Posts

Showing posts with the label Doctrine of Res Judicata.

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
Read more

STATE OF UP v. NAWAB HUSSAIN, AIR 1977

Image
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 allegatio
Post a Comment
Read more

IFTIKHAR AHMED v. SYED MEHARBAN ALI, 1974

Image
Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali [AIR 1974] 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 Res Judicata that is mentioned in Section 11 of CPC, 1908. This doctrine of Res Judicata means the matter which has been previously adjudicated should not be tried before the Court. SECTION 11- RES JUDICATA NO COURT SHALL TRY  ANY SUIT OR ISSUE IN WHICH MATTER IN ISSUE  DIRECTLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY A MATTER IN ISSUE IN A PRVIOUS SUIT BETWEEN SAME PARTIES OR, BETWEEN PARTIES UNDER WHOM THEY OR ANY OF THEM CLAIM, LITIGATING UNDER THE SAME TITLE IN A COURT COMPETENT TO TRY SUCH SUBSEQUENT SUIT OR THE SUIT IN WHICH THE ISSUE RAISED SUBSEQUENTLY AND HAS BEEN HEARD AND FINALLY DECIDED BY THE COURT. FACTS The appellants are legal representatives of Is
Post a Comment
Read more