SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 564

VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies (3), Mumbai – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Amar Khanna, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Ms. Nandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Adv. Mrs. Sarvagnya P Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala, AOR Ms. Tanishka Grover, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial authorities and binds their findings until reversed in appeal, revision, or writ proceedings. (!) (!) - A first order directing that issues be resolved by a competent Civil Court before fresh relief could be sought cannot be circumvented by a later application; second application under Section 11 of the 1963 Act was rightly dismissed as barred by the earlier order and principles of res judicata. (!) (!) - The liberty to apply afresh in the first order was not unconditional; it required resolving certain complications before the competent authority could grant leasehold rights. The High Court erred in interpreting it as unconditional liberty. The Supreme Court quashed the second application and upheld the finality of the first order, while preserving the option to approach the competent forum after issues are resolved. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, passed by the High Court of Bombay, whereby the appellant’s Writ Petition No. 8186 of 2022, assailing the correctness of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/ Competent Authority, was dismissed. By the order dated 05.10.2021, the competent authority had allowed Application No. 101 of 2021, filed by Prakash Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited (respondent No.2-Society) under Section 5/11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 1 [Hereinafter referred to as the “1963 Act”], directing the execution and registration of a unilateral deed of assignment with respect to 1321.36 square meter area of land and the building situated thereon along with 198.20 square meter on the recreational ground in the name of respondent No.2-Society.

3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the present controversy are as follows:

    3.1. The subject land of the dispute comprises Survey No. 22, Hissa No. 1, corresponding to C.T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top