Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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