21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 912/2010
PUSHPA GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Advocate
with Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Advocate with
Ms. Sugandha, Advocate for UOI.
% Date of Decision : 21st December, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J CM No. 23078/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 920/2010 & CM 23077/2010
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 09th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7157/2010.
LPA 912/2010 Page 1 of 3
2. It is pertinent to mention that in the aforesaid writ petition the appellant has challenged the order dated 27 th September, 2010 passed under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 directing the appellant to surrender and deliver the possession of the property No.4/18, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
3. In fact, the impugned order dated 27th September, 2010 has been passed on the basis of a forfeiture order dated 29th September, 1980 which had been confirmed by the appellate tribunal vide its order dated 26th December, 1980. Thereafter, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.671/1981 as well as an appeal namely, LPA No.308/2004 and Special Leave petition (Civil) No.8214/2006 were dismissed.
4. However, in the present appeal, Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court as well as the Apex Court failed to appreciate that the order dated 29th September, 1980 was preceded by another forfeiture order dated 03rd October, 1978 which had been struck down by the appellate tribunal vide order dated 22nd September, 1978.
5. In our view, the above plea of the appellant is untenable in law inasmuch as the subsequent order of forfeiture dated 29 th September, 1980 has attained finality. In fact, in our opinion, on the principle of res judicata and re-litigation, the appellant is barred from raising new pleas with regard to the forfeiture order dated 29th September, 1980. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573 has held that it is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party LPA 912/2010 Page 2 of 3 to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. This re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the present appeal and application being devoid of merits, are dismissed but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 21, 2010 js LPA 912/2010 Page 3 of 3