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

C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, AIR 2003

 

C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, 2003

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 concerns with the applicability of the doctrine of "Constructive Res judicata" over a writ petition.

Facts of the Case (C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, 2003)

  • The petitioner was a 'lessee' of  a canteen premises, which was originally obtained by one 'Seetharama Udupi' from respondent. Subsequently, petitioner's  father became the lessee  and after the father's petitioner was running the canteen for about 16 years, he has also received 'No objection certificate' from the district revenue officer.
  • One day, a junior engineer of the respondent corporation without any notice or warning came to his canteen arbitrarily locked the canteen and affixed seal on it.
  • Therefore, the petitioner has issued lawyer's notice to the respondent  narrating the said 'illegal action'  of the junior engineer and demanded for restoration of possession,  during the period the High Court was on vacation therefore he filed suit for mandatory injunction and for restoration of possession in the City Civil Court.
  • Later the suit decreed ex parte in favour of petitioner whereby the City Civil Court ordered the delivery of movables without order of restoration of possession.
  • The petitioner had also filed a writ petition to issue writ of "Mandamus" to the respondent to restore the possession, and also added relief of damages per day until the restoration of possession. 

    Issues

    1. Whether the writ is maintainable or not?
    2. Whether Order II,Rule 2 applies to the writ petition or not?
    Council for petitioner argued

      1. The petitioner was a 'Statutory tenant' of the corporation under 'the Tamilnadu lease and control Act'.
      2. As having "No Objection Certificate" for obtaining police license, the respondent can't disposes without notice. 
      3. No legal Procedure, As per Section 374 (a) to (d) of the Madras municipal corporation was followed by the petitioner.
    Respondent council argument

    1. The petitioner, was an Unauthorised occupant of the premises,  he was not a licensee  to run the canteen or a lassee to occupy the premises, Originally 'Seetharama Uduppa'  was the licensee to run the canteen.
    2. Under Section 357 of 'the city municipal corporation Act'  the said 'Uduppa' was granted license up to the year, 1996.
    3. The canteen was inspected by the assistant health officer - 3, who  found several defects, issued notice to the licensee, Seetharama.
    4. The license granted to Seetharama  for the year 1995 - 1996 was also revoked.
    5.  The 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued by the commission corporation of Madras, but only by the district revenue officer who is not competent authority.

      Ratio Decidendi

    • Order II, Rule 2 of CPC says,  that the suit shall include the whole claim, the relinquishment of part of clam, is not permissible. Therefore, once suit is filed for certain relief in respect of a cause of action,  the person who has filed is precluded from instituting  another suit for certain other relief with respect to the same cause of action.
    • If second suit is barred, a writ petition would equally be barred. Public policy underlying Order II, Rule 2, CPC is attracted with equal vigour in this situation also.
    • Daryao case [AIR 1961]- applicability of the rule of res judicata in writ proceedings came to be raised and discussed. 
    • In "Devilal V Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam (1965 Case )" Court held:-
      • Consideration  of public policy and the principal of "Finality of judgement" or res judicata are  important consideration of the rule of law. They cannot be allowed to violate just because a citizen contends that F. R have been contravened by an impugned judgement.
      • If 'Constructive Res Judicata' doesn't apply to such proceeding, a party will file as many writ petition and will add one or two points every time.
      • In this case, Supreme Court clarified that 'the rule  of constructive res - judicata' also applies to writ  proceedings.
    Final Judgment Of The Court 

    • Fresh Suit cannot be file in further court with some more relief  in same cause of action on the name of 'writ'. 
    • Present writ petition is hit by O.2, R2 CPC
    • Dismissed writ petition.


    Also Read:- 

    1. Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali, AIR 1974
    2. State of UP v. Nawab Hussain



     

     

    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