LexODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION versus VIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 928 Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Vigyan Chemical Industries and Others (Civil Appeal No. 10047 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant u/Art.227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the civil proceedings and the orders passed by the Courts below regarding the computation of interest on the decretal amount and the consequential execution proceedings. Headnotes† Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of Sub silentio – When earlier judgment only adjudicated upon issue of limitation – Other critical issues were not adjudicated – Earlier judgment cannot be held to be a binding precedent on those undecided issues: Held: It is a settled principle that a judgment is an authority only for what it decides – When a judgment fails to address other issues raised, it is said to be ‘sub silentio’, and cannot be held as a binding precedent on those undecided issues – In the instant case, from the records, it is very clear that in the earlier judgment of this Court challenging the original decree, only the issue of limitation was adjudicated – Critical issues such as (i) the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit against the appellant in the absence of a notice u/s.80 CPC, (ii) the maintainability of the suit, (iii) the power of the Court to modify the decree by entertaining an application u/s.21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and (iv) the applicability of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, were not adjudicated – This is where the concept of ‘sub silentio’ assumes significance – Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.2073/2010 is silent on the issues now under consideration – When the judgment of a Court is silent on questions of law either raised earlier but not decided, or raised in the * Author 2 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports subsequent proceedings, it is settled law that constitutional courts are empowered to decide such questions of law independently and the earlier judgment cannot be cited as a binding precedent or conclusive. [Para 13] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.47 – Whether the issues that go to the root of jurisdiction and maintainablity can still be raised at the stage of execution u/s.47 of CPC: Held: It is settled legal position, applying the doctrine of sub silentio, that a decision is not an authority on a point that has not been argued or decided – In the instant case, the trial Court had not framed any issues regarding the maintainability of the suit filed by respondent no. 1 against the appellant, for the alleged default committed by respondent no. 2, despite a plea in the written statement – Without any issue having been framed on maintainability, the matter reached up to this Court, and the decision was rendered solely on the issue of limitation – Therefore, the issues that remained undecided, but go to the root of jurisdiction and maintainability, can still be raised at the stage of execution u/s.47 CPC. [Para 14] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.47 – Scope of – Discussed: Held: As per s.47, the Executing Court is empowered to examine the questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree – It cannot go beyond the decree; but at the same time, when a plea is raised that the decree is a nullity and hence, unenforceable, the executing court is bound to examine and decide such an application on its merits – The court must execute the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain objections on the ground that the decree is erroneous in law or on facts – Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree, even if erroneous, remains binding on the parties – A decree may, however, be challenged in execution proceedings, if it is a nullity–for instance, if it is passed without bringing on record the legal representative of a person who was dead at the time the decree was passed, or where the cause of action was not maintainable, or if it was passed against a ruling prince without a certificate – Similarly, when the decree is made by a court that has no inherent jurisdiction to pass it, an objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. [Paras
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.