AI Overview...
-
Principle of Res Judicata - The doctrine prevents the same case from being litigated multiple times, emphasizing the importance of finality in judgments. This principle is of general application beyond specific statutory provisions, as established in AIR 1922 PC 80 and reiterated in subsequent cases like Vithu Hira Mahar (2009) SCC 273. It applies to both civil and criminal cases, ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency SWAMI VASUDEVANAND SARASWATI DISCIPLE OF SWAMI SHANTANAND SARASWATI VS JAGAT GURU SHANKARCHARYA, JYOTISHPEETH PEETHADESHWAR SRI SWAMI SWAROOPANAND SARASWATI - Allahabad, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE - National Green Tribunal.
-
Application in Civil Law - The doctrine is codified under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), and it generally applies to civil suits to prevent re-litigation of the same matter between the same parties. Courts have consistently upheld this principle to avoid conflicting judgments and promote judicial economy UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE - National Green Tribunal.
-
Judicial Precedents - Notable cases include AIR 1922 PC 80, which underscores the broad applicability of res judicata, and Vithu Hira Mahar (2009) SCC 273, where the Court emphasized its importance in civil litigation. The doctrine also extends to criminal cases, as seen in AIR 1981 SC 1143, where principles of law and finality are highlighted UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE - National Green Tribunal, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE - National Green Tribunal.
-
Limitations and Scope - The application of the principle is limited by certain constitutional provisions, such as Articles 330 and 332, which relate to proportional representation and are applicable only for a limited period. Additionally, the doctrine does not bar re-litigation when there is a lack of finality or when new evidence emerges HEERA LAL UMAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad.
-
Special Cases and Exceptions - The principle does not apply if the previous judgment was obtained through fraud, or if the matter involves different issues or parties. Courts have recognized exceptions where public interest or substantial justice necessitates re-litigation HEERA LAL UMAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The doctrine of res judicata, as established in landmark cases like AIR 1922 PC 80 and reaffirmed in later judgments, is a fundamental principle ensuring that once a matter is finally decided, it cannot be reopened between the same parties. While its scope is broad, it is subject to certain constitutional and procedural limitations. Proper understanding and application of this doctrine promote judicial efficiency, prevent conflicting judgments, and uphold the rule of law.
References:
- AIR 1922 PC 80
- Vithu Hira Mahar (2009) SCC 273
- AIR 1981 SC 1143
- 02500017612, 02500080483, IND_NGT_070110202917_2021, etc.
Search Results for "Ramchandra 1998 Alj 332"
2006 0 Supreme(All) 351 • India - Allahabad
R.K.AGRAWAL, SAROJ BALA
Faculty Association and others, (1998) 4 SCC 1; ... (5) Rasik Auto Stores and others v. Navin V. Hantodkar and another, (1998) 8 SCC 176; ... (6) Indira Sawhney (II case) v. ... Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, 2004 ALJ 1211; and ... (7) State of Rajasthan and others v. Basant Nahata, JT 2005(8) SC 171. ... Principle of proportionate representation is accepted only in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution and that too for a limited period. ... Ramachandra Rao, learn....
2017 0 Supreme(All) 1195 • India - Allahabad
SUDHIR AGARWAL, K.J.THAKER
Ramachandra Rao and another v. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 wherein the remarks were “that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application, and is not limited by the specific words of the Code in this respect.” ... Parshottamanand Gir, 1943 ALJ 400 : 1943 OWN (HC) 250. ... Respective Guru Parampara of Shanker runs as follows : Gaudpad, Pawak Paracharya, Satyanidhi, Ramchandra, Govind and Shankar. It goes to prove that there is no contradiction about Shanker b....
2005 0 Supreme(All) 2614 • India - Allahabad
DILIP GUPTA, B.S.CHAUHAN
In Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. ... In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1974 SC 259 the Apex Court held that no employee has a right or vested right to chance of promotion. ... Baldev Singh (1998) 2 SCC 724 ; Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa Vs. ... Rajesh Agarwal AIR 1997 Del. 332 ; & Palm Print Textiles (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. British Millerain Co. Ltd., AIR 2002 Delhi 497). ... 65. In A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. ... President Notified Area Committee, Colonelganj and Ors., 1956....
1990 0 Supreme(Pat) 226 • India - Patna
S.H.S.ABIDI, B.N.SINHA
Yadav all of village Rampur, Dukhan Yadav, Dasruth Yadav, Briksh Yadav, Rajdeo Yadav, Jagdeo Yadav and Ramnarain all of village Govindpur, Ramratan Yadav, Chander Yadav, Rambilin Yadav and Simran Yadav of village Digrahi, Bindeshwar Yadav, Rampati Yadav, Kailash Yadav, Sheonandan Yadav, Nanhe Yadav, Ramchandra ... Emperor (1928 Privy Council 254) : 26 ALJ 1099 wherein it was observed at page 255 : ... "The charge, as already stated, was that the appellant had committed an offence punishable u/ S. 302,IPC viz., murder. ... Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC #HL_START....
2006 0 Supreme(All) 357 • India - Allahabad
SAROJ BALA, R.K.AGRAWAL
Faculty Association and others, (1998) 4 SCC 1; 5. Rasik Auto Stores and others v. Navin V. Hantodkar and another, (1998) 8 SCC 176; 6. Indira Sawhney (II case) v. Union of India and others, (2000) 1 SCC 168; and 7. ... Principle of proportionate representation is accepted only in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution and that too for a limited period. ... Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, 2004 ALJ 1211; and 7. State of Rajasthan and others v. Basant Nahata, JT 2005 (8) SC 171. Prelim....
• India - National Green Tribunal NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal
Dr. A. Senthil Vel
Dr. Afroz Ahmad
In Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others vs. ... 332. ... Ramachandra Rao and another vs. A.N.S. ... Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143in para 3, Court observed: rule of law.” 208. ... Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80wherein the remarks were “that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated in this respect.”
• India - National Green Tribunal NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal
Dr. A. Senthil Vel
Dr. Afroz Ahmad
In Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others vs. ... 332. ... Ramachandra Rao and another vs. A.N.S. ... Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143in para 3, Court observed: rule of law.” 208. ... Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80wherein the remarks were “that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated in this respect.”
• India - National Green Tribunal NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal
Dr. A. Senthil Vel
Dr. Afroz Ahmad
In Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others vs. ... 332. ... Ramachandra Rao and another vs. A.N.S. ... Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143in para 3, Court observed: rule of law.” 208. ... Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80wherein the remarks were “that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated in this respect.”
2022 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 284 • India - National Green Tribunal NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Ramachandra Rao and another vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 wherein the remarks were “that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application, and is not limited by the specific words of the Code in this respect.” ... In Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others vs. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by LRs. and Others 2009(10)SCC273, Court observed that well known doctrine of res›judicata is codified in Section 11 of C.P.C. It generally comes into play in relation to civil suit....
2022 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 282 • India - National Green Tribunal NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Ramachandra Rao and another vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 wherein the remarks were “that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application, and is not limited by the specific words of the Code in this respect.” ... In Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others vs. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by LRs. and Others 2009(10)SCC273, Court observed that well known doctrine of res›judicata is codified in Section 11 of C.P.C. It generally comes into play in relation to civil suit....
