In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, the court referring to the above maxim and held that “a decision goes sub silentio, in the technical sense that is related to that sentence, if the particular point of the sub silentio.” 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., 153). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., the Court did not feel bound by an earlier decision because it was rendered “without any argument, without reference to the decisive words of the rule and without any reference to the Authority.” It was approved by this court of the Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Gurnam Kaur.
The bank found that “precedents do not have a single moment and without arguments.” The courts have therefore used this principle to move away from the injustices committed by unjust precedents. A decision that is not explicit and is not based on reasons or is not based on consideration of the issue cannot be considered a law declared binding, as provided for in section 141. Uniformity and consistency are at the heart of judicial discipline. But what escapes without reason in judgment is not the relationship. In B. Shama Rao/Union Territory of Pondicherry, “a decision is not binding on the basis of its conclusions, but on its relationship and the principles set out in it.” Any declaration or conclusion that has come without the spirit or without any reason cannot be regarded as a legal power or a binding general power as a precedent. Deference in the event of unreasonance or over-voting serves stability and uniformity, but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is unreasonable for the growth of the law. » “… “A decision is made in the technical sense of the term, which must be attached to that sentence when the particular point of law that participated in the decision was not perceived or brought to mind by the Tribunal. The court may deliberately rule for a party, because of Point A, which considers and pronounces it. However, it can be shown that the court should not logically have ruled for the party concerned, unless it had also ruled in its favour in point B; However, Point B was not invoked or considered by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, although point B is logically involved in the facts and the case has had a concrete result, the decision is not an authority in point B.
Point B must be handed over sub silentio. 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.” SUB SILENTIO. Silently, without any notes being taken. Sometimes handing over a thing is proof of sub silentio approval. See silence. Once the offer is submitted and accepted, the two parties are bound by the agreement and not before. If the proposal or adoption is made in a different way than the words, the promise is considered implicit. [iv] Acceptance must have the effect of communication, even if it is implicit. [v] Acceptance can also be made in written or spoken words.
The most important thing in both cases is that the acceptance must be communicated to the bidder either by the bidder or by a duly accredited representative on its behalf. Compliance with the terms of the proposal is also the adoption of the proposal. [vi] In certain circumstances, the Offeree`s silence, as well as its behaviour, also boils down to acceptance.