Whether findings of facts given by court or judgment on concession is binding as precedent?

So far as the first question is concerned, Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law. It is, therefore, an essential function of the Court to interpret a legislation. The statements of the Court on matters other than law like facts may have no binding force as the facts of two cases may not be similar. But what is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of facts. It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence. To determine whether a decision has ‘declared law’ it cannot be said to be a law when a point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a decision. A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. An ‘obiter dictum’ as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight. The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. So far as constitutional matters are concerned, it is a practice of the Court not to make any pronouncement on points not directly raised for its decision. The decision in a judgment 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 Court (see AIR 1970 SC 1002 and AIR 1973 SC 794).

Supreme Court of India

Leave a Reply

LexCliq

Premier League Live – Leicester V West Ham And Southampton V West Brom

Another ban limited mid-sizes vehicles to mid-size machines (330 ci or less), but Pontiac found a loophole by detailing the GTO as an option (mentioned previously), and showcased a 325-hp 389 V8 motor, making it 100 more horsepower than cars in its course during the time, which immediately shot the GTO to popular status. Numerous […]

Read More
LexCliq

Looking To Acquire A Legitimate Home To Mount Your Likely?

Viking River Cruises serves complimentary beer, wine and soft drinks with lunch and healthy meal. Marina would come by our table every at lunch or dinner with $ 17 of white and red. We usually skip wine with lunch, but enjoyed the red evening with dinner. She always kept our glasses filled. Premium wines are […]

Read More
LexCliq

Marvel Realtors Marvel Izara Is A Well-known Tasks During Pune

England have actually a 100% record against a number of countries, mainly those faced in qualifiers, however their most useful record is against lowly San Marino, whom they have beaten seven times, scoring 42 goals and conceding one. The Dodgers’ left-hander allowed just three hits over innings, notching up a record 13 strikeouts-the most in […]

Read More