Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
(6) Madan Gopal Kanodia v. Mamraj Mantram and Ors. and
(7) Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Ors. 2001 (1) Bank CLR 445 (SC).
Mangat Ram And Anr. vs Sardar Meharban Singh And Ors. on 29 April, 1987
(3) Krishna Kumar v. Dulari Devi (All) 2002 (49) ALR 90; and
(4) Mangat Ram Sharma v. Sardar Meharban Singh 1986 (1) ALR 355.
Saroja vs Chinnusamy (Dead) By L.Rs And Anr on 24 August, 2007
18. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that moving an application under Section 21 of the Act and dismissal of the application amounts to res judicata and hence now this appeal is barred by Section 11 of C.P.C. Firstly, it will be material to mention that the application under Section 21 of the Act was moved when the appeal before the appellate court was pending and this application was also dismissed in default prior to the decision of the appellate court. No final judgment was pronounced by the Court regarding the averments of the application under Section 21 of the Act. However, learned Counsel for the appellant cited Saroja v. Chinnusamy . In the matter before Hon'ble Apex Court the case was decided ex parte against the other party and hence Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is a res judicata in a subsequently instituted suit. But in the present case the facts and circumstances of the case are entirely different. Suit No. 286/81 was instituted in the year 1981 and decided in the year 1985 and against this judgment and decree Civil Appeal No. 227/85 was pending and when this appeal was pending on 31.7.92 the application under Section 21 of the Act was moved. Hence this application was instituted during the pendency of the appeal and also dismissed prior to the disposal of the appeal. This application is not a previously instituted case and moreover, it was not decided on merits. Where as in the facts of the rulings before Hon'ble Apex Court the case was decided ex parte against the opp. party and that ex parte judgment was existing. Hence undisputedly in these circumstances even the ex parte judgment of the case shall operate as res judicata but it will not operate as res judicata against the maker of the application when this application was dismissed in default. If application might have been allowed ex parte against appellant and the judgment was not set aside then it can operate as res Judicata in subsequently instituted suit. Hence no benefit can be given to the appellant on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S National Construction ... on 9 January, 1996
20. This judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is fully applicable in this case. The same principle has also been followed by Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co., Bombay and Anr. ; Union of India and Anr. v. Sher Singh and Ors. . Hence in view of these judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court if a case was dismissed In default It will not operate as res judicata.
Union Of India & Anr vs Sher Singh & Ors on 7 February, 1997
20. This judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is fully applicable in this case. The same principle has also been followed by Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co., Bombay and Anr. ; Union of India and Anr. v. Sher Singh and Ors. . Hence in view of these judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court if a case was dismissed In default It will not operate as res judicata.