Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :-

These salient principles emerge:

i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law.

ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be considered pending before such appellate authority, awaiting the appellate authority‟s fresh consideration.

iii. As per the law laid down in Pijush Kanti Chowdhury (supra) and reiterated in Niranjan Chatterjee (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court, in cases where an appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court and an order of stay remains operative in such a pending appeal, such stay of order does not amount to any „declaration of law‟ under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but is merely binding upon the parties to the said proceedings.

iv. Such an order of stay, which is interim in nature, does not obliterate the binding effect of the judgment of the concerned High Court as a precedent for the reason that while granting the interim order of stay of such order of the High Court, the Supreme Court had no opportunity to lay down any proposition of law which was in variance to the one declared by the High Court, which is impugned before the Supreme Court.

v. Accordingly, if a learned Single Judge of this Court is seized with the question of applicability of a Division Bench judgment which is subject to an order of stay in a pending appeal before the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge is to apply the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, as per the doctrine of precedent.

vi. As per the law enunciated in Valliama Champaka Pillai (supra), the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent on another High Court.

vii. As per the law laid down in Thana Electric Supply Ltd. (supra), the decision of one High Court is neither binding precedent for another High Court nor for courts or Tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories on which the court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may, at best, have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent so far as other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction are concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of stare decisis and also the various decisions of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the scope and ambit thereof.