Change In Form Or Rephrasing Of Relief Cannot Defeat Principle Of Constructive Res Judicata: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that changing the form or rephrasing of a relief prayed for cannot defeat the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was considering a writ petition filed by a registered MSME (Micro, Small and Media Enterprise) that had sought protection under the Central Government notification, which mandates banks and financial institutions to refer stressed MSME accounts for corrective measures.According to the petitioners, the MSME was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and coercive action was taken against the SARFAESI Act without first referring the matter to the Committee for stressed MSMEs. They relied on the Apex Court's decision in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank to fortify their argument that such action was illegal and void.The petitioners further challenged an RBI notification that restricts the application of the MSME framework to accounts with loan lesser than Rs. 25 crores to be violative of the MSMED Act.The respondents contended that the petitioners came before the Court suppressing material facts regarding previous litigation. They told that nearly 19 proceedings were initiated before the Supreme Court, the Kerala High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Civil court, all of which were dismissed. Further, an amount of more than Rs. 45 crores are recoverable from the petitioners.Countering the argument, the petitioners contended that there is no estoppel against law and the Courts ought to have given effect to the law that granted protection to the petitioners.Both sides also put forth regarding the applicability/non-applicability of the principles of res judicate and constructive res judicata.The Court looked in detail into the previous cases considered by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the contentions raised regarding MSME as well as the details in the judgment.It found that that earlier, a writ petition with the same prayer and with the same parties was considered and dismissed. It also found that the exceptions of the principles of res judicata are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, it observed that the petitioners are barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.The Court remarked, “It is trite that res judicata and constructive res judicata apply with full force to writ proceedings, and earlier rejection bars a second petition unless there are changed circumstances. A change of form or rephrasing of relief cannot defeat the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata.”It, thereafter, examined the concept as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. It further observed that the finality of the decision is what is binding on parties and not the correctness of the reasoning in it.It also referred to the Apex Court decision in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna wherein it was made clear that re-litigating on the same issues by raising claims which could have been raised earlier is an abuse of process as per the Henderson principle.Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition.Case No: WP(C) No. 32541/2025Case Title: M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662Counsel for the petitioners: Mathew J. Nedumpara, Maria Nedumpara, Shameem Fayiz V.P., Roy PallikoodamCounsel for the respondents: C.K. Karunakaran – R2 to R4, Benraj K.R. – CGC, Lekshmi P. Nair, Shifna Muhammed Shukkur, Krishna Suresh, Mekha Manoj, Anirudh Indukaladharan, Ajith Krishnan, Jithesh Menon, M.U Vijayalakshmi, Abel Tom Benny, Sreejith V.S. – GP, O.M. Shalina - DSGIClick to Read/Download Judgment

Change In Form Or Rephrasing Of Relief Cannot Defeat Principle Of Constructive Res Judicata: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags