Back
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, K. N. WANCHOO
Devilal Modi – Appellant
Versus
Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam – Respondent
The Court emphasized that it is not permissible for a party to seek a second opportunity to challenge an order on a ground that was available but not raised in the initial proceeding. This principle is rooted in the need to uphold the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions, thereby preventing unnecessary harassment of litigants and conserving judicial resources. Allowing multiple challenges on the same order, especially with the introduction of new grounds that could have been raised earlier, would undermine the stability of legal proceedings and erode public confidence in the finality of judgments. The Court underscored that adherence to this principle promotes fairness, consistency, and the efficient functioning of the judicial system.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question which this appeal raises for our decision is whether the principle of constructive res judicata can be invoked against a writ petition filed by the appellant Devilal Modi, who is the Proprietor of M/s. Daluram Pannalal Modi, under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The appellant has been assessed to sales-tax for the year 1957-58 under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. He challenged the validity of the said order of assessment by a writ petition filed by him (No.114/1961) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the 25th April, 1961. The High Court dismissed his writ petition and by special leave, the appellant came to this Court in appeal against the said decision of the High Court. On the 8th March, 1963, the appellant s appeal by special leave was dismissed by this Court.
2. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present writ petition in the same High Court on the 23rd April, 1963 (No.129/1963). By this writ petition the appellant challenges the validity of the same order of assessment. The High Court has considered the merits of the additional grounds urged by the appellant on this occasion and has rejected them. In the result, this
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
