In such a case, the principle of „per incuriam“ can be invoked and argued that the judgment is ignored because it does not present the right legal situation. „20. An undated decision that is not justified and does not respond to a deliberate examination of an issue cannot be considered a law declared binding, as provided for in section 141. What escaped the judgment is not the report. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense, when a particular point of the law has not been deliberately determined. (See State of U.P. v. Synthetics – Chemicals Ltd.[26]. When a high court or supreme court is faced with a judgment cited before it, there are certain rules for maintaining uniformity in the law and precedents generally known as the Stare Decisis principle. 40. Incuria literally means „recklessness.“ In practice, by Incuriam seems to mean by ignorance. English dishes have developed this principle in the relaxation of the la de La rule of stars. „Legally binding“ is avoided and ignored when carried out „in ignorance of a binding statute or other authority.“ (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co.

Ltd.)) The same was true of the interpretation of Article 141 of the Constitution, which embodies, accepts, approves and accepts the doctrine of precedents as a question of law. In Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey,[21] the Court draws attention to the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are brought before a bank that has taken out a passage in the Halsbury of England which contains one of the exceptions where an appels court`s decision is not binding. 22. In the Amritsar v. Hazara Singh Municipal Committee,[13] the Supreme Court stated that only a declaration of law in a decision was binding. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh,[14] the Tribunal held that everything in a decision is not a precedent.

In Delhi Admn. v. ManoharLal[15] the Supreme Court stated that a mere trial, without establishing a principle of law, is not a precedent. „42… In fact, the complete form of the principle, stare decisis and not quieta movere, which means „to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is regulated,“ was formulated by Coke in its classic English version as follows: „Things that have been judged so often should rest in peace.“ In Gerard v.