How is the doctrine of merger and precedent attracted in the case of Judgment passed by the Supreme court?

How is the doctrine of merger and precedent attracted in the case of Judgment passed by the Supreme court?

b) We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under:

“(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC.”

Supreme Court of India
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now … vs Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara … on 1 March, 2019

Leave a Reply

LexCliq

Underworld Determine Needed For Turkish Lawyer’s Killing

Unable to see what was going on, he jumped up and ran however was shot from behind and killed. He misplaced his life in a completely unprovoked attack, while sitting beneath a tent at the automotive wash, waiting for the subsequent customer to reach.Three younger males got here up behind Trinard in an try to […]

Read More
LexCliq

Out For This Box Smart Tips

If the some cash, give a technique some free products in a contest. Promote the contest as much as possible, to build people should you choose your site, sign up for a newsletter, or blog, or submit emails about your to their friends, for a chance to win a free product. That is a great […]

Read More
LexCliq

Four Super-Deadly Marketing Sins – And The Ways To Fix Them

Pretend your Canadian customer has obtained book a person from your Canadian web business. Your drop ship supplier is based out of the Assist and is registered for G.S.T. You fax your order towards American company, and they, in turn, ship guide is designed to for you (complete with Customs Declaration and their G.S.T. One […]

Read More