AMARENDRA KOMALAM AND ANR. versus USHA SINHA AND ANR.

AMARENDRA KOMALAM AND ANR. versus USHA SINHA AND ANR.

Respondent No. 1 is barred by res judicata, waiver, and estoppel from raising the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 2.9.1978 between the same parties on the same subject matter, as she earlier undertook not to raise the issue and this was affirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court. The previous determination is binding in the current proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Amarendra Komalam; Appellant: S.K. Puri Service Station; Respondent: Usha Sinha; Respondent: I.B.P. Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Waiver, Estoppel, Interpolation, Lease Agreement
Civil Procedure Res Judicata Waiver Estoppel Interpolation Lease Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amarendra Komalam

Appellant

S.K. Puri Service Station

Appellant

Usha Sinha

Respondent

I.B.P. Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 2.9.1978 settled between the same parties by earlier orders can be raised again.
  2. 2 Whether respondent No. 1 is precluded from raising the issue of interpolation on principles of issue estoppel and res judicata.
  3. 3 Whether respondent No. 1 who gave an undertaking not to raise interpolation in Civil Revision No. 18 of 1999 can raise the same issue again.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 1 is barred by res judicata, waiver, and estoppel from raising the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 2.9.1978 between the same parties on the same subject matter, as she earlier undertook not to raise the issue and this was affirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court. The previous determination is binding in the current proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 (Usha Sinha) is precluded from raising any questions challenging the genuineness/interpolation/forgery of the agreement dated 2.9.1978.
  • Any evidence or answers extracted regarding genuineness/interpolation/forgery in trial below should not be considered by the trial Court and should be eschewed from judgment.