above the doctrine of literal interpretation, judicial activism has been pleaded in the matter of interpretation of statutes. Having consistently followed such approach, the doctrines of purposive and progressive interpretation have come to prevail in the matter of statutory as well as consti-tutional interpretation. This, however, is subject to the limitation that the Court cannot rewrite the law in the guise of interpretation5.

1.2.1 While ‘interpreting’ law, the Supreme Court may ‘alter’ it :

Article 141 empowers the Supreme Court to ‘declare’ the law and not enact it. Hence, observations of the Supreme Court should not be read as statutory enactments6. At the same time, this Article recognises the role of the Supreme Court to alter the law in the course of its function to interpret a legislation7 so as to bring the law in harmony with social changes5-8.

1.3 Constitutionality :

1.3.1 Where a High Court allows several writ petitions declaring a Statute as unconstitutional :

In such a case, if the State appeals to the Supreme Court only in one of the petitions and in that appeal, the Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Act (setting aside the judgement of the High Court), the law declared by the Supreme Court would, in terms of Article 141, be binding on all the petitioners before the High Court and not merely the particular petitioner against whom the State had preferred appeal9.

1.3.2 Where a State Government is a party duly represented

before the Supreme Court :

In such a case, the decision of the Court declaring a State Act as ultra vires shall be binding on that State Government, even where no notice, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, was served upon the Advocate-General10.

1.4 Retrospectivity :

Where the Supreme Court has expressly made its ratio prospective, the High Court cannot give it retrospective effect11. By implication, all contrary actions taken prior to such declaration stand validated12.

The doctrine of prospective over-ruling is applicable to matters arising under the Constitution as well as the statute. Applic-ability of the doctrine is left to the discretion of the court to be moulded in accordance with justice of the cause and matter before it. If the Supreme Court does not exercise its discretion to hold that the law declared by it would operate only pros-pectively, the High Court cannot of its own hold so. When the Supreme Court interprets an existing law overruling the interpretation given to it earlier and does not lay down any new law, declaration of law by it relates back to the law itself13.

2. What is binding under Article 141 ? :

What is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding on facts14, or the opinion of the Court on any question which was not required to be decided in a particular case15.

The law that will be binding under Article 141 would extend only to the observations on the points raised and decided by the Court in a case16. Therefore, as a matter of practice, the Court does not make any pronouncement, particularly in Constitutional matters, on the points not directly raised for its decision17.

General principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person including those who are not a party to that order18.

In other words, it is the principle underlying a decision that is binding. While applying the decision in a later case, therefore, the later Court should try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the previous decision, in the context of the questions involved in that case from which the decision takes its colour19.

2.1 Decisions of the House of Lords and Privy Council :

All Courts in India are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court even though the same are contrary to the decisions of the House of Lords20 or of the Privy Council21.

2.2 To ascertain its binding

nature — Judgement to be read as a whole :

A judgement must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgement have to be considered in the light of the question before the Court22. It is the principle found upon reading the judgement as a whole in the light of the questions before the Court that is relevant and not particular words or sentences23.

2.3 Precedent value of the

decision — only on question of law :

A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law24.

2.4 Majority view binding — Not minority view :

When the Court is divided, it is the judgement of the majority which constitutes the ‘law declared’ by the Supreme Court and not the view or observations of the judges in minority25.

It is immaterial that the conclusion of the majority was arrived at by several judges on different grounds or different processes of reasoning26.

2.5 Ex-parte decision, too, binding :

To determine whether a decision is ‘declared law’, it is im-material whether the Supreme Court gave the decision ex-parte or after a hearing27.

2.6 Procedural irregularity — Immaterial :

The binding force of a judgement as a precedent is not affected by any procedural irregularity in hearing the case28.

2.7 Special leave petition :

In a Special Leave Petition, there is a ‘law declared’ if the Court gives reasons for dismissing the Petition29. However, there is no law declared where the Court gives no reasons for dismissal30.

3. What is not binding ?

3.1 Certain decisions — Not binding :

The following kinds of decisions cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 14131 :

  • The decision that is not express32

  • The decision not founded on reasons

  • The decision that does not proceed on consideration of the issue.

The later Court would not be bound by those reasons or propositions which were not necessary for deciding the previous case33. Conversely, the later Court cannot unnecessarily expand the scope and authority of the precedent34. In other words, a judgement cannot be construed as an Act of Parliament. It must be read in the context of the questions that arose for consideration in the case and not as embracing all aspects of every question relating to the subject or laying down principles of universal application35. In the absence of parity of situation or circum-stances, the reasoning of one decision cannot be applied in another case36.

3.2 Obiter dictaNot binding :

Only ratio decidendi is binding; obiter dicta, that is, the general observations have no binding force37. Since an obiter is not binding as the law declared under Article 141, it cannot be relied upon solely to hold certain statutory rules as invalid38.

Connotation :

An obiter dictum is an observation made by a Court on a legal question suggested by a case before it, but not arising in such manner as to require the Court’s decision. It is not binding as a precedent, because the observa-tion was unnecessary for the decision given by the Court39.

Persuasive value :

An obiter of the Supreme Court though not binding as precedent, is worthy of respect and consider-able weight40.

Different nature :

While the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court41, the position is different as regards obiter42.

3.3 Decisions per incuriam and sub-silentio — Not binding :

These two doctrines constitute exceptions to the rule of pre-cedents. The expression per incuriam means ‘resulting from ignorance of’. If a decision is rendered per incuriam a statute or binding authority, the same may be ignored43.

Another exception to the rule of precedents is the rule of sub-silentio. A decision is sub-silentio when the point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or not present to its mind44. A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgement is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub-silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously deter-mined45.

3.4 Later decision — Not binding if the earlier decision is by a larger bench :

If the later decision is that of a larger Bench, the previous decision will be deemed to have been overruled1. Thus, the judgement of a 3-Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of 2 Judges46. However, where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is the later decision that will be bind-ing on the lower Courts47, unless the earlier decision was by a larger Bench48.

3.5 Supreme Court’s observations on facts — Not binding :

Statements on matters other than ‘law’, e.g., facts, have no binding force, for the facts of two cases are generally not similar49. On this principle, decision on a question of sentence cannot be regarded as ‘law declared’50. A reference may, however, be made to the under-noted Bombay High Court decision51 in which it was held that if the facts were the same, the Supreme Court decision was a binding precedent.

3.6 Decision based on concession — Not binding :

No law is laid down when a point is disposed of on concession52. If the Court proceeds on the basis of concession made by a party, the decision cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed a binding precedent and cannot have the sanctity and solemnity of a binding precedent53.

4. High Court and lower Courts — Bound by

Supreme Court decisions :

4.1 Lower Courts duty-bound to follow :

When some principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court or some practice is deprecated, it is the duty of the High Court or lower Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, even though it may not have the approval of the Judge of the High Court or lower Court where the Supreme Court decision is cited54. The Central Admini-strative Tribunal, too, is bound to follow the Supreme Court decisions55.

4.2 Not to follow is

‘contempt’ :

A judgement of the High Court that refuses to follow the directions56 of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which was set aside by the Supreme Court, is a nullity57. The Supreme Court may treat it as contempt even where its order was couched in the language of a request58.

4.3 Remand by the Supreme Court :

Where, however, in a subsequent petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court directs the petitioner to go before the High Court and directs the High Court to ‘reconsider’ the matter, the High Court would not be fettered by its own previous judgement59.

4.4 Lower Courts — Not to seek clarification :

If a direction of the Supreme Court is clear, a party cannot approach the Court for clarification for assisting the High Court, since the same would tantamount to nullifying the Supreme Court order or notification60.

4.5 Non-consideration of a particular argument — No ground to assail the decision :

The binding force of a Supreme Court decision cannot be as-sailed on the ground that it did not consider a particular argument provided the point to which the argument relates was actually decided therein61.

5. Supreme Court — How far bound by its own decisions ?

The words ‘all courts’ in Article 141 do not include the Supreme Court. In overruling its earlier decision, the Supreme Court should remember that while the decisions of other Courts are binding only upon the litigants, a decision of the Supreme Court is something more : it is declaratory for the nation62. Accordingly, the Supreme Court is free to depart from its earlier decision in certain cases.

5.1 Departure from earlier decisions — Illustrations :

That the Supreme Court is free to depart from an earlier decision is evident from the fol-lowing illustrative circumstances :

(a) If it is satisfied about any error in its decision and the baneful effect of such error on the general public interests63-64.

(b) Where the earlier decision is rendered per incuriam (in ignorance of) a relevant constitutional or statutory provision or of some decision of its own4.

(c) Where the Supreme Court is satisfied that an earlier judgement has deprived the petitioner of fundamental or other rights65.

(d) Where social, industrial or legislative changes call for a wider outlook66, or progressive interpretation67.

(e) Where there has been no uniformity in previous decisions, the later Court would examine the principle in the light of the scheme of the Constitution and the materials placed before it6.

(f) Where the Supreme Court itself cautions that the direction issued by it is not to be treated as a precedent in any other case68.

(g) The doctrine of precedents does not apply to an order rejecting a Special Leave Petition69.

5.2 No departure from earlier decisions — Illustrations :

In the following illustrative cir-cumstances, however, the Supreme Court was slow in departing from its earlier decision :

(a) Where the earlier decision was followed in a large number of cases70,71.

(b) Where the earlier decision is a unanimous decision of a Bench of five Judges4,72.

(c) Where the earlier decision is of the Constitution Bench, the later Court should treat it as final [unless the subject is of such fundamental importance to national life or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that it is wiser to be ultimately right rather than to be consistently wrong73].

(d) A contrary decision of a larger Bench prevails over the decision of a smaller Bench74. A mere expression of disapproval by another Bench, however, does not overrule an earlier decision; it subsists until it has been expressly overruled by a larger Bench75.

Where a question has been decided by a larger Bench, all subsequent decisions by smaller Benches must be construed so as not to contradict the decision of the larger Bench76.

(e) Where the earlier decision represents a long-settled interpretation solely depending on the facts of a given case77.

(f) Where the earlier decision is by a bench of equal number of judges. Thus, a Division Bench of two Judges cannot overturn the decision of another Bench of two Judges78. If they are unable to agree, they should refer it to a larger Bench79.

Synopsis :

1. Conceptual aspects :

1.1 Supreme Court ‘makes’ law

1.2 Purposive interpretation preferred to literal interpretation

1.2.1 While interpreting law, the Supreme Court may ‘alter’ it

1.3 Constitutionality

1.3.1 Where a High Court allows several writ petitions by declaring a statute as un-constitutional

1.3.2 Where a State Government is a party duly represented before the Supreme Court

1.4 Retrospectivity

2. What is binding under Article 141 ?

2.1 Decisions of the House of Lords and Privy Council

2.2 To ascertain its binding nature — Judgement to be read as a whole

2.3 Precedent value of the decision — only on question of law

2.4 Majority view binding — not minority view

2.5 Ex-parte decision, too, binding

2.6 Procedural irregularity — immaterial

2.7 Special Leave Petition

3. What is not binding ?

3.1 Certain decisions — not binding

3.2 Obiter dicta — not binding

  • Connotation

  • Persuasive value

  • Different nature

3.3 Decisions per incuriam and sub-silentio — not binding

3.4 Later decision — not binding if the earlier decision is by larger bench

3.5 Supreme Court’s observa-tions on facts — not binding

3.6 Decision based on conces-sion — not binding

4. High Court and lower Courts — Bound by

Supreme Court decisions :

4.1 Lower Courts dutybound to follow

4.2 Not to follow is ‘contempt’

4.3 Remand by the Supreme Court

4.4 Lower Courts — not to seek clarification

4.5 Non-consideration of a particular argument — no ground to assail the decision

5. Supreme Court — How far bound by its own decisions ?

5.1 Departure from earlier decisions — illustrations

5.2 No departure from earlier decisions — illustrations

1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388

2. DTC v. DTC Mazdoor, (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 600

3. BIC v. CTO, (1994) Supp 1 SCC 310

4. Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 614

5. Advocates-on-record v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441

6. Rajeswar v. State of WB, A 1965 SC 1887

7. Dhanwatey v. CIT, A 1968 SC 683; 696

8. P.L.D. Corpn v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 632

9. Amman v. State of Karnataka, (1985) 2 SCC 513

10. State of Gujarat v. Kasturchand, A 1991 SC 695

11. F.C.J. v. Narendra, (1993) 1 U.J.S.C. 572

12. Baburam v. C C Jacob, (1999) 3 SCC 362, AIR 1999 SC 1845

13. Sarwan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 147

14. Union of India v. Dhanawanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44

15. Ranchhoddas v. Union of India, (1961) 3 SCR 718; 723

16. A.D.M. v. Shukla, A 1976 SC 1207; CIT v. Vazir, A 1959 SC 814 (821); ITO v. Devinath, A 1968 SC 623; Saghir Ahmed v. State of UP, A 1954 SC 728, 737

17. Mittal Engg Works P Ltd v. CCE, (1997) 1 SCC 203

18. M S L Patil, Asst Conservator of Forests, Solapur v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 11 SCC 361

19. Director of Settlements, A P v. M R Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638; Shah v. State of Gujarat, A 1986 SC 468

20. I T Commr. V Shirinbai, A 1965 Bom 586; Punjabi v. Shamrao, A. 1955 Nag 293

21. Dwarka Das v. Sholapur Spinning Co, A 1954 S.C. 119

22. CIT v. Sun Engineering, (1992) 4 SCC 363

23. CIT v. SEW, A 1993 SC 43; Madhav Rao v U.O.I., A 1971 SC 530, 578

24. Ram Prasad Saruna v. Mani Kumar Subba, (2003) 1 SCC 289

25. John Martin v. State of WB, A 1975 SC 775

26. Ramesh v. Union of India, A 1990 SC 560

27. Pradyut v. Suryakant, A 1979 Bom 166

28. State of Gujarat v. K C Shah, A 1991 SC 695

29. Kalpetta Estates Ltd v. CIT, (1996) 9 SCC 510; AIR 1996 SC 2419

30. Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596; State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, (1996) 9 SCC 29; Om Prakash Gargi v. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 399; C G Govindan v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 625; AIR 1998 SC 2735

31. State of U.P. v. Synthetics, (1991) 4 SCC 139; Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488; AIR 2000 SC 2264

32. Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207

33. Mittal Engg Works P Ltd v. CCE, (1997) 1 SCC 203

34. Shah v. State of Gujarat, A 1986 SC 468; Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207

35. Gasket Radiators v. E.S.I.C., (1985) 1 SCC 68; Amar v. State of Punjab, A (1985) SC 218; Single v. Union of India, (1984) 4 SCC 450

36. Union of India v. Annam, (1985) 2 SCC 443

37. Orient Paper v. State of Orissa, A 1991 SC 672

38. Moti Ram v. N E F Ry., A 1964 S C 601

39. Madhav Rao v. Union of India, A 1971 SC 530; A.D.M. v. Shukla, A 1976 SC 1207

40. Sarvan Singh Lamba v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 546; Director of Settlements, A P v. M R Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638

41. Lalkhani v. Malkapur Municipality, A 1970 SC 1002; Mudaliar v. State of TN, A 1973 SC 794 [But in Waman v. Union of India, A 1981 SC 271, the Court has observed that the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude consideration of an interpretation which started as an unexamined assumption]

42. Raja v. Immanual, (1976) Cr. L.J. 1693 (AP)

43. State of U P v. Synthetics, (1991) 4 SCC 139; A - One Granites v. State of U.P., (2001) 3 SCC 537; AIR 2001 SC 1203; Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. Pg 167

44. Ramdas v. Sadanand, A 1980 SC 111; State of Orissa v. TPM, (1985) Supp. SCC 280; Union of India v. Subramaniam, (1976) 3 SCC 677; M R V U v. Union of India, (1994) Supp. (1) SCC 609

45. Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488; AIR 2000 SC 2264

46. C.S.T. v. Pine Chemicals, (1995) 1 SCC 58

47. State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, (1976) Cr L.J. 1648 (Punj) F.B.; Gobinda-naik v. W P Press, A 1980 Knt F.B.; Vasant v. Dikkaya, A 1980 Bom 341

48. Mattu Lal v. Radhe Lal, A 1974 SC 1596; State of U P v. Ram Chandra, A 1976 SC 2547

49. Municipal Committee v. Hazara, A 1975 SC 1087; Prakash v. State of UP, A 1960 SC 195

50. Dalbir v. State of Punjab, A 1979 SC 1384

51. D Navinchandra v. Union of India, (1989) 43 ELT 266 (Bom)

52. Lakshmi Shanker v. State, A 1979 SC 451

53. Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, (2001) 4 SCC 262; Director of Settlements, A P v. M R Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638

54. Asstt. Collector v. Dunlop, (1985) 1 SCC 260

55. Union of India v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, (1995) 3 SCC 17

56. Bayer v. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 3 SCC 29; Narinder v. Surjit, (1984) 2 SCC 402

57. Kausalya v. L.A.O., (1984) 2 SCC 324

58. Spencer & Co Ltd v. Vishwa-darshan, (1995) 1 SCC 259

59. Commr. of Police v. Jagadiswaranda, A 1991 Cal 263 Cal (D.B.)

60. Sabyasachi v. Nani, (1990) Supp. SCC 315

61. Mahesh Kumar Saharia v. State of Nagaland, (1997) 8 SCC 176

62. Ganga Sugar Corpn v. State of UP, A 1980 SC 286; Supreme Court Advocates v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441

63. Bengal Immunity Co v. State of Bihar, (1995) 2 S C R 603; 628

64. P L D Corpn v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682

65. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; AIR 2000 SC 1650

66. Indra v. U.O.I., A 1993 SC 477

67. Synthetics v. State of UP, (1990) 1 SCC 109

68. Delhi Admn v. Nand Lal Pant, (1997) 11 SCC 488: AIR 1997 SC 3068; Labha Ram & Sons v. State of Punjab, (1998) 5 SCC 207; State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, (2002) 8 SCC 158

69. Hari Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114

70. P L D Corpn v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682

71. Keshav Mills v. I T Commr., A 1965 SC 1630, 1644, 1647; State of W.B. v. Corpn of Calcutta, A 1967 SC 997, 1001; Ambika v. State of UP, A 1980 SC 1762; Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC

72. A majority of 13 Judges in Keshavananda’s case [A 1973 SC 1461] overruled the majority in another 11-Judge-decision in Golak Nath [A 1967 SC 1643]

73. Ganga Sugar Corpn v. State of UP, A 1980 SC 286; Supreme Court Advocates v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441

74. C.S.T. v. Pine Chemicals, (1995) 1 SCC 58; S H Rangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 538

75. Shah v. State of Gujarat, A 1986 SC 468

76. Meera v. Govt. of T.N., (1989) 4 SCC 418

77. Collector v. Raja, (1985) 3 SCC 1

78. Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation, (1995) 4 SCC 96; AIR 1995 SC 1480

          79. Union of India v. Godfrey, (1985) 4 SCC 369; Sunderjas v. Collector, A 1990 SC 261

Add to My Library

Back to Article Listings

Resource Material  
Articles and Features  
More...
Circulars  
  Modifications Applicable to Private Companies unde... 
More...
Drafts, Forms  
Tribunal Board  
Budget 2014  
Vice-President Communique  
Holidays for BCAS  
E-Book  
Annual Report  
BCAS Brochure  
Recent Case Laws  
Representations  
Supreme Court cases  
Tribunal-Rept. Cases  
Tribunal-Unrep.Cases  
Advance ruling  
High Court Cases  
Tribunal - International Tax Decision  
E-Newsletter  
Events  
Thought Mailer  
BCAS Hall Booking  
     
Disclaimer
Privacy Policy
Food for Thought