Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, Judgment dated NOVEMBER 29, (2004 AIR 2005 SC 446 : 2005 (1) SCC 444) , observed as – Para 11: The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Satyadhyan Ghosal V/s. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941. A three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal Versus Deorajin...

AIR 1996 SC 1204 Para 12:   In the case of Binayak Swain V/s. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi, (AIR 1966 SC 948) this Court considered a case where in execution of an ex parte decree the property of the judgment-debtor was purchased by the decree-holder. The decree was set aside in appeal and the case remanded for fresh disposal. This Court said that the judgment-debtor was entitled to restitution even though ultimately after fresh disposal a decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder. It said that the principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. This obligation arises automatically on the reversal or modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree; and the Court in making restitution is bou...

AIR 1977 SC 1867 Para 2:  We have admitted the appeal and have heard learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the Tribunal. We are not impressed by this argument. The Tribunal refused to allow that management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole ground that it has not earlier submitted the written statement. That ground in an industrial matter, would not be sufficient to refuse examination of witnesses when the management later on pressed for it. This is against the principles of natural justice. Sandeep Jalan Advocate https://vakeelkanumber.com/

AIR 2011 SC 1150 PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED POST & BURDEN OF PROOF: Para 13:  This Court after considering large number of its earlier judgments in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. V/s. Manju Jain & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3817, held that in view of the provisions of Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287. Para 14:  In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. V/s. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, this Court held as under: "There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a...

This doctrine may be invoked in cases where the Legislature sought to enact laws on the issues which are primarily the province of the judiciary; or to say, the Executive Govts, exercising their powers which is primarily the province of the Legislature or the judiciary; or to say, the judiciary is exercising the powers, which is the province of the Executives or of Legislatures. The Apex Court comprising 2 Judges, in the case of P.Kannadasan Versus State Of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1996 SC 2560], inter alia, observed to say that – Para 15:   ….. It must be remembered that our Constitution recognizes and incorporates the doctrine of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, viz., Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Even though the Constitution has adopted the Parliamentary form of government where the dividing line between the Legislature and the Executive becomes thin, the theory of separation of powers is still valid. Ours is also a federal form of g...