Res Judicata landmark cases in India

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the historic case of Daryao Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, the doctrine of res judicata is of universal application was established. The Supreme Court of India placed the doctrine of res judicata on a still broader foundation. In this case, petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the suit was dismissed. Then they filed independent petitions in the Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution. The defendants raised an objection regarding the petition by asserting that the prior decision of the High Court would be operated as res judicata to a petition under Article 32. The Supreme Court dismissed and disagreed with the petitions.

The court held that the rule of res judicata applies to a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. If a petition is filed by the petitioner in the High Court under Article 226  of the Constitution and it is dismissed on the basis of merits, it would be operated as res judicata to bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer

In the leading case of Devilal Modi Versus STO, B challenged the validity of an order of assessment under Article 226. The petition was dismissed on the basis of merits. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal that was made against the order on the basis of merits. B again filed another writ petition in the same High Court against the same order of assessment. This time the petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata. 

Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

A peculiar problem arose in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Jagjit Singh. A filed a civil suit, a contention regarding the arbitration of the Court was taken by B. The objection was sustained and the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for the presentation. The Revenue Court did not have any jurisdiction when A approached the Revenue Court so he returned the petition. Once again A filed a suit in the Civil Court. B contended that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

Mathura Prasad v. Dossabai N.B. Jeejeebhoy

In the case of Mathura Prasad Versus Dossible N.B. Jeejeebhoy, it was held that res judicata constitutes between the parties to the previous case and cannot move again in collateral proceedings. Generally, a decision by a competent court operates as res judicata even on point of law. However, a question of law which is not related to facts that gives rise to the right, will not operate as res judicata. When the cause of action is different or the law is different, the decision has been already altered by an authority. The decision made will be declared as valid and res judicata will not operate in the subsequent proceeding. 

Exceptions to res judicata

Cases where Res Judicata does not apply

The principle of res judicata does not apply in the Writ of Habeas Corpus as far as High Courts are concerned. Article 32 gives power to the Supreme Court to issue writs and some power is given to High Courts under Article 226. The Courts need to give proper reasoning while applying the doctrine of res judicata. There are some exceptions to res judicata which allow the party to challenge the validity of the original judgment even outside the appeals. These exceptions are usually known as collateral attacks and are based on jurisdictional issues. It is not based on the wisdom of the earlier decision of the court but the authority to issue it. Res judicata may not be applicable when cases appear that they need relitigation. 

Instalment Supply private limited vs. Union of India

In cases of income tax or sales tax, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply. It was discussed in the case of Installment Supply Private Limited Versus Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that assessment of each year is final for that year and it will not govern in the subsequent years. As it determines the tax only for that particular period. 

P. Bandhopadhya and others v. Union of India and others

In the case of P. Bandhopadhyay and others Versus Union of India and Others, The appeal was made in the Bombay High Court and the appellants asserted that they will be entitled to receive an amount as damages. The Supreme Court bench held that the appellants were not entitled to receive damages which were pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules 1972. They were entitled to receive benefits as the case was barred by the principle of res judicata. 

In the case of Public Interest Litigation, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply. As the primary object of res judicata is to bring an end to litigation so there is no reason to extend the principle of public interest litigation. 

Dismissal of special leave petition in limine does not operate as res judicata between the parties. A fresh petition will not be filed either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution.  

Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed Afzal

In the case of Beliram and Brothers Versus Chaudhari Mohammed Afzal, it was held that a minors suit cannot be brought by the guardian of the minors. However, it was brought in collaboration with the defendants and the decree obtained was by fraud within the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it will not operate res judicata. 

Jallur Venkata Seshayya v. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao

In the case of Jallur Venkata Seshayya Versus Thadviconda Koteswara Rao, a suit was filed in the Court so that certain temples are called public temples. A similar suit was dismissed by the Court two years ago and the plaintiff contended that it was negligence on the part of the plaintiffs (of the previous suit) and therefore the doctrine of res judicata can not be applied. However, the privy council said that the documents were suppressed which means that the plaintiff in the earlier suit had bona fide intention( something that is genuine and there is no intention to deceive). 

What is Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel?

 

What is Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel?

The doctrine of collateral estoppel says that an issue or case that has been litigated cannot be litigated again. For collateral estoppel to apply, the following requirements are required.

The issue in the first and second case is the same; The party against whom the doctrine is invoked had the full opportunity to litigate the issue; That party actually litigated the issue; The issue litigated must have been necessary to the final judgment.

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of a claim that has already been litigated. There are four factors that must be satisfied for res judicata to apply:

• A previous case in which the same claim was raised or could have been raised;
• The judgment in the prior case involved the same parties or their privies;
• The previous case was resolved by a final judgment on the merits;
• The parties should have a fair opportunity to be heard.

For example, Abela sued John who is a supervisor for sexually harassing her and due to that, she had to quit her job. Abela provided the evidence by producing emails written by him. But John argued that the emails were not real but the judge said that the emails were real and could be submitted as evidence. After a few months after the trial, Abela filed a lawsuit against her employer as he did not take any action about the complaint. If the emails that were submitted by Abela, were not genuine the issue would fall under collateral estoppel. The issue of authenticity of the emails was already decided in the previous case and hence the court cannot redecide the issue.

Res Judicata and Stare Decisis

 

Res Judicata and Stare Decisis

Res judicata means a case that has already been decided or a matter settled by a decision or judgment. Res judicata and stare decisis both are related to matters of adjudication (arbitration). Stare decisis rests on legal principles whereas res judicata is based on the conclusiveness of judgment. Res judicata binds the parties while stare decisis operates between strangers and bins the courts to take a contrary view on the law already decided. Stare decisis is mostly about legal principle while res judicata relates to controversy. 

Res judicata and Issue Estoppel

 

Res judicata and Issue Estoppel

A person who has once been tried by a court of proficient jurisdiction for an offence and convicted of that offence cannot be tried again for the same offence as long as acquittal operates. This is given underSection 300(1) of the Civil Procedure Court. A party cannot proceed to reopen the case if the matter is finally decided by a competent or proficient court. This principle applies to criminal proceedings and it is not allowed in the stage of the same proceedings to try a person for an offence for which he has been acquitted. 

Res judicata and Res Subjudice

 

Res judicata and Res Subjudice

The doctrine of res judicata and res subjudice varies in some factors – 

• Res sub judice applies to a matter that is pending trial whereas res judicata applies to a matter adjudicated or arbitrated. 
• Res subjudice prohibits the trial of a suit that is pending decision in a previous suit whereas res judicata prohibits the trial of a suit that has been decided in a former suit. 

Res Judicata and Estoppel

 

Res Judicata and Estoppel

Estoppel means the principle which prevents a person from asserting something that is contrary to what is implied by a previous action. It deals in Section 115 to Section 117 of the Indian Evidence act. The rule of constructive res judicata is the rule of estoppel. In some areas the doctrine of res judicata differs from the doctrine of estoppel –

• Estoppel flows from the act of parties whereas res judicata is the result of the decision of the court. 
• Estoppel proceeds upon the doctrine of equity, a person has induced another to alter his position to his disadvantage can not turn around and take advantage of such alteration. In other words, res judicata bars multiplicity of suits and estoppel precludes multiplicity of representation of cases. 
• Estoppel is a rule of evidence and is enough for the party whereas res judicata expels the jurisdiction of a court to try a case and prevents an enquiry at the threshold (in limine). 
• Res judicata forbidden a person averring the same thing twice in the litigations and estoppel prevents the person from saying two opposite things at a time.
• According to the principle of res judicata, it presumes the truth of decision in the former suit while the rule of estoppel precludes the party ton deny what he or she has once called truth. 

Constructive Res Judicata

 

Constructive Res Judicata

The rule of constructive res judicata in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is an artificial form of res judicata. It provides that if a plea has been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and the defendant he will not be permitted to take pleas against the same party in the following proceeding with reference to the same matter.  It is opposed to public policies on which the principle of res judicata is based. It would mean harassment and hardship to the defendant. The rule of constructive res judicata helps in raising the bar. Hence this rule is known as the rule of constructive res judicata which in reality is an aspect of augmentation of the general principles of res judicata. 

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Nawab Hussain, M was a sub-inspector and was dismissed from the service of D.I.G. he challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court. He said that he did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the order. However, the argument was negatived and the petition was dismissed. He again filed a petition on the ground that he was appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata. However, the trial court, the first appellate court as well as the High Court held that the suit was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata as the plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, M and he could have taken this argument in his earlier suit.