Dismissed

Md. Mukibur Rahman v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2022WP(C)/1488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court held that a subsequent writ petition filed by an LIC agent aggrieved by termination of his agency was not maintainable as the matter had already been finally decided in a prior writ between the same parties on the same cause of action, invoking constructive res judicata.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed under the principles of constructive res judicata.

Md. Mukibur Rahman Vs Life Insurance Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010112312016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

WP(C)/1488/2016

¶5

MD. MUKIBUR RAHMAN S/O LT. ABDUL MAJID R/O VILL- TELAHI CHER ALI P.O. BENGALDHORA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA and 3 ORS. REP. BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN BUILDING 4 CHITTARANJAN AVENUE KOLKATA.

¶8

2:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶9

LICI GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE JEEVAN PRAKASH S.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE MANAGER P and IR

¶10

L.I.C.I. GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE JEEVAN PRAKASH S.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-01. DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶11

LICI MORIGAON BRANCH MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

-----------Advocate for : MS.Y SHAIZA

¶14

Advocate for : appearing for LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

02.09.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Nath, learned counsel for the respondents in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, LICI).

¶19

The petitioner who was an LIC agent with the respondents LICI is aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2006 by which a penalty of termination of his agency was imposed along with forfeiture of all commissions etc., on the basis of certain alleged misconduct against him.

¶20

It is being pointed out by Mr. S Nath, learned counsel for the LICI that against the same order of termination dated 17.10.2006, the petitioner had earlier instituted WP(C)No.5730/2006 which was given its final consideration by the order dated 19.08.2013. The order dated 19.08.2013 provides that while passing the order of termination dated 17.10.2006, the petitioner was given enough opportunity to defend the charges, but he failed to do so and accordingly the Court was of the view that no infirmity was noticed in the impugned order of termination dated 17.10.2006, and, accordingly, the writ

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

petition was dismissed.

¶23

This writ petition is instituted on the same cause of action between the same parties in which a final decision had already been rendered. Accordingly, we are of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable in terms of the principles of constructive res judicata.

¶24

In terms of the above, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Md. Mukibur Rahman v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mukibur Rahman v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwarul Haque Vs the Assam State Information Commission and 2 Ors.

Pradip Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S R a Mazumder and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

On the Death of Late Khairul Islam, His Legal Heir Namely Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gitanjali Hazarika and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anil Bora Vs the State of Assam and Anr.