A. M. AHMADI, M. M. PUNCHHI
NAND KISHORE – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
The Supreme Court has clarified that the doctrine of res judicata is primarily based on considerations of public policy, including the finality of judgments and the prevention of multiple litigations. However, it also recognizes that if a new fact or a new law intervenes after a judgment has been passed, the principles of res judicata may not apply. This is because the existence of a new legal development or fact can alter the legal landscape, making the previous judgment no longer conclusive or binding in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the Court has held that the application of res judicata is limited to situations where no new facts or laws have emerged that could affect the rights or the legality of the earlier decision.
JUDGMENT
PUNCHHI, J.- Whether the plea of constructive res judicata was rightly raised against the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is the significant question, which arises for determination in this appeal by special leave, against the judgment and decree dated 13-8-1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in Regular First Appeal No. 156 of 1965.
2. Supportive of the above-said appeal is a highly belated special leave petition, invited by this Court on 6-12-1990 from the appellant, against the judgment and order dated 5-2-1962 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Writ Application (Civil) No. 1061 of 1961, in circumstances which we will mention later.
3. These can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.
4. The facts involved are not in dispute. A brief resume thereof will suffice. The appellant, Nand Kishore joined service in the erstwhile Patiala State in May 1941. On the formation of Pepsu State he was taken as an Assistant with effect from 1-9-1956. On the merger of Pepsu with the State of Punjab, he was integrated as an Assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh, in the Food Distribution Branch. Having completed ten y
explained and applied : Mathura Prasod Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy
relied on : Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha
referred to : Daryao v. State of U.P.
State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain
followed : Gurdev Singh Sidhu v State of Punjab
referred to : Moti Rani Deka v. G.M., N.E. Frontier Rly.
explained : Mathura Prasad Bo/no Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.