Precedent Is Not Res Judicata: A Civil Judge’s Guide to Finality, Issue Estoppel, and Re-agitation of Issues

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Eminent Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Housing Board is a valuable reminder that courts must not confuse the doctrine of precedent with the rule of res judicata. The judgment shows that even where another court has taken a different view on a similar clause, an issue already decided between the same parties cannot be reopened if that adjudication has attained finality.​

What makes the ruling especially important is that it goes beyond arbitration law and offers a broader lesson for civil adjudication. It helps judges distinguish among issues of law, issues of fact, and mixed questions of law and fact, and explains how each may operate in later proceedings through the doctrine of res judicata.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are exceptions to the principle of Res Judicata on issue of law?

 34.1. The general Rule is that all issues that arise directly and substantially in a former suit or proceeding between the same parties are res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties. These would include issues of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, and issues of law.

34.2. To this general proposition of law, there are certain exceptions when it comes to issues of law:

34.2.1. Where an issue of law decided between the same parties in a former suit or proceeding relates to the jurisdiction of the court, an erroneous decision in the former suit or proceeding is not res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties, even where the issue raised in the second suit or proceeding is directly and substantially the same as that raised in the former suit or proceeding. This follows from a reading of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself, for the Court which decides the suit has to be a court competent to try such suit. When read with Explanation I to Section 11, it is obvious that both the former as well as the subsequent suit need to be decided in courts competent to try such suits, for the "former suit" can be a suit instituted after the first suit, but which has been decided prior to the suit which was instituted earlier. An erroneous decision as to the jurisdiction of a court cannot clothe that court with jurisdiction where it has none. Obviously, a civil court cannot send a person to jail for an offence committed under the Penal Code. If it does so, such a judgment would not bind a Magistrate and/or Sessions Court in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the Magistrate sentences the same person for the same offence under the Penal Code. Equally, a civil court cannot decide a suit between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the rights claimed under a Rent Act, where the Rent Act clothes a special court with jurisdiction to decide such suits. As an example, Under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the Small Cause Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings between a landlord and a tenant in respect of rights which arise out of the Bombay Rent Act, and no other court has jurisdiction to embark upon the same. In this case, even though the civil court, in the absence of the statutory bar created by the Rent Act, would have jurisdiction to decide such suits, it is the statutory bar created by the Rent Act that must be given effect to as a matter of public policy. [See, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios at SCR p. 482]. An erroneous decision clothing the civil court with jurisdiction to embark upon a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant, in respect of rights claimed under the Bombay Rent Act, would, therefore, not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Small Cause Court between the same parties in respect of the same matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.

34.2.2. An issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to. This is despite the fact that the matter in issue between the parties may be the same as that directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit or proceeding. This is for the reason that in such cases, the rights of the parties are not the only matter for consideration (as is the case of an erroneous interpretation of a statute inter partes), as the public policy contained in the statutory prohibition cannot be set at naught. This is for the same reason as that contained in matters which pertain to issues of law that raise jurisdictional questions. We have seen how, in Natraj Studios, it is the public policy of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act that has to be given effect to. Likewise, the public policy contained in other statutory prohibitions, which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a court, must equally be given effect to, as otherwise special principles of law are fastened upon parties when special considerations relating to public policy mandate that this cannot be done.

34.3. Another exception to this general Rule follows from the matter in issue being an issue of law different from that in the previous suit or proceeding. This can happen when the issue of law in the second suit or proceeding is based on different facts from the matter directly and substantially in issue in the first suit or proceeding. Equally, where the law is altered by a competent authority since the earlier decision, the matter in issue in the subsequent suit or proceeding is not the same as in the previous suit or proceeding, because the law to be interpreted is different.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 

Decided On: 04.02.2026

Eminent Colonizers Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J

Citation: 2026 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0116/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court explains the distinction between the doctrine of Precedent and Res Judicata

There is a clear conceptual distinction between precedent and res judicata. Salmond on Jurisprudence P.J. Fitzgerald (12th Edition) page 141 states "a judicial precedent speaks in England with authority; it is not merely evidence of the law but a source of it, and the courts are bound to follow the law that is so established". A decision between two parties which sets out a principle of law will operate as a precedent for disputes between two other parties too. A precedent operates in rem. In contrast, a res judicata operates in personam between the same parties either in the later stage of the same litigation between them or in a different litigation between them. That is the essential distinction between the two. {Para 24}

Res judicata operates in personam i.e. the matter in issue between the same parties in the former litigation, while law of precedent operates in rem i.e. the law once settled is binding on all under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Res judicata binds the parties to the proceedings for the reason that there should be an end to the litigation and therefore, subsequent proceeding inter se parties to the litigation is barred. Therefore, law of res judicata concerns the same matter, while law of precedent concerns application of law in a similar issue. In res judicata, the correctness of the decision is normally immaterial and it does not matter whether the previous decision was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body. [See Makhija Construction & Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority,   MANU/SC/0302/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 304]]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 

Decided On: 04.02.2026

Eminent Colonizers Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J

Citation: 2026 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0116/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances an issue of law relating to jurisdiction of court erroneously decided in the former proceeding will not amount to res judicata?

28. In an erudite judgment, speaking for this Court Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and Anr.   MANU/SC/0433/2018 : 2018:INSC:385 : (2018) 16 SCC 228, summarised the principles thus:

34. Given the conspectus of authorities that have been referred to by us hereinabove, the law on the subject may be stated as follows:

34.1. The general Rule is that all issues that arise directly and substantially in a former suit or proceeding between the same parties are res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties. These would include issues of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, and issues of law.

34.2. To this general proposition of law, there are certain exceptions when it comes to issues of law:

34.2.1. Where an issue of law decided between the same parties in a former suit or proceeding relates to the jurisdiction of the court, an erroneous decision in the former suit or proceeding is not res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties, even where the issue raised in the second suit or proceeding is directly and substantially the same as that raised in the former suit or proceeding. This follows from a reading of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself, for the Court which decides the suit has to be a court competent to try such suit. When read with Explanation I to Section 11, it is obvious that both the former as well as the subsequent suit need to be decided in courts competent to try such suits, for the "former suit" can be a suit instituted after the first suit, but which has been decided prior to the suit which was instituted earlier. An erroneous decision as to the jurisdiction of a court cannot clothe that court with jurisdiction where it has none. Obviously, a civil court cannot send a person to jail for an offence committed under the Penal Code. If it does so, such a judgment would not bind a Magistrate and/or Sessions Court in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the Magistrate sentences the same person for the same offence under the Penal Code. Equally, a civil court cannot decide a suit between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the rights claimed under a Rent Act, where the Rent Act clothes a special court with jurisdiction to decide such suits. As an example, Under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the Small Cause Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings between a landlord and a tenant in respect of rights which arise out of the Bombay Rent Act, and no other court has jurisdiction to embark upon the same. In this case, even though the civil court, in the absence of the statutory bar created by the Rent Act, would have jurisdiction to decide such suits, it is the statutory bar created by the Rent Act that must be given effect to as a matter of public policy. [See, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios at SCR p. 482]. An erroneous decision clothing the civil court with jurisdiction to embark upon a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant, in respect of rights claimed under the Bombay Rent Act, would, therefore, not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Small Cause Court between the same parties in respect of the same matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 

Decided On: 04.02.2026

Eminent Colonizers Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J

Citation: 2026 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0116/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Refuse To Follow SC Judgment On Ground Of Review/Reference Pending Against It; In Case Of Conflicting Judgments, Follow Earlier One

 We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi,   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it. {Para 35}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5707 of 2023

Decided On: 06.09.2023

Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.

Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Citation: 2023 INSC 804, MANU/SC/0988/2023.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances order passed by high court in bail application should not be treated as precedent?

  In so far as the judgment in the case of Manjubhai Rokde and Vinod Ramchandra Gupta (supra) are concerned, it needs to be noted that in both the orders no principle of law arose for consideration and no principle of law was laid down. It is well settled that an order of bail application is summary in nature based on summary facts which can never be relied as a precedent or can be cited as an authority laying down proposition of law by this Court unless and until principle of law arise for consideration and the order lays down principle of law. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. The essence of a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what legally follows from the observations made in the order. A case cannot be an authority on the point of a fact. Each case has to be decided in the light of circumstances existing in it. A precedent is a judicial decision which lays down a principle of law. Generally bail orders in their operative part proceed on peculiar facts of each case. Sometimes facts are not stated in the order considering complexity of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, generally bail orders without laying down principle of law cannot be regarded as an authority on a point of fact. Therefore, in my opinion, both the judgments cited by the advocate for the applicant in the absence of proposition of law being decided cannot be treated as a precedent laying down principle of law. The orders relied upon by the applicant, therefore, are of no help to the applicant. {Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 189 of 2023 and 616 of 2023

Decided On: 16.06.2023

Eknath Bhalchandra Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Amit B. Borkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/5594/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court should allow anticipatory bail application in case of seizure of Gutka or Pan Masala?

 I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the sides. I have carefully scrutinized the case diary. Prima facie, the statement of the person from whom prohibited substance was seized named the applicant in ABA/139/2023 as supplier. The applicant in ABA/616/2023 is a seller. Considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, it is necessary that detail investigation as regards existence of any racket operating in prohibited substance need to be investigated. It is also necessary to investigate source of such supply and acquisition. It is also necessary to investigate into the names and identity of purchasers of the prohibited substance from the applicants. {Para 6}

10. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the allegations against the applicant, no case for grant of pre-arrest protection is made out.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 189 of 2023 and 616 of 2023

Decided On: 16.06.2023

Eknath Bhalchandra Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Amit B. Borkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/5594/2023.

Print Page

Understanding the Doctrine of Precedent and Its Exceptions in Indian Law

 The Indian legal system, rooted in common law tradition, places significant emphasis on the doctrine of precedent. This principle ensures consistency, stability, and predictability in the administration of justice. However, not all judicial decisions carry the same binding authority. Some exceptions—such as precedents decided sub silentio or per incuriam—limit the otherwise strict application of this doctrine. This article explores the doctrine of precedent, its types, and the key exceptions recognized by Indian courts.

The Doctrine of Precedent: Foundation of Judicial Consistency

Print Page

LLM Notes: Judicial Creativity and Precedent: Shaping Indian Law Through Innovation and Balance

 The judiciary in India plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape by creatively interpreting laws and relying on judicial precedents. This dynamic process ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, responsive to the evolving needs of society while safeguarding fundamental rights and democratic principles.

Understanding Judicial Creativity

Judicial creativity refers to the judiciary’s ability to interpret laws beyond their literal meaning, especially in constitutional matters where provisions may be ambiguous or require adaptation to contemporary challenges. Judges act as guardians of the Constitution, employing innovative approaches to ensure justice aligns with societal values.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Judge has to exercise discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity or order in the social life. discuss the nature of judicial process in india

 The judicial process in India embodies a delicate balance between tradition, systemic discipline, analogical reasoning, and the overarching goal of maintaining social order. Rooted in both ancient legal traditions and modern constitutional principles, it operates through a structured hierarchy while allowing judges discretionary powers tempered by legal frameworks.

Tradition-Informed Discretion

India’s judiciary draws from a rich heritage of legal principles, including ancient systems that emphasized natural justice, fair hearings, and hierarchical appeals. These traditions evolved into constitutional values such as the rule of law and separation of powers, which guide judges in interpreting statutes and safeguarding fundamental rights. For instance, the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution ensures that discretionary decisions align with India’s democratic ethos.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Precedent should not be petrified nor judicial dicta divorced from the socio economic mores of the age. Judges are not prophets and only interpret laws in the light of the contemporary ethos. discuss the nature of judicial process in india.

Explanation of the Statement

This statement, attributed to Justice Krishna Iyer, reflects a progressive approach to judicial interpretation and the doctrine of precedent.

Meaning of the Statement

• Precedent should not be petrified:
  Legal precedents—past judicial decisions that guide future cases—should not be treated as rigid, unchangeable rules. The law must remain dynamic, capable of adapting to new circumstances and evolving societal values. If precedents were "petrified" (frozen in time), the law would become outdated and unable to address contemporary issues.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Doctrine of Precedent and Its Role in Interpretation of Statutes and Constitutional Provisions in India

 The doctrine of precedent, also known as stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), is a fundamental principle in the Indian legal system derived from English common law. It mandates that courts to follow the legal principles and rulings established in previous judicial decisions when deciding cases with similar facts or legal issues. This ensures consistency, predictability, and stability in the law.

Basic Concept of Doctrine of Precedent

• Binding Nature: The core of the doctrine is that the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning essential to the decision) of a higher court's judgment is binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction. However, obiter dicta (remarks or observations made by a judge that are not essential to the decision) are not binding but may be persuasive.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Understanding Research Problems and the Significance of Case Law in Legal Research

 What is a Research Problem?

A research problem is the foundation of any scholarly investigation. It refers to a gap in existing knowledge, a contradiction in established theories, or a practical challenge that requires resolution through systematic inquiry. In essence, it is the question or issue that a researcher seeks to address to advance understanding or propose solutions. The formulation of a research problem provides focus, clarity, and structure to the research process, ensuring that the study is purposeful and relevant.

Print Page

What is the effect of SC recalling its Judgment in Review Petition?

When the Supreme Court recalls its judgment in a review petition, it has significant implications for the legal system. This action essentially renders the recalled judgment as "Non est," meaning it no longer exists unless specific provisions are made in the recall order to preserve certain aspects of it. Here's a breakdown of the effects of such a recall:

Once a judgment is recalled, any legal principles or ratios established by it lose their binding authority. This means that courts and parties can no longer rely on or cite these principles as legal precedents in future cases. The recalled judgment is effectively invalidated, and its influence on subsequent legal decisions is nullified.

Print Page

LLM Notes: The Significance of Case Law in Legal Research

 Case law, also known as judicial precedent, is a critical component of the legal system. It comprises laws established through judges' decisions, evolving as judges interpret and apply existing laws to specific situations. Case law research involves examining and analyzing previously decided court cases to understand how the law has been interpreted and applied in similar situations. This research is essential for lawyers, judges, and legal scholars.

What is Case Law?

Case law is established when a judge makes a decision that interprets and applies existing laws to a specific situation. This decision sets a legal precedent that other courts must follow, guiding future rulings and interpretations of the law. The process of case law development involves judicial reasoning and decision-making, where parties present arguments and evidence, and the judge considers legal principles, statutes, and precedents before reaching a judgment.

Print Page

Judicial Creativity and Precedent: Tools and Techniques in Indian Law

The judiciary in India plays a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape through its creative interpretation of laws and reliance on judicial precedents. This article explores the tools and techniques of judicial creativity, their application in Indian law, and the balance between innovation and restraint.

Understanding Judicial Creativity

Judicial creativity refers to the judiciary's ability to interpret laws in ways that go beyond their literal meaning. It is particularly significant in constitutional matters, where provisions may be ambiguous or require adaptation to contemporary challenges. Judges, as guardians of the Constitution, often employ innovative approaches to ensure that justice aligns with evolving societal values.

Print Page

Is the high court bound to issue notice in a writ petition if another high court bench has issued a notice in a similar writ petition?

Thus, I am not in a position to agree that merely issuance of a notice by a Coordinate Bench, under which provision of law, can be considered to be a binding precedent as it does not lay down any proposition of law to be followed in future. Question of judicial discipline will arise when a decision is rendered by a

forum of superior or concurrent jurisdiction while adjudicating the rights of the parties to a lis embodying a declaration of law. I do not see any declaration of law in the discretion of a Coordinate Bench to issue notice in the matter.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION No. 21169 of 2022

M/S KESHAV KANSHKAR  Vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

Dated:  20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Print Page

What is distinction between a precedent and the operation of the doctrine of res judicata?

 9.5.1. The principle that the doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent stage of the same proceedings is hardly of any doubt or dispute. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Y.B. Patil (supra), has tersely underscored this principle of law in the following terms: -

“4. …It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding….”

9.5.2. It is also well-settled, as laid down in several decisions, that even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered between the same parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction. In the case of Gorie Gouri Naidu (supra), this Court, inter alia, said,

“4…..The law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment binds the party if the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis….”

9.5.3. In Makhija Construction & Engg. (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court also clarified the distinction between a precedent and the operation of the doctrine of res judicata in the following terms: -

“19. …A precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case. Res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be an end to litigation.”

9.5.4. In S. Nagaraj (supra), it was also made clear by this Court that binding decisions cannot be ignored even on the principles of per incuriam because those principles have relevance to the doctrine of precedents but have no application to the doctrine of res judicata.

10. For what has been noticed and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it remains hardly a matter of doubt that the doctrine of res judicata is fundamental to every well regulated system of jurisprudence, for being founded on the consideration of public policy

that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct and that no person should be vexed twice with the same kind of litigation. This doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7691 - 7694 OF 2022

 S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; J., ANIRUDDHA BOSE; J.

Author: DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Dated:  OCTOBER 19, 2022 

Print Page

What is difference between the doctrine Per Incuriam and Sub Silentio?

 The foundational basis for the exceptions of per incuriam and sub-silentio is to balance consistency and judicial discipline, with the flexibility of revising blatantly wrong decisions. The thin line difference between the two is that where a per incuriam judgment is passed in clear violation of a legislation, rule or a judgment of a superior court/larger bench; a judgment passed sub-silentio is essentially the one passed "without consideration/without discussion" on a particular legal point, which ought to have been considered/discussed for the decision.

Print Page

Are directions of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited applicable to interim orders that do not stay the trial of civil or criminal cases?

 To be more specific, the issue as urged by the petitioner is as to whether the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 of its decision in "Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency' case, can be construed to mean that in cases wherein interim orders in the nature of stay or injunction are passed and which have continued to remain in operation for more than six months, would stand automatically vacated after a period of six months of such orders being passed. {Para 10}

40. In conclusion, it needs to be observed that the directions of the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 and 37 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited, operate only qua the criminal and civil cases pending trial, and such directions cannot be construed to be applicable to the other category of orders in proceedings which do not stay the trial of the civil or criminal cases as observed in paragraph 30 above. Such orders of the Supreme Court are also not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunals. Thus, the tribunal was not correct in passing the impugned order as also applying the government circular dated 6 May, 2021.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5483 of 2021

Decided On: 18.04.2022

 Devsing Ramchandra Chavan  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1337/2022

Print Page