Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 238 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing Sulochana Amma vs Narayanan Nair on 24 September, 1993

Shanker Lal vs Madan Lal on 24 February, 2014

(emphasis supplied) In the above judgment besides scanning the entire law on the subject, the principles laid down in the case of Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair : (1994) 2 SCC 14 that a plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title/status between the same parties would operate as res judicata have been reiterated. As such, the fact that the status of tenant claimed by appellant in the previous suit for injunction having been negated by the Court, the same would operate as res judicata in the present suit.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Ramachandra Dagdu Sonavane(D)By Lrs& ... vs Vithu Hira Mahar(Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 9 October, 2009

39)To the same effect, the judgment of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair, [(1994) 2 SCC 14 Para 9] in which it has been held that the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res- 33 judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 70 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 28 November, 2025

(Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14). Once parties have undergone adjudication of an issue in a suit, that would be final as between the parties irrespective of whether that suit was filed earlier in point of time or later, and no Court can try that issue any further in another suit even if that suit had been instituted at an earlier point of time. It is the finality of the decision which creates the bar, and such finality is not dependent upon whether the suit in which the issue had been decided had been filed before or after the suit in which the same issue has arisen.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 148 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

M/S. Kgeyes Residency P. Ltd vs M/S. Rukmani Road Ishwarya on 23 December, 2009

On the other hand, the observation in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair (supra) that the fining on an issue relating to title in an earlier suit for injunction may operate as res judicata, was with reference to a situation where the question of title was directly and substantially in issue in a suit for injunction, that is, where a finding as to title was necessary for grant of an injunction and a specific issue in regard to title had been raised. It is needless to point out that a second suit would be barred, only when the facts relating to title are pleaded, when a issue is raised in regard to title, and parties lead evidence on the issue of title, and the Court, instead of relegating the parties to an action for declaration of title, decides upon the issue of title and that decision attains finality. This happens only in rare cases. Be that as it may. We are concerned in this case, not with a question relating to res judicata, but a question whether a finding regarding title could be recorded in a suit for injunction simpliciter, in the absence of pleadings and issue relating to title."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

429 (PC) 501 471 175 Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs. His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamiga (1974) 1 SCC 150 213, 214, 219, 221 171, 174, 177, 178 176 Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah and others AIR 1978 Patna 129 507 473 177 Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs. Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123 266, 278 220, 225 178 Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226 509 474 179 State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) SCC 683 461 450 180 State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89 413 418 181 State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680 501, 540 471, 500 182 Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152 459, 498 449, 469 183 Sundar Pande and others Vs. Musammat Kumari 1919 (50) Indian Cases 935 (Alld.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Alankit Assignments Ltd. vs Cdr S.P. Puri (Retd) & Anr. on 10 February, 2012

In Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair it was explained that the principle of res judicata was based on public policy as well as private justice. Therefore, it would apply "to all judicial proceedings whether civil or otherwise. It equally applies to entire judicial proceedings of the Tribunal other than the Civil Court." In the said judgment the rationale behind Explanation VIII added to Section 11 CPC was discussed. A reference was made to the report of the Law Commission which recommended the removal of the anomaly in Section 11 CPC and bringing within its fold "the conclusiveness of an issue in a former suit decided by any Court, be it either of limited pecuniary jurisdiction or of special jurisdiction, like Insolvency Court, Probate Court, Land Acquisition Court, Rent Controller, Revenue Tribunal etc." Thereafter it was observed as O.M.P. No. 147 of 2010 Page 20 of 25 under: (SCC, p. 18) "Explanation VIII is wide enough to include a court whose jurisdiction is subject to pecuniary limitation and other cognate expressions analogous thereto. Therefore, Section 11 is to be read in combination and in harmony with Explanation VIII. The result that would flow is that an order or an issue which had arisen directly and substantially between the parties or their privies an decided finally be a competent court or tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction, which includes pecuniary jurisdiction, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that such court of limited or special jurisdiction was not a competent court to try the subsequent suit. The issue must directly and substantially arise in a later suit between the same parties or their privies. This question is no longer res integra."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next