https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299151 The court found that the suit by the BDA was not barred by res judicata as the BDA was not adequately represented in the earlier proceedings. The BDA was not bound by the judgment and decree in a previous suit as it was not a party and the lessee could not represent it. The BDA could challenge the earlier judgment and decree due to legal impediments. The suit was not barred by limitation as it was filed within the appropriate timeframe. The court concluded that the trial court erred in not addressing the jurisdiction issue properly, allowing the BDA's suit and setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 Dec 2021 14:39:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299151 The court found that the suit by the BDA was not barred by res judicata as the BDA was not adequately represented in the earlier proceedings. The BDA was not bound by the judgment and decree in a previous suit as it was not a party and the lessee could not represent it. The BDA could challenge the earlier judgment and decree due to legal impediments. The suit was not barred by limitation as it was filed within the appropriate timeframe. The court concluded that the trial court erred in not addressing the jurisdiction issue properly, allowing the BDA's suit and setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299151