Facts which form part of the same transaction as the fact in issue — statements or acts so closely connected in time, place, and circumstances to the main fact that they explain or qualify it and are therefore relevant and admissible.
Explanation
Res gestae (Latin: 'things done') under Section 6 BSA 2023 (formerly Section 6 IEA) makes admissible facts that are part of the same transaction as the fact in issue, including statements made during the transaction. The key is spontaneity and contemporaneity: statements made so closely in time to the event that there is no opportunity for reflection or fabrication. The principle: a statement that is part of the act itself — not a narrative about it — forms part of the res gestae. Classic example: a murder victim's cry identifying the attacker immediately before being struck; a witness's spontaneous exclamation at seeing an accident. These statements are admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule because their spontaneous character guarantees reliability.
Statutory Provision
Section 6, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (formerly Section 6 IEA): 'Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.' Explanation — the section covers facts that form part of the same transaction, which may include statements made during the transaction if those statements are contemporaneous and spontaneous.
A matter or legal question that has not been previously adjudicated or authoritatively settled by a competent court and therefore remains open for judicial determination.
Explanation
'Res integra' is a Latin legal expression meaning, literally, a “thing untouched” or “matter untouched.” In legal usage, it describes a question that is fresh, undecided, or not previously settled by judicial authority.
The expression is commonly used when a court is confronted with a legal issue for which there is no binding precedent directly determining the question. The court may therefore examine the statutory language, constitutional principles, prior persuasive authorities, established legal principles, and the facts of the case before reaching its own conclusion.
Unlike res judicata, which emphasizes the finality of a matter already adjudicated, res integra describes a matter that remains open because it has not yet been authoritatively decided.
Statutory Provision
A legal question or matter that remains unsettled because it has not yet been authoritatively determined by a competent court and is therefore open for judicial determination.
And Article 141 of the Constitution of India does not apply to the matter yet.
A rule of evidence in negligence law that allows negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of an accident — applicable when the accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the thing causing it was under the defendant's control, and the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
Explanation
Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: 'the thing speaks for itself') is an evidential maxim rather than a rule of substantive liability — it reverses the burden of proof in negligence. When an accident is of a type that ordinarily does not happen without negligence (a barrel falls from a window onto a passer-by; a surgeon leaves a sponge inside a patient; an aircraft crashes without apparent external cause), the mere occurrence of the accident speaks to the defendant's negligence without the plaintiff needing to identify specifically what the defendant did wrong. The maxim was first stated in Byrne v. Boadle (1863) 159 ER 299 and has been widely applied in Indian medical negligence, road accident, and industrial accident cases.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — res ipsa loquitur is a common law maxim. Section 106 BSA (formerly Section 106 IEA) — burden on special knowledge — is the closest statutory analog: where a fact is specifically within the defendant's knowledge, the burden to explain it shifts to them. Res ipsa loquitur applies when: (a) the accident speaks so clearly of negligence that specific proof is unnecessary; (b) the thing was under the defendant's control; (c) the plaintiff had no contributory negligence.
The principle that a matter once finally adjudicated by a competent court cannot be re-litigated between the same parties — the judgment is conclusive as to all matters that were actually decided or could have been decided.
Explanation
Res judicata under Section 11 CPC is one of the most fundamental doctrines of civil procedure — it gives finality to judicial decisions. The doctrine rests on two maxims: (a) 'nemo debet bis vexari' — no person should be vexed twice for the same cause; and (b) 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' — it is in the state's interest that there be an end to litigation. Five conditions for Section 11 CPC: (a) former suit was decided; (b) same parties (or those claiming under them); (c) same matter in issue; (d) the matter was heard and finally decided; (e) by a court of competent jurisdiction. Also applies to Writ Court proceedings (constructive res judicata in PIL — a prior PIL bars subsequent PIL on same issue by same petitioner).
Statutory Provision
Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 'No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.'
The principle that where a matter is already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, a subsequent suit on the same matter between the same parties must be stayed — preventing multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judgments.
Explanation
Section 10 CPC ('res sub judice') is the 'in the meantime' counterpart to Section 11 ('res judicata'). Where Section 11 applies after final decision, Section 10 applies while proceedings are pending. If a matter is already being litigated in one court, the same matter cannot be simultaneously tried in another court. The court in which the subsequent suit is filed must stay its proceedings until the former suit is decided. Key elements: (a) two suits (not two claims in the same suit); (b) same parties directly or substantially; (c) same matter directly and substantially in issue; (d) the former suit is still pending in a court of competent jurisdiction; (e) the subsequent court would be bound by the former court's decision.
Statutory Provision
Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 'No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.'
A plan submitted by a resolution applicant for the revival of a corporate debtor — approved by the Committee of Creditors (66% vote) and the NCLT — which gives the corporate debtor to the resolution applicant in exchange for payment of the agreed amounts to creditors.
Explanation
A Resolution Plan under Sections 30-31 of the IBC is the mechanism for rescuing a corporate debtor. A Resolution Applicant (typically an investor, strategic buyer, or competitor) submits a plan that: (a) provides for full payment of CIRP costs and insolvency resolution costs; (b) provides for payment to operational creditors to the extent they receive at least what they would receive in liquidation; (c) provides for payment to financial creditors (amount negotiated, typically a haircut from the full debt); (d) ensures ongoing management and operations of the corporate debtor. The plan must be approved by the CoC (66% vote), then by the NCLT — which checks legal compliance but not commercial wisdom. Once approved, the plan is binding on all stakeholders.
Statutory Provision
Section 30(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'The resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him to confirm that each resolution plan — (a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor; (b) provides for the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in such manner as may be specified by the Board which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to the operational creditors in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor...'
An Insolvency Professional appointed by the NCLT to manage the corporate debtor's affairs during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — replacing the Board of Directors and running the company as a going concern while facilitating the resolution plan.
Explanation
The Resolution Professional (RP) under the IBC is a licensed insolvency professional who: (a) manages and operates the corporate debtor as a going concern during the CIRP; (b) takes over the powers of the Board of Directors; (c) collects and collates all claims against the corporate debtor; (d) constitutes the Committee of Creditors (CoC); (e) runs the CIRP process — inviting resolution plans, conducting due diligence, presenting plans to the CoC; and (f) prepares an Information Memorandum for potential resolution applicants. The RP is supervised by the CoC (which may replace the RP by 66% vote) and must comply with the IBBI Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals.
Statutory Provision
Section 16(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'The resolution professional shall be entitled to act as an Interim Resolution Professional during the interim period from the date of the order of the Adjudicating Authority under section 13 till the date of appointment of the resolution professional under sub-section (2) of section 22.' Section 17(1): 'From the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional, the management of affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the interim resolution professional.'
The operation of a law on facts, transactions, or rights that arose before the law was enacted — generally disfavoured in law, and specifically prohibited in criminal law (no ex post facto criminal punishment under Article 20(1)).
Explanation
Retrospective operation occurs when a new law reaches back in time to affect past transactions or rights. There are three types: (a) purely retrospective — operates entirely on past events already concluded; (b) retroactive — creates new liability or consequences for past acts; (c) declaratory — declares what the law was, treating it as always having been thus. Article 20(1) of the Constitution absolutely prohibits ex post facto criminal laws — no one can be convicted for an act that was not an offence when committed, and punishment cannot exceed what was prescribed at the time. For civil/tax legislation, there is a strong presumption against retrospective operation — courts will not read a statute as retrospective unless the legislature has clearly stated this intent.
Statutory Provision
Article 20(1), Constitution of India: 'No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.' This is the absolute constitutional bar on retrospective criminal law. Section 3(2), General Clauses Act, 1897 (for repeal): 'The repeal of an enactment shall not... affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment so repealed.'
A statutory provision that places the burden of proof (or some element of it) on the accused rather than the prosecution — the accused must prove their innocence or the absence of guilt on a specific element, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.
Explanation
Reverse onus clauses in Indian law are found in special statutes dealing with serious economic crime, narcotics, and terrorism: (a) Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 (Section 24) — once the prosecution proves money laundering, the accused bears the burden of proving the proceeds are not derived from crime; (b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 (Section 35) — once the prosecution proves possession, the accused bears the burden of proving they lacked the requisite knowledge and intent; (c) UAPA, 2019 — burden on accused to prove they are not members of a terrorist organisation. The constitutionality of reverse onus clauses has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction, subject to the condition that the accused only needs to raise a reasonable doubt (not prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt).
Statutory Provision
Section 24, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002: 'When a person is accused of having committed the offence of money-laundering, the burden of proving that the proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused.' Section 35, NDPS Act, 1985: 'In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.'
A petition seeking reconsideration of a court's judgment by the same court — filed when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, when new evidence is discovered that could not have been produced at trial, or when there is any other sufficient reason.
Explanation
The right of review is available under: (a) Article 137 of the Constitution—the Supreme Court may review its own judgments or orders; (b) Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC — (c) High Courts Under Art 226 of COI and (d) the decree of civil court under Order XLVII.
However, as per Section 403 of BNSS, states that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Grounds for review (Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC): discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not have been found at the time of the original proceeding; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and any other sufficient reason. A review is not a rehearing of the case — it is a reconsideration limited to specified grounds.
Statutory Provision
Article 137, Constitution of India: 'Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.' Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC: 'Any person considering himself aggrieved — (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.'
