MANAGING DIRECTOR, ETC. versus K. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 15-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANAGING DIRECTOR, ETC. 
v. 
K. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND DR. A.S. ANAND, J.) 
Motor Vehicles Act. 1939: 
Section 68(d)-Scheme of nationalisation-Quash by Single Judge of 
the High Court-Appeal by parties-State's appeal dismissed by Dil!ision 
Bench declining to condone the delay-Appeal by one of the parties within 
time dismissed as ba"ed by res judicata-Held not barred by res judicata-
Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Section 11-Res judicata-Appeal by State and.the other part)-State's 
appeal time-ba"ed-Delay not condoned and appeal dismissed-Other ap-
peal filed in time by other party also dismissed as barred by res judicata-Held 
not barred by res judicata-Matter remitted back to High Court for disposing 
it on merits. 
The first respondent, a private transport operator filed a Writ 
~etition before the High Court seeking quashing of the scheme of 
nationalisation approved under s.68(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The Single Judge, who heard the matter held that the first respondent was 
entitled to have his renewal application considered. The appellant, who was F 
impleaded as 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition pi;eferred an appeal 
before the Division Bench of the High Court. While this appeal was within 
the period of limitation, the appeal preferred by the State was beyond the 
period of limitation. The Division Bench dismissed the State appeal, 
declining to condone the delay. The appellant's appeal was dismissed on G 
the sole ground that since the appeal by the State was already dismissed 
it was not main~inable as it was barred by the principle of res judicata. 
Challenging the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Jligh Court's order, this 
~rt 
H 
583 
A 
B 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The State as well as the appellant were respondents in 
one and the same Writ Petition, against the decision of which they had 
filed separate appeals. The dismissal of the Writ Appeal filed by the State 
on the ground of delay not being condoned could not in law affect the 
maintainability of the Writ Appeal which had been filed by the appellant 
within time and was pending final hearing in the High Court. Thus the 
High Court erred in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant was not 
maintainable being barred by res judicata. [586-B, C, 587-F] 
Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kumar, AIR (1966) SC 1332, distinguished. 
C 
Narhari and Others v. Shanker and others, AIR (1953) SC 41'9, relied 
on and applied. 
2. Since the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant, within time, had been 
admitted and was pending hearing, it would have been more appropriate 
for the High Court to give the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 
D and condone the delay in filing the appeal by the State and heard both the 
appeals together on merits. However, since the State has not come up in 
appeal nothing more requires to be said. [587-G] 
3. Since the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, 
E 
without going into the merits of the case, it is remitted back to the High 
Court for a fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. It shall be 
open to the parties to raise all such pleas as are available to them in law 
in respect of their respective claims before the High Court during the 
hearing of the appeals. The High Court is requested to dispose of the Writ 
Appeal expeditiously and as far as possible within three months. 
F 
[587-H, 588-A, BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6063 of 
1994. 
From the iudgment and Order dated 19.9.89 of the Madras High 
G Court in W.A. No. 675 of 1982. 
AV. Rangam and A Ranganathan for the Appellants. 
A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgin°ent -of the Court was delivered by 
MANAGING DIRECTOR v. K.R. NAIDU [DR ANAND, J.] 
585 
DR. ANAND, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Cotlrt of 
Madras dated 19.9.1989 dismissing appellant's Writ Appeal No. 675/82. 
A 
The first respondent,a private transport operator in the State of B 
Andhra Pradesh who at the material time was operating his stage carriage 
on the inter-state route Chittoor (in Andhra Pradesh) to Salem (in Tamil 
N~du), filed Writ Petition No. 4343 of 1980 in the High Court of Madras 
seeking quashing of the scheme of nationalisation approved und

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.