NDLI: S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	in these cases – Correctness of Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata – Application of – Advocates Act the plaintiff wife of the appellant (his GPA holder) was given liberty to act as an advocate on behalf of her husband 1961 – s.32 – High Court held that it was not permissible for a GPA holder to participate in the proceedings
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata – Application of – Advocates Act, 1961 – s. 32 – High Court held that it was not permissible for a GPA holder to participate in the proceedings, wife of the appellant (his GPA holder) was given liberty to act as an advocate on behalf of her husband, the plaintiff, in these cases – Correctness of – On appeal, held: Doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent stage of the same proceedings – A binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction – Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata – In the present case, the previous orders passed in these matters by the High Court on 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018, as regards the issue of participation of the wife of the appellant in these proceedings as a GPA holder of the appellant, remain binding on the parties and cannot be ignored – The issue concerning the capacity of the wife of the appellant to participate in these proceedings as his GPA holder cannot be agitated over again in these very proceedings, even if the earlier orders granting such permission to her are suggested to be erroneous – The meaning, purport and effect of the previous concluded orders of the High Court dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 had been clear and unambiguous that in these cases, wife of the appellant would be entitled to appear only as the GPA holder and not as an advocate – Also, the enabling provision of s. 32 of the 1961 Act, whereby any Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as creating a corresponding bar in giving permission to a GPA holder of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder, during pendency of the proceedings in the Court, gets enrolled as an advocate – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where the only fortuitous event had been that wife of the appellant, who was already acting as his General Power of Attorney holder, later on took the degree in law and got herself enrolled as an advocate, the High Court had, in the previous rounds of proceedings, cautiously balanced the requirements of law, particularly the requirements of CPC, the Civil Rules of Practice in the State, and the 1961 Act as also the rules made under it by specifically providing that wife of the appellant shall appear only as his GPA holder and not as an advocate – Further, no such question like that of jurisdiction or statutory prohibition arises from the said orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 for which, the issue concluded thereby could be reagitated at the subsequent stage of these very proceedings by suggesting different interpretations – Impugned common order dated 28.06.2019 is set aside; and the orders passed by the Trial Court dated 07.02.2019 are restored – Power of Attorney – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11. Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata – Object and framework of – ‘res judicata pro veritate occipitur’ - ‘nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’ – Discussed. Advocates Act, 1961 – s. 32 – Power of Court to permit appearances in particular cases – Held: Permission u/s. 32 of the Act of 1961, by its very nature, is to be granted on case-to-case basis and could also be refused with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances referable to a particular case and any particular person.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1114
Petitioner	S. Ramachandra Rao
Respondent	S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.
SCR	[2022] 17 S.C.R. 451
Judgement Date	2022-10-19
Case Number	7691

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Yum! Restaurants (marketing) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

M/s. K.b. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri & Ors.

Babulal Sahu Vs. State of Chhatisgarh

Osman Umar Vs. Malal Alibhai Nathu and Ors

Ex. Constable Ramvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.

Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao and Ors. Vs. Valluri Jagannadha Rao & Ors.

Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Anr.

Ramachandra Shenoy and Another. Vs. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Others

S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.

S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Yum! Restaurants (marketing) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

M/s. K.b. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri & Ors.

Babulal Sahu Vs. State of Chhatisgarh

Osman Umar Vs. Malal Alibhai Nathu and Ors

Ex. Constable Ramvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.

Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao and Ors. Vs. Valluri Jagannadha Rao & Ors.

Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Anr.

Ramachandra Shenoy and Another. Vs. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Others

S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.