The Supreme Court in the case Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan observed and has dismissed an appeal without any reasons which is being recorded cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case observed in the judgement disposing an appeal moved by M/s. Experion Developers Private Limited against the judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
However, one of the contentions raised before the court was that the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case Pawan Gupta v. Experion Developers Private Limited, wherein the court applied the doctrine of merger, principle of res judicata and in view of the rule of precedential value, would foreclose the submissions raised in the present case by the appellant.
The court also referred to the decisions in the case Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala , Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Makhija Construction & Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority, wherein the court observed that there being the clear distinction between the binding law of precedents in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of merger and res judicata.
It has also been stated by the said court that the order of this court while dismissing an appeal in the case of Pawan Gupta, supra cannot be read as a precedent and the same is to be applied to the cases in hand.
