https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757928 Res judicata between co-respondents applies only where there is a necessary inter se conflict that was finally decided, so a prior dismissal in one round did not bar the other appellant. Alleged non-disclosure of earlier litigation was not treated as material suppression warranting dismissal at the threshold. The doctrine of merger was held not to operate mechanically to bar the appeals, and the Court declined to apply it rigidly in the circumstances. Subsequent purchasers after acquisition notifications were held unable to seek a declaration of lapse, while cases involving alleged fraud, concealment, or title disputes required factual inquiry and were remitted to the High Court; some matters were disposed of under Article 142 or treated as infructuous. en-us Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2024 14:03:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757928 Res judicata between co-respondents applies only where there is a necessary inter se conflict that was finally decided, so a prior dismissal in one round did not bar the other appellant. Alleged non-disclosure of earlier litigation was not treated as material suppression warranting dismissal at the threshold. The doctrine of merger was held not to operate mechanically to bar the appeals, and the Court declined to apply it rigidly in the circumstances. Subsequent purchasers after acquisition notifications were held unable to seek a declaration of lapse, while cases involving alleged fraud, concealment, or title disputes required factual inquiry and were remitted to the High Court; some matters were disposed of under Article 142 or treated as infructuous. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757928