Delhi Development Authority vs Corporation Bank 2025 INSC 1161 - Res Judicata In Writ Proceedings- Restitution
Constitution of India - Article 32,226 - Res Judicata -A matter once heard and finally decided between the parties cannot be reopened (Para 29) -Applicability of principle of Res Judicata in writ proceedings -Quoted from Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat: If a petition under Article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution-It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs- If the petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32. - Such a dismissal may however constitute a bar to a subsequent application under Article 32 where and if the facts thus found by the High Court be themselves relevant even under Article 32. (Para 28)
Restitution -The principle of restitution flows from the very heart of justice that no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the instance of another and that those who suffered without fault should, so far as money can achieve, be restored to the position they once occupied. The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised wherever the justice of the case demands. (Para 30)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs Corporation Bank & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1161
Coram (Judges)
- Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: September 25, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Daryao & Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
- Citation: 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21; (1962) 1 SCR 574; AIR 1961 SC 1457
- Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat
- Citation: 1964 SCC OnLine SC 99; (1965) 2 SCR 547; AIR 1965 SC 1153
- Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd.
- Citation: 1943 AC 32; (1942) 2 All ER 122 (HL)
- Nagpur Golden Transport Company v. Nath Traders & Ors.
- Citation: (2012) 1 SCC 555
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993)
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
- Income Tax Act, 1961
- Second and Third Schedules
- Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962
- Rule 16, Rule 53
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 11 (Res Judicata)
"A matter once heard and finally decided between the parties cannot be reopened."#SupremeCourt reiterates principles on applicability of principle of Res Judicata in writ proceedings: https://t.co/8TtfZTl0FK pic.twitter.com/nY7b5BZpm4
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) September 25, 2025
The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised wherever the justice of the case demands.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/8TtfZTl0FK pic.twitter.com/TPqtmnE86a
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) September 25, 2025
Yash Mittal