01 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a judgment of the Bombay High Court, firmly establishing that the principle of res judicata applies to the decisions of quasi-judicial authorities, such as the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai. The apex court's ruling came in an appeal challenging the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition filed against an order passed by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).

The central dispute involved Prakash Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited (respondent No.2) seeking a unilateral deed of assignment for land and a building from the appellant, who had become the landowner of the larger property through a series of transactions.

Conflicting Orders and the Principle of Res Judicata:

Previously, the Competent Authority had dismissed an earlier application (No. 53 of 2020) filed by the respondent-Society, citing legal complexities arising from various property transfers and the unclear identity of the promoter. The order dated February 22, 2021, explicitly stated that the Society should first seek appropriate relief from a competent Civil Court to resolve these issues before applying afresh for the assignment of leasehold rights. Crucially, this initial order was not challenged by the respondent-Society and thus attained finality.

However, instead of approaching the Civil Court, the respondent-Society filed a fresh application (No. 101 of 2021) before the Competent Authority, seeking the same relief. The Competent Authority, on October 5, 2021, allowed this second application, directing the execution and registration of a unilateral deed of assignment in favor of the respondent-Society.

Aggrieved by this subsequent order, the appellant challenged it before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the writ petition. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Scrutiny and Ruling:

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides and perusing the initial order of the Competent Authority, unequivocally held that the High Court had erred in its interpretation. The apex court found that the first order dated February 22, 2021, did not grant unconditional liberty to the respondent-Society to file a fresh application. Instead, it clearly mandated the resolution of legal complications by a competent Civil Court as a prerequisite for any future application for the assignment of leasehold rights before the Competent Authority.

The Supreme Court emphasized the well-established legal principle that the doctrine of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities. Citing its earlier judgments in Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. and Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India, the court reiterated that findings on law or fact by such tribunals are binding and cannot be impeached collaterally in subsequent proceedings unless reversed in appeal, revision, or through writ proceedings. The court stated that a quasi-judicial authority generally lacks the power to unilaterally take a contrary view to that taken by a coordinate or predecessor authority at an earlier stage.

Applying this principle, the Supreme Court concluded that once the Competent Authority had settled the issue in its first order, that determination attained finality as it was not challenged. Therefore, the Competent Authority lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a second application seeking the same relief without the prior resolution of the identified legal complexities by a Civil Court, as directed in its initial order.

Relief Granted and Future Course of Action:

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court, and allowed the appellant's writ petition. The order dated October 5, 2021, passed by the Competent Authority allowing the second application, was quashed.

The Supreme Court clarified that the liberty granted in the first order of the Competent Authority, while rejecting the initial application, would still be available to the respondent-Society. However, this liberty can only be exercised after the respondent-Society gets the legal complications resolved before the appropriate Court or Forum.

In light of its findings, the Supreme Court also disposed of a related contempt petition. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principle of res judicata even in proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies, ensuring finality and preventing contradictory decisions on the same issues. It also highlights the necessity for parties to follow the directions issued by such authorities before seeking further relief on the same subject matter.

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963