Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)
Mayank Sharma vs Vishal Sharma on 5 February, 2018 cites

London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956

ad “41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In Pr other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English Courts and jurists have carved out an a exception to the rule of prece- dents. It has been explained as rule of hy sub-silentio. “A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the ad particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind.” (Salmond on Jurisprudence M 12th Edn., p.153) In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered without any argument, without reference of to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority.’ It was approved by this Court in Municipal rt Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The Bench held that, ou 'precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment'. The Courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perperated by unjust precedents. A decision which is C not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on h consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity ig and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which H escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decedendi.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 326 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988

ad “41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In Pr other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English Courts and jurists have carved out an a exception to the rule of prece- dents. It has been explained as rule of hy sub-silentio. “A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the ad particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind.” (Salmond on Jurisprudence M 12th Edn., p.153) In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered without any argument, without reference of to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority.’ It was approved by this Court in Municipal rt Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The Bench held that, ou 'precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment'. The Courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perperated by unjust precedents. A decision which is C not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on h consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity ig and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which H escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decedendi.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 817 - A P Sen - Full Document

B. Shama Rao vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 20 February, 1967

In B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, it was observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down therein'. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law.” Even applying the aforesaid text to the present case, this Court had passed the order after giving due consideration to rival submissions and as such the same cannot be said to have been passed sub-silentio. In the order it is specifically mentioned that the matter is dealt with on merits as well. Thus no help can be derived by the petitioner from the aforesaid decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 253 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next