Supreme Court: What is basic concept of Interlocutory Res Judicata?

The provision embodies a rule of conclusiveness

that is founded in considerations of public

policy. It rests upon the salutary doctrine that

there must be a finality to litigation, and that a

party which has once succeeded or failed on an

issue should not be permitted to re-agitate the

same at a subsequent stage. The principle

applies not only between two separate suits but

also between two stages of the same litigation

what is referred to as ‘interlocutory res judicata.’{Para 35}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.23709 OF 2024)

B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS Vs  BHUVANESH AND OTHERS 

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 499.

Dated: MAY 15, 2026.

Print Page

“Whose Voice Is It? Lessons from a Malaysian WhatsApp Voice‑Note Case for India’s Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam”

The Malaysian High Court decision in Chuah Soo Peng v Ong Chin Wei is highly instructive for Indian courts interpreting the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), especially on how much proof is needed to link a WhatsApp voice note to an alleged sender. While not binding, its reasoning dovetails with India’s evolving jurisprudence on electronic records—from Anvar P.V. to Arjun Panditrao—and offers a practical, context‑sensitive approach that can be harmonised with sections 62–63 BSA.

Malaysian lesson: context, relationship and probabilities

In Chuah Soo Peng, the Sessions Court demanded technical confirmation (telco records, formal WhatsApp verification) before accepting that a WhatsApp voice note came from the defendant, even though the plaintiff and defendant were close friends and clients, and the plaintiff positively identified the defendant’s voice. The High Court corrected this, holding that in a civil case between well‑known parties, oral identification of the voice, combined with surrounding circumstances (subsequent meeting, contract clause drafted at defendant’s insistence), was sufficient on a “balance of probabilities” without mandatory telco proof.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

The "Sickle vs. Soil" Defense: A Judicial Guide to Adjudicating Agricultural Injury Cases

In the vast landscape of rural litigation, few scenarios are as common—or as contentious—as the "agricultural brawl." A fight breaks out in a field, a sickle is wielded, and a serious injury occurs. But in the courtroom, the narrative often shifts. The defense argues: "The accused never struck the blow; the complainant fell on the crops and sustained the injury accidentally."

For a Sessions Judge, distinguishing between a deliberate sickle attack and an accidental fall is not a matter of guesswork—it is a matter of forensic science and strict legal principles.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Police Cannot Seize Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC Without Direct Link To Offence

At this stage, the object and purpose of the provisions contained in section 102 of the Code, deserve to be revisited. It is essentially a tool for investigation and collection of evidence to sustain the charge against the accused. Section 102 is neither intended to confer, nor a repository of, the power to seize the property for the purpose of its delivery to the person / victim whom the IO consider to be rightful owner. In the absence of a direct link between the seized property and the commission of the offences, to concede the power to the investigating agency to seize the property would amount to allowing the investigating agency to trench upon adjudicatory province and do compensatory justice. { Para 37}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2024

Geeta Kampani  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 7 MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:21940

Print Page