{"id":354619,"date":"2025-07-26T11:00:56","date_gmt":"2025-07-26T05:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=354619"},"modified":"2025-07-27T16:48:40","modified_gmt":"2025-07-27T11:18:40","slug":"supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a civil appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 28-10-2021, whereby \u2018R\u2019 was made the sole owner of the subject property, the three Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta*<\/span> and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., stated that the doctrine of merger might not automatically apply to every set of related civil appeals made from the same order, and laid down certain exceptions to the doctrine. Further, the Court stated that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger, and since fraud vitiated the entire proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Court recalled its judgment in Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2022) 14 SCC 252<\/a> (\u2018Reddy Veerana case\u2019)<\/span>, which too was obtained by fraud.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The present case concerns rival claims in respect of ownership of a land situated in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, which was acquired by NOIDA in 2005 and now forms a part of Sector 18, NOIDA. The land was jointly purchased in 1997 by \u2018R\u2019, one \u2018S\u2019 and the appellant (\u2018the trio\u2019). Relying on their joint ownership, the trio initiated various legal proceedings seeking multiple relief from time to time, before and after the acquisition of the land by NOIDA.<\/p>\n

The appellant alleged that \u2018R\u2019 made several attempts to assert his exclusive ownership in proceedings where the appellant and \u2018S\u2019 were not joined as parties. He further alleged that in one such proceeding, \u2018R\u2019 succeeded and the High Court, by the impugned order dated 28-10-2021, declared him the sole owner. Aggrieved by \u2018R\u2019s\u2019 conduct, the appellant has sought relief from this Court by presenting the civil appeal.<\/p>\n

When the impugned order was challenged before the Court in separate appeals, vide Reddy Veerana case (supra)<\/span>, the civil appeal filed by NOIDA was dismissed and the civil appeal filed by Reddy was allowed in part. Thus, it was contended by the R\u2019s counsel that this decision has upheld the impugned order.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

I. Has \u2018R\u2019 played fraud on the Courts?<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the trio stood as a united front. They consistently projected themselves as co-owners of the property in multiple judicial proceedings. Thereafter, the Court noted that contrary to the consistent earlier stance, \u2018R\u2019, in a complete volte-face<\/span>, asserted his sole ownership of the property in multiple judicial proceedings. Finally, in January 2019, \u2018R\u2019 once again laid exclusive claim to the subject land asserting himself as the sole owner before the High Court and vide impugned order, his claim was allowed.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that considering \u2018R\u2019 consistent stance in earlier proceedings that the property was jointly owned and his failure to implead the other parties in the writ petition was appalling, if not more. The Court opined that it was a calculated attempt by \u2018R\u2019 to wrongfully appropriate the entire property keeping the other two in the dark. \u2018R\u2019 tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading the appellant as a party with the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the quantum of compensation but also a declaration as to his entitlement.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the judicial orders procured by \u2018R\u2019 by subverting the judicial process through fraud and concealment of material facts cannot be permitted to stand. The Court held that given the deception involved, the impugned order and the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana case (supra)<\/span>, procured by \u2018R\u2019 was tainted by fraud and, thus, lacked legal sanctity and validity.<\/p>\n

II. Maintainability<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the principle of \u201cfraud unravels everything\u201d was not confined only to examining judgments rendered by the courts below but could include the judgments of this Court as well, if at all the justice of the case before us so demands. The Court observed that the \u2018R\u2019s\u2019 senior counsel had argued that the present civil appeal was not maintainable, as it challenges a Supreme Court order, into which the impugned order was merged. It was contended that no appeal lies before the Supreme Court against its own order.<\/p>\n

Since arguments were advanced on the aspect of doctrine of merger, the Court stated that the law on the doctrine of merger come with exceptions. It does not apply universally or without limit. The extent of merger is determined by the subject matter of the appeal. The merger could only operate on issues which were the subject-matter of the appellate court\u2019s judgment and order. Further, the Court stated that what gets merged is the operative part of the original judgment and order, not its entirety, unless the appellate court adopts, reiterates the reasoning, or expressly approves the reasoning contained in the first-instance court’s judgment and order.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the doctrine of merger might not automatically apply to every set of related civil appeals made from the same order, if it is convincingly demonstrated that:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. right of appeal should not be foreclosed because of the very rare or special circumstance(s) projected before the court; or<\/li>\n
  2. the appeal raises an issue of seminal public importance, not raised in earlier round of litigation; or<\/li>\n
  3. since an act of court ought to prejudice none, refusal to interfere by this Court would invariably result in offending the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit<\/span>; or<\/li>\n
  4. the earlier appellate decision is vitiated because of fraud practiced on this Court by a party in whose favour the ruling had been made, as in the present case; or<\/li>\n
  5. \n

    public interest would be put to extreme jeopardy, if interference is declined solely based on the doctrine of merger.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Thus, having found that the fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger and that the impugned order and the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana case (supra)<\/span> was vitiated by fraud, the argument regarding the non-maintainability of the present proceedings based on the merger doctrine was of no significance.<\/p>\n

    III. Forum Shopping<\/p>\n

    It was contended that the appellant has engaged in forum shopping on the fact that he instituted Civil Suit on 7-8-2020 before the trial court claiming that the compromise decree dated 17-11-2006, between the appellant\u2019s power of attorney holder and \u2018R\u2019 was null and void. Therefore, it was contended that the present proceedings were instituted to bypass the jurisdiction of the trial court.<\/p>\n

    However, the Court rejected the contention and stated that when the High Court had already ruled in a proceeding that directly affected the appellant\u2019s right and when such decision, on appeal, was replaced by the decision of the higher court in Reddy Veerana case (supra)<\/span>, The appellant was left with no other option but to approach this Court by way of these proceedings.<\/p>\n

    Since fraud initiated the entire proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Court recalled its judgment in Reddy Veerana case (supra)<\/span>, which too was obtained by fraud. The Court remanded the Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Pradesh<\/span>, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1027<\/a>, in its entirety to the High Court, with direction to implead the appellant and \u2018S\u2019 as additional respondents.<\/p>\n

    [Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501<\/a>, decided on 23-7-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment authored by- Justice Dipankar Datta<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

    For the Appellant:<\/span> Sanskruti Samal, Adv.; Vipin Nair, AOR; M.b.ramya, Adv.; Aditya Narendranath, Adv.; Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.; Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.; Aniruddha Deshmukh, AO.<\/p>\n

    For the Respondents:<\/span> Sanskruti Samal, Adv.; Vipin Nair, AOR; M.B. Ramya, Adv.; Aditya Narendranath, Adv.; Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR; Abhinav Singh, Adv.; Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Sameer Jain, Adv; Suvigya Awasthy, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The application of the doctrine of merger, in every case, shall be accompanied by an awareness of its limitations and shall not be wielded to close avenues for addressing genuine concerns. Prioritizing justice and fairness shall supersede an absolute insistence on finality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":354668,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[43372,86030,23664,86029,86028,40866,35299,37644,5363],"class_list":["post-354619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-doctrine-of-merger","tag-exceptions-to-doctrine-of-merger","tag-forum-shopping","tag-fraud-vitiates-proceedings","tag-judgment-obtained-by-fraud","tag-justice-dipankar-datta","tag-justice-surya-kant","tag-justice-ujjal-bhuyan","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud and held that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud and held that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-07-26T05:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-27T11:18:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-26T05:30:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-27T11:18:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud and held that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud| SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud and held that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud","og_description":"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud and held that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-26T05:30:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-27T11:18:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/","name":"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp","datePublished":"2025-07-26T05:30:56+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-27T11:18:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud and held that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/26\/supreme-court-recalls-its-own-judgment-obtained-by-fraud-doctrine-of-merger\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Media-15.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":243495,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/06\/the-doctrine-of-merger\/","url_meta":{"origin":354619,"position":0},"title":"The Doctrine of Merger","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Vilas Govindan Pavithran\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/merger-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/merger-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/merger-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/merger-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/merger-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365246,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/30\/doctrine-of-merger-not-attracted-by-dismissed-slp-jk-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":354619,"position":1},"title":"Dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court with or without reasons, will not attract the Doctrine of Merger: J&K and Ladakh HC","author":"Editor","date":"October 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhile exercising the review jurisdiction, it must be borne in mind that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and must strictly be confined to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Doctrine of Merger","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255138,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/04\/dismissal-of-slp-by-reasoned-order-would-not-attract-doctrine-of-merger-but-will-be-binding-on-all-courts-tribunals-in-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":354619,"position":2},"title":"Dismissal of SLP by reasoned order would not attract doctrine of merger but will be binding on all courts\/tribunals in India","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Explaining the doctrine of merger in case of dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has held that doctrine of merger would not attract and that it doesn\u2019t matter if the SLP has been dismissed by a non-speaking order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330883,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/17\/2024-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":354619,"position":3},"title":"2024 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 141 and 142 \u2014 What is binding \u2014 \u201cLaw declared by Supreme Court\u201d \u2014 Doctrine of merger","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-3.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-3.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-3.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-3.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375171,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/know-thy-judge-justice-dipankar-datta-supreme-court-judges\/","url_meta":{"origin":354619,"position":4},"title":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Dipankar Datta’s committed journey and notable decisions","author":"Shriya Singh","date":"February 9, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Justice Dipankar Datta served as a Judge in the Calcutta High Court, and as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, prior to being sworn in as Supreme Court Judge on 12-12-2022.","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Justice Dipankar Datta","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Justice-Dipankar-Datta.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Justice-Dipankar-Datta.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Justice-Dipankar-Datta.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Justice-Dipankar-Datta.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346312,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/","url_meta":{"origin":354619,"position":5},"title":"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 23, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cFinality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court Article 32","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/354619","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=354619"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/354619\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/354668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=354619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=354619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=354619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}