Kerala High Court Applies Henderson Principle, Says Withholding Claims To Re-Litigate Later Is Abuse Of Process

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S dismissed an appeal preferred by M/s M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against SARFAESI proceedings initiated by Dhanlaxmi Bank.

In the present case, the appellants had launched a long series of writ petitions, appeals, and special leave petitions, all raising variations of the same contention that their MSME status barred SARFAESI recovery. Each of these had been dismissed, including by the Supreme Court.

While addressing the issue of multiplicity in litigation, the Court relied on Henderson Principle which deals with the concept of procedural fairness, abuse of process and judicial efficiency by mandating that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be litigated in subsequent proceedings.

The Principle was formulated in Henderson v. Henderson [(1843) 3 Hare 999], where the Court stated that litigants must bring forward their whole case in the first instance. According to the principle, matters that either were raised or could have been raised earlier cannot be re-agitated in fresh proceedings.

It was also held that the principle of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the Court was called upon by the parties to adjudicate and pronounce the judgment, but also to every possible or probable point or issue that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and the parties ought to have brought forward.

The Court noted that the 'Henderson Principle' has undergone significant evolution and adapted to changing judicial landscapes and procedural requirements and have the same underlying public interest that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter.

The Bench relied on various other decisions which have dealt with Henderson Principle, which includes State of U P v Nawab Hussain [(1997) 2 SCC 806], where it was observed that the same set of facts may give rise to two or more causes of action and if a person is allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to reserve the other for subsequent litigation, would aggravate the burden of litigation.

“The Courts have therefore treated such a course of action as an abuse of its process. Res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.” the Court noted

Relying on the decision in Celir LLP v Sumati Prasad Bafna [2024 SC OnLine SC 3727], where the Apex Court held that the fundamental policy of the law is that there must be finality to litigation, the High Court observed:

“Multiplicity of litigation benefits not the litigants whose rights have been determined, but those who seek to delay the enforcement of those rights and prevent them from reaching the rightful beneficiaries of the adjudication.”

The Court thus observed that while deciding whether a matter has been urged in an earlier proceedings, the Court must regard the ambit of the earlier proceedings and the nexus which the matter bears to the nature of the controversy.

“In holding that a matter ought to have been taken as a ground of attack or defence in the earlier proceedings, the court is indicating that the matter is of such a nature and character and bears such a connection with the controversy in the earlier case that the failure to raise it in that proceeding would debar the party from agitating it in the future.” Court added

The Court observed that the 'Henderson Principle' is rooted in the idea of preventing the judicial process from being exploited in any manner that tends to undermine its integrity.

“Merely because one proceeding initiated by a party differs in some aspects from another proceeding or happens to be before a different forum, will not make the subsequent proceeding distinct in nature from the former, if the underlying subject matter or the seminal issues involved remains substantially similar to each other or connected to the earlier subject matter by a certain degree, then such proceeding would tantamount to 'relitigating' and the 'Henderson Principle' would be applicable.” Court noted.

The Court thus observed that when a party deliberately withholds certain claims or issues in one proceedings with the intention to raise them in a subsequent litigation disguised as a distinct or separate remedy or proceeding from the initial one, such subsequent litigation will fall under the 'Henderson Principle'.

By placing the Henderson Principle at the centre of its reasoning, the Court asserted:

“Repeated litigation of the same issue not only wastes judicial resources but also subjects the opposing party to unnecessary expense and harassment. Judicial processes are not merely technical mechanisms but are rooted in principles of equity and justice.”

Declining to reopen issues already decided by Single Judge, Division Bench, and the Supreme Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: M/S Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Case No: W.A. 2629/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 793

Counsel for Appellant: Mathews J Nedumpara (Sr.), Maria Nedumpara, Shameem Fayiz V P, Roy Pallikoodam

Counsel for Respondents: Benraj K R (CGC), O M Shalina (DSGI), Nisha Bose (Sr. GP), C K Karunkaran, Ajithkrishnan, S Mohammed Al-Rafi, M U Vijayalakshmi, Jithesh Menonm Abel Tom Benny