An Agreement Sub Silentio

7th April 2021

An Agreement Sub Silentio

posted in Uncategorized |

“27. In this case, CESTAT chose not to make the judgment based on Panchmukhi[17] (supra). The Panchmukhi case (supra) was apparently not decided as a result of a discussion of the facts and the law, but because counsel stated for the proceeds that the case was covered by the decision of tISCO Ltd.[18] (supra) and that counsel for the noted “was not in a position to challenge this legal situation”. The verdict of Panchmukhi (supra) has little precedent. The question of whether Dharmada, which participated in Panchmukhi (supra), and the supplement held at Tata Iron and Steel (supra) were identical and could be included in the transaction value remitted under silentio. Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition S.15 states that a decision taken is not binding, as it was not decided “without argument, without reference to the decisive words of the rule and without any citing number of authority.” The author also notes that precedents are sub-silentio and without arguments are never a moment. This is reason enough not to regard Panchmukhi`s decision (supra) as a binding precedent.¬†At State Of U.P And Another vs. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd., it was decided that “a decision is sub-silentio, in the technical sense of the word, attached to that sentence if the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Tribunal or is present in its mind.” Handing over a sub silentio thing can be proof of consent. In the explanatory statement of the sentence Subin Mohammed S. vs.

Union of India, the court said that “precedents do not have a sub-silentio moment and without arguments.” 41. Does this principle apply to a conclusion of the law that was not addressed and was not preceded by a quid pro quo? In other words, can such conclusions be considered a declaration of law? Again, english courts and jurists have created an exception to the rule of precedent. It was explained as the rule of sub-silentio. “A decision is made under-silentio in the technical sense of the term, which must be attached to that sentence, if the particular point of law that is involved in the decision is not perceived by the Tribunal or does not come to mind.” (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12. Edn., p.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 7th, 2021 at 11:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.