Supreme Court Reaffirming Res Judicata for Quasi-Judicial Authorities; Set Aside the HC Order.

This matter stemmed is from judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay which had dismissed the writ petition filed by M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant), thereby upholding the order of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/Competent Authority (the Competent Authority).

The Competent Authority which had allowed an application 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 (the 1963 Act), directing the execution and registration of a unilateral deed of assignment for a specific area of land and building in favor of the respondent No. 2-Society.

The appellant, having become the landowner after acquiring the larger property from Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (BJPL), challenged this order, particularly in light of a previous order by the same Competent Authority that had dismissed the Society's earlier similar application due to legal complications and directed the Society to seek relief from a competent Civil Court first.

Supreme Court analyzied whether the Competent Authority was justified in entertaining a second application for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights from the respondent No. 2-Society after having dismissed a prior similar application on the ground of legal complexities that needed resolution by a Civil Court, which direction was not complied with or challenged by the Society.

The Supreme Court observed that the first order of the Competent Authority, dated 22.02.2021, had clearly stated that the Society could re-apply for the assignment of leasehold rights only after the existing legal complications were sorted out by an appropriate court.

The Apex Court emphasized the principle of res judicata, holding that it equally applies to quasi-judicial authorities like the Competent Authority. Citing Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. and Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court reiterated that findings of such tribunals on law or fact are binding unless reversed in appeal, revision, or writ proceedings and that a quasi-judicial authority cannot unilaterally take a contrary view to that of a coordinate or predecessor authority.

The Apex Court observed that the High Court had erred in interpreting the first order as granting unconditional liberty to the Society to file a fresh application.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court and quashing the order and held that the second application filed by the respondent No. 2-Society was not maintainable as the directions in the first order regarding the resolution of legal complications by a Civil Court were not followed and the first order had attained finality.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that the liberty granted in the first order to the respondent No. 2-Society to re-apply for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights would still be available, but only after the legal complications are resolved by the appropriate Court/Forum. Consequently, the Contempt Petition was disposed of.

CORAM: JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA AND JUSTICE MANMOHAN
BETWEEN: MS FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD VS DIST REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MUMBAI & ORS 2025 INSC 423
DOJ: 01-04-2025