CBI vs. R.R. KISHORE

CBI vs. R.R. KISHORE

Whether Section 6A of the DSPE Act is part of procedure or it introduces a conviction or sentence?

Whether Article 20 (1) of the Constitution will have any bearing or relevance in the context of declaration of Section 6 A of the DSPE Act as unconstitutional?

 The declaration of Section 6A of the DSPE Act as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution would have a retrospective effect or would apply prospectively from the date of its declaration as unconstitutional? Or whether there can be a deprivation of immunity provided under Section 6A (1) of DSPE Act 1946 by a retrospective operation of a judgment (SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY) of constitution bench, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India?

EXCEPTIONS OF RES JUDICATA

EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

Section 11 of the Civil procedure code is law on res judicata which infers the bar on the court to try any suit or proceedings in which matter which is directly and substantially in issue has also been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and which has been finally heard and decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. Section 11 is appended with VIII explanations all has already been discussed in earlier blogs along with the controversy concerning section 11 and explanation VIII. When all the requisites of section 11 are substantiated, the plea of res judicata will oust the court’s jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or proceeding. There are certain circumstances where plea res judicata is not considered in the subsequent suit which are as under. Following are exceptions of res judicata.

RES JUDICATA SECTION 11 AND EXPLANATION VIII

EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

CONCLUSION:
The objective of both section 11 and the explanation VIII of section 11 of CPC is same that is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and no man shall be vexed twice for the same offence moreover there must be an end to litigation. Therefore, the phrase “court of limited jurisdiction” in explanation VIII is wide enough to include court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. It could be construed that even when a former court is not competent to try the subsequent issue due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction res judicata will be operative irrespective of general rule that is administered in section 11.

DARYAO vs. STATE of U.P.

DARYAO vs. STATE of UP

If a writ under Article 226 is decided on merits and dismissed, decision will continue to survive until same is reversed or modified by an appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible;

If writ is dismissed not on merits but on ground of laches or that alternative remedy is available will not attract plea of res judicata as the court has not applied its mind and matter not decided on merits, a speaking order is necessary to establish the essentials of res judicata;

Rule of res judicata bar another writ under Article 32 on the on the same facts to claim same relief;

Writ dismissed under Article 226 in limine there res judicata will not be operative if the order is not passed on merits or there is no speaking order at all passed by the court;

APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA

EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

Res judicata is applicable once the conditions stipulated under section 11 of CPC are established. Res judicata is not a bar on the party to initiate a proceeding against the other party in fact it precludes the court from trying any suit or an issue. Therefore, the res judicata is not applicable to the subsequent suit when the former is decided by the competent court in fact the same is applicable at the different stages of the same suit. Despite the operation of res judicata on all the civil suits and issues of the said suit, the question is whether the said principle is applicable in the case of public interest litigation and writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India and criminal proceedings.

RES JUDICATA SECTION 11

EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

This principle is based on 3 maxims:
a) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa- no man should be vexed twice for the same cause.
b) Interest reipublicate ut sit finis litium: it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation.
c) Res judicata pro Veritate occipiture- a judicial decision must be accepted.

SHILPA SAILESH vs. VARUN SREENIVASAN

CBI vs. R.R. KISHORE

1. The scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India;
2. Depending upon the findings of this bench on the first question, whether this Court, while hearing a transfer petition, or in any other proceedings, can exercise power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, in view of the settlement between the parties, and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent dispensing with the period and the procedure prescribed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and also quash and dispose of other/connected proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, or criminal prosecution primarily under Section 498-A and other provisions of the Penal Code, 1860. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, in which cases and under what circumstances should this Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is an ancillary issue to be decided; and
3. Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouse opposing the prayer.

KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

DARYAO vs. STATE of UP

This court held that learned single judge wrongly applied Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401 wherein court observed that category of persons added in section 45 (1) proviso should be dealt more sympathetically reason being such persons are likely to be more vulnerable and may sometimes be misused for committing such crimes.

Considering the finding of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) this court observed in present case in para 27 that finding of the said case does not mean that section 45(1) proviso only includes “vulnerable women”. Moreover only because women is highly educated that does not mean she is not entitled to the benefit under section 45(1) proviso.

Har Naraini Devi and Another vs. Union of India and Others

ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY

In Har Naraini Devi and Another vs. Union of India and Others, an order of the division bench was assailed by filing an appeal before the apex court on the ground that section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms, 1954 (hereinafter referred as DLR Act) being ultra vires to Article 14, 15, 21 & 254 of the Constitution. The significant issue in the present case was controversy regarding the applicability of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on any inheritance that accrued before the amendment of Hindu Succession in 2005.

NIRMALA AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY

“Whether Section 50 of the DLR Act has been repealed by the Amendment Act inasmuch as by omitting Section 4(2) of the HSA, 1956, it has removed the immunity that the DLR Act had with respect to the laws of succession in respect of agricultural land? Also, if that be the case, do the petitioners, being female, now have the right to succeed to the disputed agricultural land?”

error: Content is protected !!