LAKSHMI RAGHAVA RICE MILL Vs. PRESIDENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a dealer in rice and was carrying on business in the name of Lakshmi Ragbava Rice Mill Contractors. By a contract dt. 4-4-1958 evidenced by Ex. B. 1, the petitioner, represented by its Managers, became liable to sell and deliver 3000 maunds of rice to the Joint Director of Food, Madras. THEre was default on the part of the seller and eventually an award was made by the arbitrator appointed by the buyer in accordance with the arbitration, clause embodied in the contract.

(2.) THERE were two applications made to the District Munsif, Vijayawada. One was on behalf of the President of India for a decree in terms of the award and the other by the opposite party referred to herein as seller, for setting asid the award- The District Munsif allowed the latter petition and dismissed the former one. THERE was only one appeal preferred to the Subordinate Judge Vijayawada, though there were two petitions decided by the District Munsit by a common order of September, 9, 1963. The setting aside of the award by the District Munsif necessarily resulted in the dismissal of the petition praying for a decree on foot of the award. The result in one petition governs the rights of the parties in the other. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal with the consequence that the award was held to be valid and a decree in terms of the award was made.

(3.) THE rule of res judicata as understood and applied to cross act ions or suits is the subject matter of several pronouncements. ID Nathari V. Shankar (1950, SCR 754.) the facts were that a suit for possession of 2/3rd share of an estate was instituted by A against B and C each of the latter claiming a third share. THE suit was deereed and B and C appealed separately and the appeals were beard to. gether and disposed of by a common judgment. Separate decrees were drawn up, A preferred an appeal from one of the decrees within the time allowed' He failed to prefer an appeal in respect of the other decree in time. THE High Court held that the appeal duly presented by A was barred by the rule of res judicata. THE decision of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that as there was only one suit and the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment it was not necessary for A to have preferred two separate appeals and the fact that one of the appeals was time barred did not affect the maintainability of the other. THE Principle laid down in Obedut Kahman V. Dirbari Lal (AIR 1927 Lahore, 2S9) by Chand, J was cited with approval, It was to the effect that the determining factor is not the decree but the matter in controversy- THE estoppel is not created by the decree but by the Judgment A possible distinction in a case where two different suits were instituted was adverted to but even in such a situation a decision given simultaneously was held not to operate as a decision in a former suit. It was further observed.