Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

STATE OF UP v. NAWAB HUSSAIN, AIR 1977

This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary, a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com


Introduction

This case talks about the doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata and its applicability to a Writ petition filed under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution. Here the honorable Judges also try to differentiate between the general principle of Res Judicata and constructive Res Judicata which has been developed over the years and incorporated in CPC,1908 as Section 11.


Facts

  • The respondent, Nawab Hussain, was a Sub-Inspector in UP Police. He was charged for corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The officer in rank of DIG dismissed him. 
  • He filed a writ petition in Allahabad High Court for quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations against him and the action taken was mala fide. The HC dismissed the plea. 
  • The respondent then filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge challenging the dismissal order on the ground that since he has been appointed by the IG of Police, he can not be dismissed by officer subordinate i.e. DIG of Police by virtue of provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. This suit was dismissed and the Court held that the DIG of Police would be deemed to be the appointing authority. Also he held that the suit was not barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata.
  • District Judge upheld the judgement of Trial Court.
  • The matter appealed by the plaintiff in the HC which has been allowed by the impugned judgement of HC. It also held that the suit was not barred by principle of constructive Res Judicata.
  • The appellant State Government appealed before the Supreme Court which has been decided by Shinghal J.

Issue

  1. Whether the principle of constructive Res Judicata applies on writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi-

  1. Marginson case- 
    1. The principle of estoppel per res judicata is a rule of evidence.
    2. It is based on two theories - finality and judicial conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes-
      1. in the general interest of community as a matter of public policy
      2. in the individual interest so that he can be protected from multiplication of litigation. 
  2. Although S.11 deals with suits and former suits and has no direct application to a Writ petition, it has been acted upon in cases for a writ such as Ex parte Thomson, where Denman C.J. applied this principle for not issuing mandamus repeatedly. 
  3. Janakiram Iyer case, based on which the HC gave the decree was quite a different case because in that case the subsequent suit was a representative suit since the plaintiffs of the earlier suit and the plaintiffs of the subsequent suit were different. This case has no bearing on present case.
  4. Amalgamated coal fields Ltd case- CRJ was a special and artificial form of Res Judicata under S. 11 CPC and should not be applied generally to writ petitions. Because the case of tax liability was for different years
  5. Devilal Modi case- same judge of Amalgamated Coal fields Ltd. case held principle of CRJ is applicable to writ petitions also.
  6. Gulabchand Case- S.11 is not exhaustive and doesn't prevent the application of general principle of Res Judicata to regular suits as it is based on public policy and applied from ancient times. Nature of former proceeding is immaterial for its application.

Decision

  1. Allowed appeal
  2. Set aside the order of HC.
  3. The suit was barred by constructive Res Judicata.
  4. Respondent should not be allowed to challenge his dismissal by the subsequent suit.
  5. Dismissed the subsequent suit filed by the respondent.

Also Read:- 

  1. Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali, 1974
  2. C.A Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, 2003

Get more updates:-  

LinkedIn:- NiyamsKanoon
Instagram:- Niyams_kanoon


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more