Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on judicial precedents and res judicata, dating back to the year 1954.
Constitution of India — Arts. 141 and 142 — What is binding — “Law declared by Supreme Court” — Doctrine of merger
“Taxation serves as the cornerstone of governmental revenue, facilitating the provision of public services and infrastructure. Essential to this system is consistency, ensuring that similar factual and legal circumstances are met with uniform treatment.”
Calcutta High Court noted that the mere dismissal of the first suit does not automatically render the second suit barred by res judicata.
Although the instant matter was remanded back to NCDRC to decide on facts, the Supreme Court very well elaborated the cause of action, Doctrine of Merger, principle of Res Judicata and Precedents.
In the peculiar facts of the present case, taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty.
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
If plaint filed in different courts are read juxtaposing each other it cannot be concluded that similar and identical issues are involved in both the cases.
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.
The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge’s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.
Delhi High Court was of the view that it would be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold if the petition is not maintainable, otherwise an unacceptable position of law would arise where despite a petition being not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction would need to be entertained.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal against the decision of Trial Court of dismissing the suit mainly on the ground that the
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and J M Khazi, JJ. dismissed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. remarked “there has been no matrimonial relationship between the parties for the last nearly
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ., expressed that just because the scholarship advertisement was published
“There is a trend of poorly pleaded public interest litigations being filed instantly following a disclosure in the media, with a conscious intention to obtain a dismissal from the Court and preclude genuine litigants from approaching the Court in public interest.”
“…the case on hand is fit to be included in the syllabus of a law school as a study material for students to get equipped with the various provisions of the Code relating to execution.”
Supreme Court: In an important ruling on Res Judicata, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli, JJ
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., while addressing the matter observed that: “…where there are multiple claims, MACT should place all