9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to succeed on the ground that the order of the Division Bench disposing of Crescent's appeal operated as res judicata to bind not only Crescent but also Jagriti and the appellant. It makes no difference that Jagriti was a co-respondent with the appellant. The principle of res judicata has been held to bind co- defendants if the relief given or refused by the earlier decision involved a determination of an issue between co-defendants (or co-respondents as the case may be). In the present case the facts show that all the three conditions were fulfilled. There was a conflict of interest between the two co-respondents in Crescent's appeal, namely between Jagriti and the appellants. For the purposes of deciding the relief, if any, to be granted to Crescent it was necessary for the Appellate Court to decide whether the appellant was entitled to participate. Although, the decision of the Appellate Court is cryptic, nevertheless, it cannot be said that the Court had not applied its judicial mind to the merits of the case. Jagriti's counsel was recorded as being present. The fact that the Appellate Court was wrong in affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on taken earlier was re-affirmed. Pursuant to the decision, a letter of allotment was issued to Jagriti and Crescent. This led to a second round of litigation by the appellant and Jagriti reiterating their earlier stand. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common order on 29th February 2000. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the requirement in the tender that the tender would be accepted only from registered institutions which are engaged in educational activities had an alternative which was ignored by the respondent No.1, namely, that the institutions constituted for that purpose could also participate. Since the appellant's memorandum showed that the appellant was constituted, inter- alia, for setting up schools, it could not be disqualified on this ground. The respondent No. 1 was accordingly required to decide the representations of the appellant and Jagriti afresh with a speaking order without being influenced by the earlier recommendations or earlier resolutions. Three appeals were preferred from this order before the Division Bench. One appeal was by Jagriti and two by Crescent. Jagriti's appeal was dismissed for default. One of Crescent's appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desh Tender Advertisement Law Manual. It records that the Government had taken a decision that public institutions like educational, religious and charitable institutions may be allotted space for the purposes for which they were set up by determining the price of land allotted on the principle of 'No Profit No Loss' basis. On the merits, Jagriti's submissions appear to be correct. The tender notice had asked for bids from registered institutions carrying on educational activities. The clear implication of the language is that the institution must be one which is constituted for the purpose of educational activities, if it does not already manage educational activities. The tender notice specified, inter alia, that the tender form had to be accompanied with description of activities managed earlier by the society . In response to the appellant's tender, by letter dated 1st December, 1993, the respondent No.1 had informed the appellant that it was required to submit the detailed particulars of the educational activities of the institution. The appellant admittedly has no experience in educational activities of any sort. The question then is- Was it constituted for ed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est was, in the circumstances, immaterial as the object of allotting the land to an educational institution was not the making of profit. The learned Single Judge was therefore wrong in construing the advertisement dated 22nd September, 1993 in the manner he did and the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Crescent's appeal. In our opinion the appellant was not competent to participate in the tender. However, the appellant is entitled to succeed on the ground that the order of the Division Bench disposing of Crescent's appeal operated as res judicata to bind not only Crescent but also Jagriti and the appellant. It makes no difference that Jagriti was a co-respondent with the appellant. The principle of res judicata has been held to bind co- defendants if the relief given or refused by the earlier decision involved a determination of an issue between co-defendants (or co-respondents as the case may be). This statement of the law has been approved as far back as in 1939 in Munni Bibi vs. Trilokinath 58 I.A. 158,165, where it has been said that to apply the rule of res judicata as between co-defendants three conditions are requisite. (1.) There must be a conflict of interest be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
