TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 had lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; (ii) whether the High Court could reopen and re-decide that question despite earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the limited remit of the writ proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether the draft scheme published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 had lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Analysis: The scheme in question had already been considered in earlier Supreme Court decisions, which recorded that it had not lapsed and directed the competent authority to proceed with approval and hearing of only the maintainable objections within the limited framework indicated by the Court. The later challenge to lapse was also examined in the light of the statutory transition provisions and the earlier binding pronouncements. On the facts, the draft scheme could not be treated as having lapsed merely because the 1988 Act had come into force.
Conclusion: The scheme had not lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could reopen and re-decide that question despite earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the limited remit of the writ proceedings.
Analysis: The earlier Supreme Court rulings had conclusively determined the lapse question and had also confined the subsequent remand to a limited inquiry into the objections directed by the Court. The doctrine of finality and res judicata barred re-agitation of the same issue, and the High Court, in a writ petition challenging only the competent authority's decision on remand, could not enlarge the controversy to annul the scheme on a ground already foreclosed.
Conclusion: The High Court was not entitled to reopen the lapse issue or to annul the scheme on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the approved scheme remained operative subject to consideration of objections within the limited remand, and the connected matters were disposed of in accordance with that result.
Ratio Decidendi: A question finally decided by the Supreme Court between the same parties cannot be re-opened in later proceedings, and a scheme pending under the old motor vehicles law did not lapse on the facts where the Court had already held it to be operative and had directed its approval within a confined procedural framework.
TaxTMI 
