Constructive res judicata bars repeated challenge where the objection was available earlier and the forum composition was authorised.

A writ challenge to the same Company Law Board order was treated as barred by constructive res judicata because the objection could have been raised in earlier proceedings, and parallel resort to another remedy was viewed as an abuse of process that would undermine finality and risk conflicting decisions. On the bench-composition issue, the text states that the petitioner relied on outdated regulations; the amended regulatory regime, read with the relevant order under section 10E(4B) of the Companies Act, 1956, permitted the matter to be dealt with by a bench of one or more members. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Company Law Board order was barred by constructive res judicata and abuse of process, and whether the applicable Company Law Board Regulations permitted the matter to be heard by a single member.

Analysis: The petitioner had already unsuccessfully challenged the same Company Law Board order in earlier proceedings, including a revision and a special leave petition. The availability of the present objection in the earlier round attracted constructive res judicata. The Court also held that parallel resort to another remedy in respect of the same order was an improper exercise of discretion because it would undermine finality and invite conflicting decisions. On the merits of the bench-composition objection, the Court found that the regulations relied upon by the petitioner were not the extant regulations. The amended regulatory regime, together with the order under section 10E(4B) of the Companies Act, 1956, permitted the subject matter to be dealt with by a bench consisting of one or more members.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging an order cannot be entertained when the same order has already been unsuccessfully assailed in earlier proceedings and the omitted ground was available then, particularly where the applicable regulations authorise the forum composition adopted in the impugned order.

---