Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Parsuram Panda vs South Western Railway on 16 April, 2026 cites

M/S. Chetak Construction Ltd vs Om Prakash & Ors on 20 April, 1998

7. The order of the CAT, Bangalore Bench has attained its finality being not challenged before the appropriate forum [Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka], by taking the stand what has been taken in this OA. This Bench is not competent to state anything on the decision rendered by another coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the present case by the Bangalore bench. "A litigant cannot be permitted choice of the forum," and that every attempt at forum shopping "must be crushed with a heavy hand is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1998 SC 1855, The approach of the applicant by stating that after the order of rejection, he submitted appeal cannot be a ground to sit over the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 11 orders passed by the co-ordinate Bangalroe Bench. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the OA before the Bangalore Bench is the subject matter of this OA. Law is well settled that res judicata can operate if a subsequent case is filed on the same issued after dismissal of the earlier one. The principle's goal is to give finality to court decisions and prevent endless litigation, so even if a case was dismissed for being infructuous, it can still bar a new suit on the same matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 66 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Supertech Ltd vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare ... on 31 August, 2021

it is now a well Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 12 settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly ["Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"] vide Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819. It is established that the Applicant has made an indirect effort to overcome the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the above, this case is conclusively established to have suffered from the law of res judicata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 102 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Nawab Singh on 14 March, 1995

Further, "Henderson Principle" was approvingly referred to and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs Nawab Hussain, (1997) 2 SCC 806, as the underlying principle for res-judicata and constructive res-judicata for assuring finality to litigation. The 'Henderson Principle' is a foundational doctrine in common law that addresses the issue of multiplicity in litigation. It embodies the broader concept of procedural fairness, abuse of process and judicial efficiency by mandating that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1