TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the earlier order dated 23.2.2006 operated as res judicata so as to bar a fresh application for leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and whether the expression "liberty to apply" in that order preserved the applicant's right to seek leave again.
Analysis: The governing principle is that res judicata may apply even at successive stages of the same litigation, but only where the earlier order reflects a conscious adjudication on merits of the issue. An interlocutory order that does not decide the matter on merits, but is made on the basis of a limited statement and expressly leaves liberty to apply if necessary, does not create a bar of res judicata. The earlier order did not reject the request for leave on merits; it recorded that the judge's summons was not necessary in view of the stand taken and then preserved liberty to apply. In that setting, the later application for leave was not a re-agitation of an issue already finally decided.
Conclusion: The earlier order did not operate as res judicata, and the fresh application for leave was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Res judicata bars a subsequent application in the same proceeding only when the earlier decision amounts to a final, conscious adjudication on the merits of the issue; a non-merits disposal coupled with liberty to apply does not preclude a later application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
