Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Landmark Judgment Emphasizes "Constructive Res Judicata" Principle, Sets Precedent for Legal Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking legal pronouncement, a recent judgment has reaffirmed the principle of "Constructive Res Judicata" in the realm of Indian jurisprudence. The decision, delivered by a bench presided over by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, carries significant implications for the legal landscape and the conduct of future legal proceedings.

The judgment, rendered on [Date of Decision], delves into various facets of the law while referencing an array of relevant legal provisions and precedents. The verdict cited the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 and drew from the seminal case of Henderson vs. Henderson, (1843) 3 Hare, 100, to elucidate the core tenets of the "Constructive Res Judicata" doctrine.

In its deliberations, the court referred to Section(s), Acts, Rules, and Article(s), including the Master Circular, and the case of Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2000) 2 SCC 552. Additionally, the judgment made a noteworthy citation of the precedent-setting case of Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) vs. Union of India and Ors. (C.A. No. 9424 of 1995) and M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 408, among others.

The concept of "Constructive Res Judicata" holds that not only should a matter that has been directly adjudicated upon be considered settled, but also those matters that should have been raised and decided in the previous litigation. This doctrine aims to promote finality in legal proceedings and prevent parties from re-litigating issues that have already been considered.

The judgment, while emphasizing the significance of this doctrine, underscored its application in a broader context, thereby setting a crucial precedent for legal proceedings in India. The court's observation that "Constructive Res Judicata promotes judicial economy and upholds the sanctity of prior judgments" has been hailed as a guiding principle for future litigation.

Legal experts have lauded this judgment for its meticulous analysis of precedent and its potential to streamline legal proceedings. Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned counsel for the appellant, expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling, stating, "This judgment reaffirms the principles of finality and fairness in legal proceedings."

Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel for the Union of India, also welcomed the decision, highlighting its potential to reduce legal disputes and enhance the efficiency of the judicial process.

In conclusion, this landmark judgment serves as a significant milestone in the development of Indian jurisprudence, reaffirming the principle of "Constructive Res Judicata" and providing valuable insights for the legal fraternity.

Date of Decision: 20.Sep.2023

  Samir Kumar Majumder  vs The Union of India & Ors.            

Latest Legal News