“In Kunhayammed, (2000) 6 SCC 359 this Court held, “Logic underlying Doctrine of Merger is, there cannot be more than one Decree or Operative Orders governing same subject-matter at a given point of time. Doctrine of Merger is not of universal or unlimited application.”
This position of law has been recently affirmed and reiterated by a Three-Judge Bench in Khoday Distilleries Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376. Kunhayammed was followed by a Three-Judge Bench in Chandi Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724. More recently, Chandi Prasad was followed by a Two-Judge Bench in Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419.”
– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal (D), [Civil Appeal No. 5360 of 2019].
P. Singaravelan v. District Collector, Tiruppur, (2020) 3 SCC 133 observed, “It is useful to recall, it is well-settled, dismissal of an SLP against an Order or Judgment of a Lower Forum is not an affirmation of same. If such an Order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 or attract Doctrine of Merger.”
To similar effect are observations in C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 625; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Omaditya Verma, (2005) 4 SCC 424 and State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das, (2019) 6 SCC 270.
– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, State of U.P. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, [Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022] decided on 07.01.2022.