Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 1, 2025, said whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and are binding until reversed in appeal or revision or by way of writ proceedings. 

"The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether right or wrong. Thus, any error, either of fact or law, committed by such bodies cannot be controverted otherwise by way of an appeal or revision or a writ unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said.  

The bench pointed out that it has been settled by the apex court that the principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities. The court in Ujjam Bai Vs State of UP (1962) took the view that principles of res judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies. This position has been further reinforced in Abdul Kuddus Vs Union of India and others (2019) wherein it was held that the opinion by the foreigners tribunal is a quasi-judicial order.   

"Therefore, it would be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Tribunal and/or the consequential order passed by the Registering Authority would not operate as res judicata. Further, it was established that any quasi judicial Authority would not ordinarily have the power to unilaterally take a contrary view taken by a coordinate or predecessor authority at an early point in time," the bench said.

The court thus held that it is evident that once a competent authority (quasi-judicial in nature) settles an issue, that determination attains finality unless it is set aside in accordance with law.  

Appellant M/s Faime Makers Pvt Ltd assailed the correctness of the judgment and order of November 10, 2023, passed by the High Court of Bombay, whereby its writ petition questioning the correctness of the order of October 05, 2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/ Competent Authority, was dismissed. 

By the order of October 05, 2021, the competent authority had allowed an application filed by Prakash Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited (respondent no.2-society) under Section 5/11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, directing the execution and registration of a unilateral deed of assignment with respect to 1321.36 square meter area of land and the building situated thereon along with 198.20 square meter on the recreational ground in the name of respondent No.2-Society.

The appellant contended the competent authority had dismissed the first application filed by the respondent no.2- society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act by order of February 22, 2021, on the finding that the issues involved were complicated and the respondent no. 2-society ought to get the same sorted out by a competent civil court and only thereafter apply afresh.   

It submitted the respondent no.2-society thereafter did not take any steps to approach the appropriate forum for sorting out or resolving out the issues mentioned in the order of February 22, 2021 and instead, within a month, it moved a second application before the competent authority, which was thus barred by the principle of res judicata, and the competent authority, while allowing the second application, committed a serious error in entertaining the same.

It further said the competent authority is a statutory authority and would fall within the category of quasi-judicial authority as it decides the application as per the statutory provisions after providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, as such until and unless specifically provided by statute, it would not have power of review. It contended that the high court committed a manifest error by not correctly reading the first order of the competent authority of February 22, 2021. The high court went on the premise that the first order of February 22, 2021 was a little vague and confusing.

The respondent, in their argument, said the high court correctly appreciated and interpreted the first order of February 22, 2021, to record a finding that the said order granted unconditional liberty to the respondent no.2- society to file a fresh application for the assignment of leasehold rights.

"Having considered the submissions and having perused the order of February 22, 2021, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no unconditional liberty granted to respondent No.2-Society to apply for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights. The order of February 22, 2021 is very clear that complications had arisen because of various transactions inter se parties at different points of time," the bench said.

The court pointed out the order leftno manner of doubt that respondent no.2- society could approach the competent authority afresh for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights only after getting the complications sorted out before the appropriate court. The order clearly indicated that the competent authority could not grant leasehold rights under the existing set of facts until and unless the complications were sorted out, it said.    

The bench also noted there was no explanation from the side of respondent no.2-society with respect to the findings of the competent authority recorded in the order, as to why the same was not challenged before a superior forum. 

"Once the said order has been accepted by the parties and has attained finality, the competent authority would not have jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to the findings and directions given by the competent authority in the first order," the bench said.

The court thus held that the high court erred in giving a different interpretation to the text of the first order of February 22, 2021. "The High Court had extracted the findings, conclusions, and directions in its impugned order but still moves on to hold that unconditional liberty was given to respondent No.2-Society, which in our opinion, was not correct," the bench said.

The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the high court's order and quashed the order of February 22, 2021 by the competent authority. However, the court clarified that the liberty granted in the first order of the competent authority, while rejecting the application would still be available to the respondent no.2-society but only after getting the complications resolved/sorted out before the appropriate court/forum.

Case Title: M/s Faime Makers Pvt Ltd Vs District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors