leave petition by a non-speaking order where no reasons are recorded and the dismissal of a special leave petition by a speaking or reasoned order. In both cases, the doctrine of merger would not apply. But in cases falling under the latter category, the reasons stated by the Court would attract the applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution, if a point of law has been declared therein. If what is stated in the order of the Supreme Court (before the grant of leave) happen to be findings recorded by the Supreme Court, not amounting to a declaration of law, the findings so recorded would bind only the parties thereto. Though the views expressed in Kunhayammed [Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359] were thought of to be in conflict with the views expressed in certain other decisions [Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran (Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran, (1998) 7 SCC 386), and the issue was referred [Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 291: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 649 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 450] to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, this Court has now clarified in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376], that Kunhayammed [Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359] lays down the correct law.”
