The High Court of Delhi dismissed a review application, holding it misconceived as prior appeals were dismissed on merits based on res judicata. The court rejected fraud claims and corrected a clerical error in the original order before dismissing the review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
In person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
%
O RDE R 22.04.2016
RA No. 189/2016
The application for review is misconceived. We had dismissed the writ
petition primarily on the ground of principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. In the present case, similar pleas raised earlier were dismissed vide decision dated 10th January, 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 8253/2011, Subhash Chander versus Union of India and Others. This decision was affirmed by a speaking order passed by the Supreme Court dated 25th November, 2013 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2846928470/2013.
The petitioner seems to be under the impression that once the notice was issued vide order dated 5th August, 2014, the plea of limitation of
finality/ res judicata would not be applicable.
The petitioner submits that the earlier decisions were not on merits and are vitiated on the ground of fraud. We do not think that the said plea and contention has any foundation for the earlier decisions are on merits and "fraud" is not established and shown.
However, during the course of hearing, a typographical error in the date mentioned in paragraph 6 of our order/judgment dated 11th February, 2016 was pointed out. The said typographical error has been corrected and initialed in today's date. With the aforesaid observation, the application review is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
APRIL 22, 2016 VKR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review application is misconceived given the prior dismissal on res judicata principles.
Whether the plea of fraud vitiates the earlier judgments dismissing similar pleas.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhash Chander versus Union of India and OthersReferred¶11
Writ Petition (C) No. 8253/2011, Subhash Chander versus Union of India and Others
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2846928470/2013Referred¶11
Subhash Chander
Union of India
Sanjiv Khanna
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
