Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY versus T.P. KUMARAN

Decided
16 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 732 · 1996 INSC 894
Also cited as
  • (1996) 10 SCC 561 (11 citing judgments)
  • JT 1996 (8) SC 98 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 732, margin F

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 Incometax Officer, he was dismissed from service. He laid a suit against the order of dismissal. The suit came to be decreed and he was consequently reinstated. Since the. arrears were not paid, he filed a writ petition in the 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.

pp. 732–733, margin G

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 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.

p. 733, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 733, margin D