{"id":4950,"date":"2025-06-16T09:38:41","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T09:38:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=4950"},"modified":"2025-10-12T12:18:29","modified_gmt":"2025-10-12T12:18:29","slug":"role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/","title":{"rendered":"Role of Obiter Dictum in Indian Judicial Hierarchy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Balar_Marketing_Pvt_Ltd_v_Lakha_Ram_Sharma\"><\/span>Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakha Ram Sharma<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>CM(M)-IPD 5\/2025, decided on March 27, 2025<\/strong> \/ <strong>Delhi High Court, Hon&#8217;ble Justice Shri Amit Bansal<\/strong><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Balar_Marketing_Pvt_Ltd_v_Lakha_Ram_Sharma\" >Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakha Ram Sharma<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Doctrine_of_Precedent_in_Indian_Legal_System\" >Doctrine of Precedent in Indian Legal System<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Factual_Background_and_Procedural_History\" >Factual Background and Procedural History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Core_Legal_Issue\" >Core Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Submissions_by_the_Parties\" >Submissions by the Parties<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Contextual_Interpretation_of_Amrish_Aggarwal\" >Contextual Interpretation of Amrish Aggarwal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#No_Express_Overruling_of_Puma_Stationer\" >No Express Overruling of Puma Stationer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Application_of_Supreme_Court_Precedents\" >Application of Supreme Court Precedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Lack_of_Legal_Reasoning_in_Amrish_Aggarwal\" >Lack of Legal Reasoning in Amrish Aggarwal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Distinguishing_Other_Cited_Cases\" >Distinguishing Other Cited Cases<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Final_Decision_and_Clarified_Legal_Principle\" >Final Decision and Clarified Legal Principle<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/role-of-obiter-dictum-in-indian-judicial-hierarchy\/#Authors_Comment_Doctrinal_Clarity_Needed\" >Author\u2019s Comment: Doctrinal Clarity Needed<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrine_of_Precedent_in_Indian_Legal_System\"><\/span>Doctrine of Precedent in Indian Legal System<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Indian legal system, like other common law jurisdictions, operates on the doctrine of precedent to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. At the core of this doctrine lies the distinction between <em>ratio decidendi<\/em>, the legal principle that forms the basis of a decision, and <em>obiter dictum<\/em>, statements made by judges that are incidental to the main issue and not essential to the outcome of the case. While the former holds the force of binding precedent, the latter carries no binding authority but may be persuasive in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In practice, however, determining whether a particular statement made by a higher bench is <em>ratio<\/em> or <em>obiter<\/em> can be contentious. This dilemma becomes especially significant when Single Judges are tasked with interpreting statements made by Division Benches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court\u2019s recent decision in <strong>Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakha Ram Sharma<\/strong> sheds light on the question of whether a Single Judge is bound by an <em>obiter dictum<\/em> of a Division Bench of the same High Court. The case revolved around the application of <strong>Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong> in trademark infringement and passing off proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background_and_Procedural_History\"><\/span>Factual Background and Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute between Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) and Lakha Ram Sharma, the proprietor of Kundan Cable India (the respondent), centered on the use of the trademark &#8220;KUNDAN&#8221; and its variants. Both parties operated in the electrical goods industry, and each claimed the exclusive right to the trademark based on prior adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner asserted that its predecessor had adopted the mark in 1975. The respondent claimed earlier use, leading to multiple legal disputes filed between 1994 and 2006. These suits were consolidated over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In January 2025, the respondent sought a stay on all suits under <strong>Section 124<\/strong> of the Trade Marks Act, citing pending rectification proceedings. The Trial Court granted the stay based on the Division Bench decision in <strong>Amrish Aggarwal v. Venus Home Appliances<\/strong>, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3652.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under <strong>Article 227<\/strong> of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Core Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The main issue was whether the Trial Court was justified in staying the suits under Section 124 based on observations in <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em>. The key question: Were those remarks <em>obiter dictum<\/em> or binding precedent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Submissions_by_the_Parties\"><\/span>Submissions by the Parties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Petitioner&#8217;s Argument:<\/strong> Paragraph 44 of <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em> was merely <em>obiter dictum<\/em>. The Division Bench in that case mainly dealt with infringement suits, not passing off. The petitioner relied on <strong>Puma Stationer Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Pencils Ltd.<\/strong>, 2010 (43) PTC 479 (Del.) (DB), which stated passing off suits are not stayed under Section 124.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Respondent&#8217;s Argument:<\/strong> Even <em>obiter dicta<\/em> from a Division Bench must be followed by a Single Judge to ensure judicial consistency. Cases cited: <strong>Naseemunisa Begum v. Shaikh Abdul Rehman<\/strong>, 2002 (2) Mah L.J. 115 and <strong>Crocs Inc. USA v. Aqualite India Ltd.<\/strong>, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11957.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Contextual_Interpretation_of_Amrish_Aggarwal\"><\/span>Contextual Interpretation of <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Single Judge noted that the main issue in <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em> was the stay of infringement actions, not passing off. The mention of passing off in paragraph 44 was incidental and lacked reasoning. Therefore, it was deemed <em>obiter dictum<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"No_Express_Overruling_of_Puma_Stationer\"><\/span>No Express Overruling of <em>Puma Stationer<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench in <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em> did not overrule or even discuss <em>Puma<\/em>. Hence, <em>Puma<\/em> remained binding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_Supreme_Court_Precedents\"><\/span>Application of Supreme Court Precedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Cases cited by Justice Bansal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner<\/strong>, (1978) 1 SCC 405<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra<\/strong>, AIR 1968 SC 647<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Gudri v. Ram Kishun<\/strong>, AIR 1984 All 100<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These cases confirmed that only the <em>ratio decidendi<\/em> is binding; <em>obiter dicta<\/em> are not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lack_of_Legal_Reasoning_in_Amrish_Aggarwal\"><\/span>Lack of Legal Reasoning in <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench did not refer to key provisions like <strong>Section 27(2)<\/strong> of the Trade Marks Act. Nor did it address relevant case law. Hence, its remarks on passing off suits lacked authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinguishing_Other_Cited_Cases\"><\/span>Distinguishing Other Cited Cases<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Cases like <em>Naseemunisa Begum<\/em> and <em>Crocs Inc.<\/em> involved central legal issues. The mention of passing off in <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em> was not similarly analyzed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_and_Clarified_Legal_Principle\"><\/span>Final Decision and Clarified Legal Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Trial Court misapplied <em>Amrish Aggarwal<\/em>. Paragraph 44 was <em>obiter dictum<\/em>. The Single Judge was not bound by it. The stay order dated January 18, 2025, was set aside. All pending suits were ordered to proceed to trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Authors_Comment_Doctrinal_Clarity_Needed\"><\/span>Author\u2019s Comment: Doctrinal Clarity Needed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision reinforces that only <em>ratio decidendi<\/em> binds, not <em>obiter dicta<\/em>. It upholds common law rights like passing off and delimits Section 124&#8217;s scope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, conflict remains between Division Bench rulings in <strong>Puma<\/strong> and <strong>Amrish Aggarwal<\/strong>. The latter rejected <em>Puma<\/em>&#8216;s reasoning, creating interpretive tension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Past decisions like <em>Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Prasad<\/em> [2018:DHC:53] considered <em>Puma<\/em> itself as <em>obiter<\/em>. This led to contradictory judgments: <em>Balar<\/em> upheld <em>Puma<\/em>, while <em>Abbott<\/em> did not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The conflict underscores the need for clarity. As per <strong>Christian Louboutin v. Abu Baker<\/strong>, 2019 (78) PTC 262 (Del) (DB), such matters require resolution by a Larger Bench. Until then, doctrinal inconsistency will persist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakha Ram Sharma CM(M)-IPD 5\/2025, decided on March 27, 2025 \/ Delhi High Court, Hon&#8217;ble Justice Shri Amit Bansal Doctrine of Precedent in Indian Legal System The Indian legal system, like other common law jurisdictions, operates on the doctrine of precedent to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. At<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4950","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-company-law","7":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}