Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale held that Quasi-judicial bodies are bound by res judicata, preventing re-litigation of the same issue. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors (2025).

What was the Background of M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors. Case? 

• The case concerns a dispute over land situated at Bandivali Hill Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, specifically Survey No. 22, Hissa No. 1, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 75/B, admeasuring 1,321.36 square meters. 
• Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (BJPL) acquired the larger property through a Deed of Conveyance dated 24th July 1951 and subsequently executed an Indenture of Lease in favor of Ramkishor Singh Kunjbihari (respondent No.3) on 29th October 1952. 
• Respondent No.3 granted development rights to M/s Prakash Builders (respondent No.4), who constructed an unauthorized building comprising approximately 27 flats without approved plans. 
• The flats were sold to various purchasers who later formed Prakash Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited (respondent No.2-Society). 
• On 07th July 2010, BJPL executed a Deed of Conveyance in favor of the appellant, transferring its rights in the larger property, making the appellant the landowner under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. 
• Following a dispute settlement through Consent Terms, a Deed of Surrender of Leasehold Rights was executed on 30th December 2012 between the appellant and respondent No.3, resulting in the appellant becoming the owner of 2,768 square meters of land. 
• Respondent No.2-Society applied for a Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the 1963 Act (Application No.53 of 2020), which was dismissed by the Competent Authority on 22nd February 2021.  
• The Competent Authority directed the Society to first seek appropriate relief from a competent Civil Court due to legal complications before filing a fresh application. 
• Instead of approaching the Civil Court, respondent No.2-Society filed a fresh application (No.101 of 2021) seeking Unilateral Assignment of Leasehold Rights, which was granted by the Competent Authority on 5th January 2021

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed that the first order dated 22nd February 2021 did not grant unconditional liberty to respondent No.2-Society to apply for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights without first resolving complications through the appropriate Court. 
• The Court held that once the first order attained finality (having not been challenged), the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to the findings and directions given in the first order. 
• The Court affirmed that the principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities, citing precedents from Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. and Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India and others. 
• The Court held that when a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, such findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and remain binding until properly reversed. 
• The Court observed that a quasi-judicial Authority does not ordinarily have the power to unilaterally take a contrary view to one taken by a coordinate or predecessor authority at an earlier point in time. 
• The Court determined that the High Court erred in interpreting the first order as granting unconditional liberty to the Society, when in fact the order clearly required resolution of complications before reapplication. 
• The Court concluded that once a Competent Authority settles an issue, that determination attains finality unless set aside in accordance with law, and any action contrary to this principle would constitute an offence against established legal principles.

What is Res Judicata? 

• Res judicata means "a matter adjudged" and refers to the legal principle that prevents the same matter from being litigated again once it has been finally decided by a competent court. 
• It is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, though the principle extends beyond this statutory provision and is not exhaustive. 
• The doctrine serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and protects parties from being vexed twice for the same cause. 
• For res judicata to apply, the matter in issue must be the same, the parties must be the same or claiming under the same title, the court must have had competent jurisdiction, and the matter must have been heard and finally decided. 
• It is founded on three maxims: 
  • No person should be troubled twice for the same cause. 
  • It is in the public interest that litigation should end. 
  • Judicial decisions must be accepted as correct. 
• Constructive res judicata under Explanation IV extends the principle to issues that could have been raised in a previous suit but were not, preventing parties from raising them in subsequent litigation. 
• The principle applies beyond civil suits to various proceedings including execution proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, and administrative orders. 
• There are exceptions to res judicata, including cases involving fraud or collusion, substantial changes in evidence, or where the original court lacked jurisdiction. 
• Res judicata operates as a bar to subsequent litigation and serves as a cornerstone of modern legal systems by ensuring the finality and consistency of judicial decisions.