M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. TAET 10/2014. Decided on 16 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354692/1/TAET10-14-16-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs. 20. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying the law of precedent have become locus classicus. “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.”“
21. It is well settled in law that a decision of the court is only an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It cannot be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it and such a mode of reasoning assumes that law is necessarily a logical code, whereas it must be acknowledged that law is not always logical. It is equally well settled legal position, that court should not place reliance on a decision without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision, on which reliance is placed. [See: ‘DELHI ADMINISTRATION (NCT OF DELHI) VS. MANOHAR LAL’, AIR 2002 SC 3088 and ‘HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGADAMBA OIL MILLS’, (2002) 3 SCC 496]. It is well settled in law that observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of a statute and should not be taken out of their context. The observations must be read in the context, in which they appear to have been stated. The Judges interpret statutes and they do not interpret judgments. [See: ‘BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. N.R.VAIRAMANI’, (2004) 8 SCC 479].
22. The aforesaid words were referred to by Supreme Court in ‘COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. ALLURY TOBACCO PRODUCTS’, 2004 (170) E.L.T. 135 (SC) and it has been held that courts should not place reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed and observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of statute. It has further been held that observations made by the court must be read in context in which they appear to have been stated and the judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 