Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Devidayal Rolling Mills VS Prakash Chimanlal Parikh...
1993 0 Supreme(SC) 288 : The judgment clarifies that a finding recorded by a High Court in proceedings, even if it appears to be against a party (such as the applicant-company), cannot be considered binding or operative as res judicata on a person not a party to the suit, particularly when the matter was decided in an interlocutory application or special leave petition. The Court explicitly held that the order dated 2-4-1990 did not decide any issue finally and thus cannot be regarded as binding on any party, including third parties who were not involved in the original litigation. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the judgment or any observations made therein will not prejudice the rights of any party with regard to title to the property or any question of fraud, and such matters may be raised in an appropriate forum by non-parties. This establishes that a judgment does not have binding effect on a person not a party to the suit, especially when the decision was not final and was made in an interlocutory stage.Checking relevance for CHITRALEKHA BUILDERS & ANR. THROUGH ANIL G. SHAH POWER OF ATTORNEY & HUSBAND OF THE PARTNER VS G. I. C. EMPLOYEES SONAL VIHAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ...
2021 4 Supreme 428 : A consent decree (or judgment resulting from a compromise between parties) does not have a binding effect on a person who was not a party to the original proceedings. In the case at hand, the present appellants were not parties to the suit when the consent order was passed, and therefore the consent order did not bind them. Their rights could be examined independently in a subsequent substantive suit filed by them, and the legal effect of the consent order was not open to be examined by the court in relation to non-parties. This establishes that a judgment or decree obtained through consent between original parties is not binding on third parties who were not involved in the proceedings.Checking relevance for Swamy Atmananda VS Ramakrishna Tapovanam...
Checking relevance for Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh VS State Of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for Razia Begum VS Sahebzadi Anwar Begum...
1958 0 Supreme(SC) 88 : Under Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, a declaration made under Chapter VI of the Act is binding only on the parties to the suit, persons claiming through them respectively, and where any of the parties are trustees, on the persons for whom, if in existence at the date of the declaration, such parties would be trustees. The court held that the respondents (1 and 2), as the wife and son of the Prince, would be considered as claiming through him, and thus the declaration would be binding upon them, even though they were not original parties to the suit. The court emphasized that the declaration affects not only the parties before the court but also the plaintiff’s progeny and the respondents, and that the binding effect extends to those claiming through the parties, particularly in cases involving status and inheritance rights.Checking relevance for Vidya Drolia VS Durga Trading Corporation...
2020 8 Supreme 561 : A judgment in rem determines the status of a person or thing as distinct from the particular interest in it of a party to the litigation; and such a judgment is conclusive evidence for and against all persons whether parties, privies or strangers of the matter actually decided. Such a judgment ''''settles the destiny of the res itself'''' and binds all persons claiming an interest in the property inconsistent with the judgment even though pronounced in their absence. Judgment in rem would operate as res judicata against the world, and judgment in personam would operate as res judicata only against the parties in dispute.Checking relevance for Gangadharan T. V. S/o Thuruthikkattil Velayudhan VS Jeevan Ambatt @ Jagajeevan S/o Velayudhan Kunnath @ Ambatt...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 710 : Under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a judgment obtained by fraud or delivered by a court not competent to do so is not binding on a person who was not a party to the suit, even if they are affected by the judgment. The court held that such a judgment can be challenged without the need for a separate suit, thereby allowing a non-party to avoid the binding effect of a fraudulent judgment. This establishes an exception to the principle of res judicata, meaning that a non-party to a previous litigation may successfully avoid the verdict of that judgment if fraud is alleged and proven.
