Odisha State Financial Corporation vs Vigyan Chemical Industries 2025 INSC 928 - Ss.47,80 CPC - Doctrine of Sub Silentio
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47 -At the stage of execution proceedings, objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the trial Court can be raised for consideration, and the executing court is well within its powers to deal with such objections in accordance with law, if such objections, from the face of the records, do not require adjudication by trial - The executing court can refuse to execute the decree if it is a nullity. In addition to the settled position that a decree obtained by fraud or against the wrong person is a nullity, there are other circumstances which can render a decree to be a nullity. (Para 19) A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree passed between the parties or their representatives, unless the decree is a nullity. 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. An objection in that behalf may be raised in the execution proceedings. 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.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 80- The requirement of notice under Section 80 is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Failure to do so renders the suit liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The absence of such notice is treated as a formal defect, and the Court is duty bound to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, if it discloses non-compliance with Section 80 CPC. (Para 26) It is a duty of the trial court to deal with that aspect of satisfaction of the notice under Section 80. Such preconditions to be satisfied before initiation of a suit are recognized as mandatory in civil disputes where a statute prescribes the same. (Para 30)
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - A decree passed without jurisdiction is null and void. A court is said to lack jurisdiction if it has no territorial jurisdiction, or if it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, or if its jurisdiction over the subject matter is circumscribed by any law. Such laws may be either substantive or procedural and may, by express provision or necessary implication, take away the jurisdiction of a court to deal with a matter, leaving no room for any judicial discretion. These provisions may either impose a total bar on the court from dealing with certain subject matters or impose any pre-conditions, non-compliance with which may prevent the court from entertaining the suit, even if it otherwise has jurisdiction over the subject matter. A plea questioning the jurisdiction of the court can be raised at any stage, including before the High Court or this Court, particularly when it involves a pure question of law. (Para 20) Once the issue of maintainability is raised, or if the facts as pleaded by themselves create a cloud over the jurisdiction of the court or the maintainability of the proceedings, the same will have to be addressed, failing which the judgment will be unsustainable and a nullity. (Para 21)
Doctrine of Sub Silentio- 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 - It refers to a situation, where a rule or principle on a particular point of law is applied or passed upon by a court silently, without any consideration of the applicable law or without argument, and the judgment is rendered on another question of law or fact. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, “the precedents that pass sub silentio are of little or no authority”. Literally, it means ‘in silence’ and is used to refer to something that is not expressly stated. (Para 13)
Precedents - When the judgment of a Court is silent on questions of law either raised earlier but not decided, or raised in the subsequent proceedings, 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)
Constitution of India - Article 12 - State Financial Corporation Is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution - is an instrumentality of the State, created in pursuance of a requirement under the specific enactment of the parliament, State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, requiring every State to facilitate and encourage industrial development by creating institutions to fund the Micro, Small, and Medium Scale Enterprises. (Para 29-30)
Case Info
Here are the key details extracted from the judgment:
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Vigyan Chemical Industries & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 928
Coram
- Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: August 5, 2025
Caselaws and Citations
Supreme Court and Other Precedents Cited
- Shaki Tubes Ltd v. State of Bihar(2009) 7 SCC 673
- Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd and others v. M/s. Coromandel Sacks Pvt. Ltd(2024) 5 SCR 321 (rendered on 26.04.2024)
- Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur(1989) 1 SCC 101
- State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.(1991) 4 SCC 139 : (1992) 87 STC 289 : 1991 SCC OnLine SC 17
- Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd and others v. State of U.P. and others(1990) 1 SCC 109
- Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
- Arnit Das v. State of Bihar(2000) 5 SCC 488 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 962 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 936
- State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.(2004) 10 SCC 201 : (2004) 266 ITR 721 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 70 (5-Judge Bench)
- Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India(2005) 4 SCC 649 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 213
- Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd v. State of U.P.(2011) 9 SCC 354 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 673 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1115
- NBCC (India) Ltd v. The State of West Bengal and OrsMANU/SC/0061/2025 : 2025 3 SCC 440
- Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan(2017) 5 SCC 371 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 152 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 265
- Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath1961 SCC OnLine SC 42 : (1962) 2 SCR 147 : AIR 1962 SC 199 : (1961) 2 SCJ 592
- Celir LLP v. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna and others2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991
- Midnapore Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others(2006) 5 SCC 399
- Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal and Ors.(2005) 7 SCC 791 : MANU/SC/0710/2005
- Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Dir. Health Services, Haryana and OthersMANU/SC/0703/2013 : 2013 10 SCC 136
- Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) thr. L.Rs.MANU/SC/0593/1989 : (1990) 1 SCC 193
- Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiya LalMANU/SC/0328/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 474
- Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others(1981) 1 SCC 722 : MANU/SC/0498/1980
- Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board and othersMANU/SC/0068/2019 : (2019) 19 SCC 529
- Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. J.D. Pharmaceuticals and another(2005) 13 SCC 19
- Modern Industries v. Steel Authority of India Limited(2010) 5 SCC 44
- Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited(date not specified in extract)
- Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills v. Union of India and Ors.MANU/SC/3133/2007 : 2007 (12) SCC 198
- Bishandayal and Sons v. State of Orissa and OrsAIR 2001 SC 544 / MANU/SC/0773/2000
- R. Nagaraj (dead) through legal heirs and another v. Rajamani and others2025 Livelaw SC 416
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Constitution of India
- Article 136
- Article 142
- Article 227
- Article 12
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
- Section 29
- Section 34
- Section 47
- Section 50
- Section 80
- Order XXIV Rule 1
- Order XX Rule 4(2)
- Order XX Rule 5
- Order XXI Rule 1
- Order XXXVIII Rule 5
- Order VII Rule 11(d)
- Section 114 read with Order XLVII (review)
- Section 144 (restitution)
- Section 152 (amendment for clerical or arithmetical errors)
- Limitation Act, 1963
- Section 21
- State Financial Corporation Act, 1951
- Section 29
- Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (now repealed)
- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Section 15(2)
- Section 12-A
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
#SupremeCourt holds that, at the stage of execution proceedings, objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the Trial Court can be raised for consideration. https://t.co/nAx9wWnubf pic.twitter.com/1OIMkTJC4W
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) August 5, 2025
