Whether review is maintainable against observation loosely made by court?

 The final contention of Mr. Sen is equally unappealing to afford a ground for review. The Division Bench may have referred to "easementary right" without any such claim being traceable in the pleadings but nothing turns on it in favour of the petitioners, as rightly contended by Mr. Sinha. We do not see reason to hold that by referring to "easementary right" the Division Bench committed such an error that the same would require rectification on review. It was an observation loosely made without affecting the ultimate conclusion that was reached and we allow the matter to rest here.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

R.V.W.O. No. 44 of 2016, G.A. No. 2924 of 2016 arising out of GA 1950 of 2016 in APO 212 of 2016 arising out of GA No. 932 of 2016 in CS No. 136 of 2006

Decided On: 17.05.2017

A.K.R. Consultants (P) Ltd. and Ors.

Vs.

 Asha Keshri and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Arijit Banerjee, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 Cal 176

Print Page

Whether any observation in judgment will amount ratio decidendi?

 It is well settled that the observations in a judgment cannot be de hors the point which is sought to be raised and the facts in which such point is raised. The observations cannot by themselves form the ratio of the decision. The ratio of the decision is to be drawn after considering the facts of the case, the point which is sought to be raised in the matter, the arguments which are canvassed in support of rival contentions in relation to such point, the discussion made by the Court with reference to such point canvassed by the counsel for the parties and the ultimate decision arrived thereupon. On taking into consideration all these aspects, the ratio of the decision has to be gathered. Any sentence in a judgment cannot be read as a statutory provision and the ratio in that regard is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court. This has been clearly explained in different decisions of the Apex court including in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dhanwanti Devi & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1272/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 44. It has clearly ruled therein that the decision is what it decides and not what follows from it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2015

Decided On: 14.03.2016

 The State of Maharashtra
Vs.
 Vitthal Tukaram Atugade

Print Page