“………………. The ratio of a judgment are the reasons assigned in its support. When a Court of appeal grants stay of the operation of the judgment, it stays the further implementation, as between the parties, of the operative portion thereof. Thereby, the ratio of the decision cannot be said to have been wiped out. (N.Rami Reddy2 ). Even when the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court, which is the subject-matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court, is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that the judgment cannot be executed or implemented. But so long as the judgment stands, the dicta laid down therein is binding on Single Judges and Division Benches of the High Court. The dicta laid down therein cannot be ignored. ( Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain4 ; N.Rami Reddy2 ; K.Venkata Reddy v. LAO5 ). While considering the effect of an interim order, staying the operating of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of the order and stay of operation of the order. Quashing of an order results in restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order, which has been stayed, would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order, and does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. ( M/s. Sree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of SIT Association6 ; N.Rami Reddy2 ). Notwithstanding Leave having been granted in S.E. Graphites (P) Ltd. (Order in W.P.No.15384 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013), and an interim order being passed that there should be no coercive recovery of the amount in question, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in M/s. Ankamma Trading Company1 , is still binding on a co-ordinate Bench…………” (emphasis supplied)
