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: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the prior PIL before the High Court, and the order passed in the private complaint; (ii) Whether the orders passed in the earlier proceedings operated as res judicata.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the prior PIL before the High Court, and the order passed in the private complaint.
Analysis: The reliefs in the earlier proceedings and in the private complaint were found to be substantially the same, namely a direction to the RBI to take action on alleged violations of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The complaints had already been considered by the RBI, which had passed an order dated 05.09.2017, and that order had not been challenged. The Court held that the petitioner, having unsuccessfully pursued the same grievance in multiple fora and having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier PIL without liberty, could not re-agitate the same subject matter through a fresh writ petition. The filing of the present petition was treated as an abuse of process and barred by the principle underlying the rule in Sarguja Transport Service.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the orders passed in the earlier proceedings operated as res judicata.
Analysis: The direction issued by the Delhi High Court was only to consider the complaints and pass orders, and was not a decision on merits between the same parties. The order of withdrawal of the earlier PIL also did not amount to an adjudication on the merits. As a result, the essential requirements for res judicata were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The earlier orders did not operate as res judicata.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as an impermissible attempt to reopen a grievance that had already been pursued through earlier proceedings and considered by the RBI.
Ratio Decidendi: A grievance that has already been pursued in earlier proceedings and unconditionally withdrawn or otherwise considered cannot be re-agitated in a fresh writ petition on the same subject matter, and a non-adjudicatory direction to consider a complaint does not operate as res judicata.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
