Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAYversusT.P. KUMARAN

Citation: 1996 INSC 894
Decided: 16 August 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The claim for interest is barred by constructive res judicata and Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, rendering the Tribunal's order directing payment of interest erroneous.

Summary

The respondent, an Income‑Tax Officer, was dismissed from service and filed a suit challenging his dismissal. The suit was decreed, resulting in his reinstatement, but the arrears of salary were not paid, prompting a writ petition in the High Court which ordered payment of all arrears. After the arrears were paid, the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking interest at 18% per annum on the arrears. The Tribunal directed that interest be paid, and the respondent appealed the order by special leave. The Supreme Court held that the claim for interest was barred by constructive res judicata under Section 11, Explanation IV of the CPC, and that Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC also prohibited a separate claim not raised in the original suit. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the claim for interest on arrears is barred by constructive res judicata under Section 11, Explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC prevents a party from raising a claim in a separate proceeding that was not pleaded in the original suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Explanation IV, s. Order 2 Rule 2, s. Section 11

Subjects

constructive res judicatainterest on arrearsIncome Tax Officer dismissalCentral Administrative TribunalCivil Procedure CodeOrder 2 Rule 2special leave appeal

Judgment

A                COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY
                                   v.
                            T.P. KUMARAN

                                 AUGUST 16, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

            Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 11.

            E:xplanation IV-Order 2, Rule 2.

c          Constructive res judicat<r-lncome Tax Officer-Dismissaf-Suit
    against-Suit decree and plaintiff reinstated in seivice--Writ for payment of
    aTTears-High Court order for payment of all arrears-Order attaining
    finality-Subsequently application claiming interest allowed by Tribunaf-Ap-
    peal-He/d Tribunal committed gross en-or of law in directing payment of
D   interest-Held claim was ban"ed by constructive res judicata-Even otherwise
    as no claim was made in the suit the petitioner was prohibited to seek remedy
    separately.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11399 of
    1996.
E
          From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.94 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, in O.A. No .. 2026 of 1993.

            R.R. Misra, R. Salish and S.N. Terdol for the Appellant.

F           E.M.S. Anam for the Respondent.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted.

G           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

          This appeal by special leave arises against an order of the Central
    Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam made on 16.8.1994 in OA No. 2026/93.
    The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as Income-
    tax Officer, he was dismissed from service. He laid a suit against the order
H   of dismissal. The suit came to be decreed and he was consequently
                                         732
                        C.l.T. v. T.P. KUMARAN                         733

reinstated. Since the. arrears were not paid, he filed a writ petition in the A
High Court. The High Court by drder dated August 16, 1982 directed the
appellant to pay all the arrears. That order became final. Consequently,
arrears came be paid. Then the respondent filed an OA claiming interest
at 18% p.a. The Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order directed
the payment of interest. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
                                                                             B
      The Tribunal has committed a gross error of law in directing the
payment. The claim is barred by constructive res judicata under Section 11,
Explanation IV, CPC which envisages that any matter which might and
ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in a former suit, shall
be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in a C
subsequent suit. Hence when the claim was made on earlier occasion, he
should have or might have sought and secured decree for interest. He did
not seek so and, therefore, it operates as re judicata. Even otherwise, when
he filed a suit and specifically did not claim the same, Order 2, Rule 2,'
CPC prohibits the petitioner to seek the remedy separately. In either event,
the OA is not sustainable.                                                   D
      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "constructive res judicata"Sign in to search