Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.82 seconds)Section 2 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Chettiam Veettil Ammad And Anr vs Taluk Land Board And Ors on 2 May, 1979
2. In the statement filed in Form 1, it was nowhere
mentioned that there was any Cardamom plantation. If there
is Cardamom cultivation, it has to come within the meaning
of the word 'plantation' and it is not required to refer to
the inclusive definition in clause (c) to apply. When the
matter was taken up second time by the Tluk Land Board, no
correction in the original return was sought but only an
affidavit was filed. There was then local inspection and
second order of Taluk Land Board, was by majority with the
Chairman dissenting. Lot could be said on the conduct of the
Taluk Land Board making local inspection without there being
any written application and then surveying the whole of the
area within a couple of hours on the same day. Reference was
made to the evidence and the nature of proceedings earlier
held by the Taluk Land Board, Case of the appellant that
Cardamom plantation was before 1.4.1964 was incorrect.
Letter of the appellant dated 18.10.1974 rather shows that
cultivation of Cardamom was after 1.4.1964. In the affidavit
dated 31.5.1976 of the appellant, it was stated that main
plantation was tea. Statement of the General Manager of the
appellant recorded by Taluk Land Board did not mention any
Cardamom plantation. Then again in the additional affidavit
dated 22.6.1976 of the appellant, there is no mention of any
Cardamom cultivation. When revision was filed before the
High Court against the order of the Taluk Land Board, again
there was no mention of any cultivation of Cardamom. It was
not technically possible for the Cardamom Board to conclude
that Cardamom plantation existed prior to 1964 and the
report was based on local inspection and queries and without
any scientific basis.
Forward Construction Co. & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors. ... on 26 November, 1985
In Forward Construction Co. & Ors. vs. Prabhat
Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors. [1986 (3) SCC 100] one of the
questions raised was whether the writ petition out of which
appeal had arisen in the Supreme Court was barred by res
judicata. High Court had negatived this plea for two reasons
: (1) that in the earlier writ petition the vaildity of the
permission granted under Rule 4(a)(i) of the Development
Control rules was not in issue, and (2) that the earlier
writ petition filed by Shri Thakkar was not a bona fide on
inasmuch as he was put up by some disgruntled builder,
namely, M/s. Western Builders. This Court said on the first
reason; (which is relevant for our purpose): "So far as the
first reason is concerrned, the High Court in our opinion
was not right in holding that the earlier judgment would not
operate as res judicata as one of the grounds taken in the
present petition was conspicuous by its absence in the
earlier petition. Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC provides
that any matter which might and ought to have been made
ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be
deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in
issue in such suit. An adjudication is conclusive and final
not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every
other matter which the parties might and ought to have
essentially connected with the subject matter of the
litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate
purview of the original action both in respect of the matter
of claim or defence. The principle underlying Explanation
IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of
controverting a matter that should be taken to be the same
thing as in the matter had been actually controverted and
decided. It is true that where a matter has been
constructively in issue it cannot be said to have been
actually heard and decided. It could only be deemed to have
been heard and described. The first reason, therefore, has
absolutely no force".
Devilal Modi, Proprietor, M/S. Daluram ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam And Others on 7 October, 1964
In Devilal Modi, Properietor, M/s. Daluram Pannalal Modi
vs. Sales Tax Officer Ratlam & Ors. [ (1965) 1 SCR 686 ],
the lquestion before this Court was whether the principle of
constructive res judicata could be invoked against writ
petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The appellant had been assessed to sales-tax
for the year 1957-58 under Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act,
1950. He challenged the validity of the order of assessment
by a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh. Appellant appeal by special leave to this
Court was also dismissed. At the hearing of the appeal
before this Court, appellant sought to raise two additional
points, but he was not been specified in the writ petition
filed before the High Court and had not been raised at an
early stage. On those points which were not allowed to be
raised, the appellant filed another writ petition in the
High Court challenging the validity of the same very
assessment for the year 1957-58. High Court considered the
merits of the additional grounds urged by the appellant but
rejected them. Appellant again came to this Court.
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Y.B. Patil And Ors vs Y.L. Patil on 23 August, 1976
In Y.B. Patil & Ors. vs. Y.L. Patil [AIR 1977 SC
392], this Court said that "it is well settled that
principles of res judicata cn be invoked not only in
separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in
subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made
in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be
binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding."
We may refer to two more decisions of the Supreme
Court on the question of res judicata and estoppel.