The effect of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court?

Hello.

Just the other day, I was going across two cases discussing the same controversy in issue (the first one being announced in 1991 consisting of a bench of six judges and the other announced in 2005 consisting of a bench of two) of a country's Supreme Court and I found myself confused with the dictum laid down in them. I've summarised the proposition below:
"The 1991 case discusses a particular point of law and gave its opinion regarding that point (the judgment defines a certain concept). Now, the problem which has been the cause of my dilemma is that the judges in the subsequent case of 2005, while considering the 1991 case and borrowing some part of the same judgment, go on to expand the scope of that particular point of law to such things which were held not to be included in the 1991's case."

What would be the outcome of these two decisions of the apex Court? Which would be binding and how?

Thank you.

Dicta if you are using that term technically is not binding--it is just possible guidance.

Originally Posted by Unregistered Dicta if you are using that term technically is not binding--it is just possible guidance.

What if it's the ratio decidendi? Then what would be the outcome?