In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, the court quoted referring to the above maxim and noted that « a sub silentio decision in the technical sense that has been attached to this sentence when the special point is made by sub silentio ». « .  » A decision sub silentio is taken in the technical sense which is attached to this sentence, when the court is not in a position to assume or not to have the spirit of the particular legal crisis referred to in the decision. The court may deliberately choose a party on the basis of point A which it examines and decides. However, it can be shown that, logically, the General Court should not have ruled in favour of the party concerned, unless it also ruled in its favour in point B; However, point B was not relied on or taken into consideration by the General Court. In those circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and the case had a precise result, no authority in point B. Point B must pass sub silentio. `23. In so far as the applicant relies on the Nagesha case. Previous sub silentio and without argument are at no time. The mere incidental expression has no weight, nor any temporary expression of a judge, whatever it may be, can be treated as an ex Cathedra statement with the weight of authority.

`41. Does this principle apply to a legal conclusion that has not been raised or preceded by a review? In other words, can such conclusions be regarded as a legal statement? Here again, the English courts and jurists have drawn up an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been declared as the rule of sub-silentio. `A sub-silentio decision shall be taken in the technical sense associated with this sentence, where the particular legal crisis involved in the decision is not exercised by the court or is not present for it.` (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition, p. 153). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd.[22], the Tribunal did not feel bound by an earlier decision, since it was rendered « without any argument, without reference to the decisive terms of the rule and without any reference to the Authority ». It was approved by this court in municipal corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur.[23] The Bench found that « the previous sub-silentio and without argument do not have a moment ». That is why the courts have used this principle to eliminate unequired injustices.