1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD. v. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR (2025 INSC 423) delves into the interplay between unilateral conveyance proceedings under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“the 1963 Act”) and the doctrine of res judicata. The case arises from a series of transactions involving disputed leasehold rights to land in Mumbai and the subsequent applications made by a cooperative housing society seeking a unilateral deed of assignment under Section 5/11 of the 1963 Act.

The key conflict revolved around whether the Competent Authority could entertain a subsequent application by the Society—despite having refused a first application on the grounds that “complicated issues” needed resolution in a Civil Court. When the Society did not pursue resolution in a Civil Court but simply filed a second application, the appellant (Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd.) contended that the second application was barred by res judicata. This judgment provides insight into how the doctrine of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial entities and affirms the binding nature of prior unassailed decisions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd., and set aside both the High Court’s order (which had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition) and the Competent Authority’s order that granted unilateral assignment of leasehold rights to the Society.

Central to the Court’s reasoning was the doctrine of res judicata. The Competent Authority, in its first order dated 22.02.2021, had refrained from granting the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights, citing unresolved “complications” best addressed by a Civil Court. Because the Society did not challenge this directive and did not seek to resolve those complications, any subsequent attempt before the same Competent Authority was held to be tenuous.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Competent Authority’s second order effectively “reviewed” its own earlier order without statutory authorization and ran contrary to the final and unassailed findings recorded previously. Consequently, the Supreme Court emphasized that until a higher forum sets aside such quasi-judicial determinations, they remain binding on the parties.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

In making its determination, the Supreme Court relied heavily on two significant precedents:

• Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1962 SCC OnLine SC 8): The Court reiterated the principle that res judicata applies not only to judgments of conventional judicial courts but also to adjudications by quasi-judicial bodies. Even if errors of fact or law exist in the quasi-judicial decision, the doctrine still binds the parties unless such decisions are successfully challenged and reversed by a competent appellate or revisional authority.
• Abdul Kuddus v. Union Of India and Others ((2019) 6 SCC 604): The Court underscored that opinions or determinations by quasi-judicial tribunals—such as the Foreigners Tribunal—constitute judicial decisions. They stand final with respect to the matter determined, unless set aside in accordance with established appellate or revision procedures.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s conclusion rested on the following core legal elements:

1. Non-challenge of the First Competent Authority Order: By not appealing or otherwise contesting the Competent Authority’s initial finding that certain “complications” required resolution in a Civil Court, the Society effectively allowed that order to become final.
2. No Statutory Power of Review: The Competent Authority, in granting the Society’s second application, functionally “reviewed” its prior order. The 1963 Act does not endow the Competent Authority with such a power of review. As a quasi-judicial body, it could not revisit its prior ruling absent a challenge in a higher forum.
3. Principle of Finality: The concept of res judicata ensures that once a directing authority (judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative with judicial features) has rendered a final decision on a matter, it cannot be re-litigated between the same parties on the same subject matter in the same forum.

3.3 Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future cases:

• Reinforcement of Res Judicata: Quasi-judicial bodies must carefully adhere to their own previous determinations. Once an order attains finality, no fresh application can be entertained unless the earlier order is reversed by a higher judicial authority or remedied through appropriate legal mechanisms.
• Dispute Resolution Pathway: Potential applicants who face procedural roadblocks from a quasi-judicial authority must follow the directed path of redress (in this case, going to Civil Court) rather than attempting to re-litigate or evade those directives.
• Clarity for Housing Societies: Housing societies pursuing unilateral conveyances or assignments under Section 5/11 of the 1963 Act need to be mindful that any legal or factual complications identified by the Competent Authority must be resolved judicially before a renewed application can be made.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Below are clarifications of some legal concepts encountered in this Judgment:

• Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“1963 Act”): This legislation governs flat ownership in Maharashtra. Among its provisions, Section 5/11 allows an aggrieved society to apply for a unilateral conveyance (or assignment of leasehold rights) if the builder or developer fails to execute it.
• Quasi-Judicial Authority: An administrative or statutory authority that is required to follow legal principles, gather evidence, and render decisions much like a court of law. They typically derive authority from a specific statute. Examples include various tribunals and certain regulatory bodies.
• Res Judicata: A longstanding doctrine meaning “a thing adjudicated.” In practice, it prevents the same parties from litigating the same matter in the same forum after a final judgment or determination has been made. It ensures certainty, repose, and consistency in the law, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
• Competent Authority: In the context of the 1963 Act, the Competent Authority is typically the statutory body or officer vested with the power to decide on applications for unilateral conveyances or deemed conveyances made by cooperative housing societies.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD. v. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR clarifies that res judicata applies just as forcefully to quasi-judicial bodies as it does to civil courts. Where a competent authority has already pronounced on a matter within its jurisdiction, that pronouncement binds the parties unless and until it is annulled or set aside on appeal. Any new attempt to re-agitate resolved issues contravenes the finality of decisions and undermines judicial economy.

This judgment serves as a valuable precedent for litigants and statutory or regulatory authorities, illustrating that compliance with earlier orders and proper legal processes is non-negotiable. Applicants seeking further relief must heed the directives of the authority or contest them through the outlined legal remedies rather than bypassing instructions through fresh, duplicative proceedings.