A division bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari refused to accept the argument made by the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta that certain observations made in the Vidarbha judgment could be interpreted in a manner that might be contrary to the aims and objects of the IBC and render the law infructuous.
The Court stated that the apprehension of the Solicitor General appears to be ‘misconceived’ since the observations made in the Vidarbha judgment were in the context of facts of the case.
In this regard, the Court underlined that the observations made in a judgment should not be read as provisions of a statute.
“Judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances and/or pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case. To interpret words and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for the Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions. The words of Judges interpreting statutes are not to be interpreted as statutes,” the Court observed while rejecting the review plea.
Source: Barandbench
