Res judicata barred a fresh company petition where identical reliefs had already been finally decided and could not be reopened.

A fresh company petition seeking the same reliefs as an earlier petition was barred by res judicata because the prior adjudication had attained finality. The later attempt to reopen the dispute after withdrawing a subsequent Supreme Court appeal did not revive the same cause of action or permit re-agitation of issues already concluded. Repeated litigation on an identical dispute was treated as impermissible abuse of process, and the fresh petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fresh company petition seeking reliefs identical to those claimed in the earlier proceedings was barred by res judicata and amounted to abuse of process, and whether the dismissal of the prior appeal as withdrawn prevented finality of the earlier adjudication.

Analysis: The reliefs in the later petition were substantially identical to those already pursued in the earlier company petition, which had been dismissed and whose dismissal had attained finality. The withdrawal of the subsequent appeal before the Supreme Court did not revive the same cause or permit re-agitation of issues already concluded. Once the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the same dispute could not be reopened through a fresh petition, as judicial proceedings must reach an end and repeated litigation on the same cause is impermissible.

Conclusion: The fresh petition was barred by res judicata and was correctly dismissed as not maintainable; the challenge before the Appellate Tribunal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finally concluded adjudication on the same cause of action cannot be re-litigated through a fresh petition, and withdrawal of a subsequent appeal does not undo the finality of the earlier decision.

---