Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.29 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
It was approved by this Court in
MCD v. Gurnam Kaur MANU/SC/0323/1988: (1989) 1
SCC 101. The Bench held that, 'precedents sub silentio and
without argument are of no moment'. The courts thus have
taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice
perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not
express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on
consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law
declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by
Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial
discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without
any occasion is not ratio decidendi.
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 386 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956
When, therefore, this very point was argued in a
subsequent case before the Court of Appeal in Lancaster
Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. (1941) 1 KB 675
: (1941) 2 All ER 11 (CA), the Court held itself not bound
by its previous decision. Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R., said that
he could not help thinking that the point now raised had
been deliberately passed sub silentio by counsel in order
that the point of substance might be decided. He went on
to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier court
before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless,
since it was decided 'without argument, without
reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without
any citation of authority', it was not binding and would
not be followed. Precedents sub silentio and without
argument are of no moment. This Rule has ever since been
followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of
precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued
and decided should not be allowed to be reopened. The
weight accorded to dicta varies with the type of dictum.