Quasi‑Judicial Authority Is Bound by Prior Order; Second Unilateral Assignment Application Not Maintainable

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal by M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. challenging the Bombay High Court's dismissal of its writ against an order of the District Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (Competent Authority) that had allowed a cooperative housing society's application under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 10.11.2023 and quashed the Competent Authority's order dated 05.10.2021 which had granted Application No.101 of 2021 to respondent No.2‑Society. The Court held that the earlier order of the Competent Authority dated 22.02.2021 had dismissed the Society's first application and granted liberty to apply only "after sorting out the issues" before an appropriate civil forum; the second application was therefore not maintainable and the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain it contrary to its own prior findings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It has been settled by this Court that the principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi‑judicial authorities. This Court in Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. has taken the view 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."

Background The dispute concerned land at Bandivali Hill Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, forming part of a larger parcel originally conveyed to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (BJPL). BJPL leased a portion to Ramkishor Singh (respondent No.3) in 1952; development rights were later granted to Prakash Builders (respondent No.4), who constructed flats without approved plans. Purchasers of those flats formed respondent No.2‑Society. BJPL sold its interest to the appellant by deed dated 07.07.2010. A suit by the lessee's heirs was settled by consent in 2012, followed by a Deed of Surrender of Leasehold Rights.

Respondent No.2‑Society first filed Application No.53 of 2020 under Section 11 seeking unilateral conveyance/assignment; the Competent Authority dismissed that application by order dated 22.02.2021, recording that "there is a legal complication in this case" and that the Society should first approach a competent court and only "after the settlement of these matters" re‑apply. Despite that direction, the Society filed Application No.101 of 2021 on 24.03.2021, and the Competent Authority allowed it on 05.10.2021.

The appellant challenged the 05.10.2021 order before the Bombay High Court by writ petition; the High Court dismissed the petition. Before the Supreme Court the appellant argued that the second application was barred by res judicata and that the Competent Authority had no power to revisit its earlier findings. Respondent No.2‑Society contended that the first order had granted unconditional liberty to re‑apply and that the second application raised distinct reliefs to be decided on merits.

The Supreme Court found no unconditional liberty in the 22.02.2021 order, held that the Competent Authority could not entertain a contrary application without the earlier complications being resolved by an appropriate civil forum, applied binding precedent (Ujjam Bai and Abdul Kuddus) on res judicata and quasi‑judicial bodies, and therefore quashed the Competent Authority's 05.10.2021 order. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and observed that the liberty to re‑apply would remain but only after the Society obtained resolution of the identified complications before the appropriate Court or Forum. The Contempt Petition filed in the matter was disposed of as not requiring further consideration.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 423 Case Title: M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Learned counsel for Respondent No.2‑Society and other respondents (names not recorded)