Erroneous Decision That Didn’t Give Effect To Statutory Prohibition Will Not Operate As Res Judicata: SC [Read Judgment]

The public policy contained in other statutory prohibitions, which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a court, must equally be given effect to, as otherwise special principles of law are fastened upon parties when special considerations relating to public policy mandate that this cannot be done, the court said.In Canara Bank vs NG Subbaraya Setty, the Supreme Court has observed that. In Canara Bank vs NG Subbaraya Setty, the Supreme Court has observed that an issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to. An issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to, despite the fact that matter in issue between the parties may be the same as that directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit or proceeding. Bank’s appeal allowed The bench headed by Justice AK Goel, allowing the bank’s appeal, observed that decision in the original judgment in the suit of 2004 has declared valid a transaction which is prohibited by law as Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act makes it clear that the assignment deed, if unregistered, cannot be admitted in evidence by any court in proof of title to the trademark by the assignment, unless the court itself directs otherwise.