Findings Of Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Be Impeached Collaterally; Principles Of Res Judicata Equally Apply: Supreme Court

The Court set aside the impugned Order of the Bombay High Court whereby the Appellant’s Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai (Competent Authority), was dismissed. The High Court had granted unconditional liberty to the Respondent to file a fresh application for the assignment of leasehold rights.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale 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.”

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented the Appellant, while AOR Piyush Dwivedi appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The dispute centers on a piece of land in Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, initially part of a larger property transferred to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (BJPL) in 1951. In 2010, BJPL transferred its rights in the larger property to the Appellant, making them the landowner. Later, disputes arose between the parties regarding the transfer of the property.

The challenge was against the Order by the Competent Authority which directed the execution and registration of a unilateral deed of assignment in favour of the Respondent.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court referred to its decision in Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1962), wherein it was held that “principles of res judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies. 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.”

“In our opinion, the High Court erred in giving a different interpretation to the above text of the first order dated 22.02.2021. The High Court had extracted the above 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 Court explained.

Consequently, the Court held that “the appeal is allowed, impugned order of the High Court is set aside, the writ petition would stand allowed, and the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Competent Authority is quashed.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 423)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu; Advocates Aman Vachher, Amar Khanna, Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Anshu Vachher, Abhiti Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Nandni Sharma, Amit Kumar and Jasvinder Choudhary

Respondents: AOR Piyush Dwivedi, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Abhikalp Pratap Singh and Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala; Advocates Aagam Kaur, Utkarsh Kumar, Shubhangi Agarwal, Kartikey, Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Sarvagnya P Trivedi and Tanishka Grover

Click here to read/download the Judgment