The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that litigants cannot circumvent final judicial decisions by filing successive writ petitions on identical legal issues, even when invoking the principle that 'law cannot be estopped'. This judgment underscores the necessity of finality in litigation and curbs abuse of process through repetitive litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a proprietor of a micro enterprise, challenged the classification of her loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by ICICI Bank, arguing that the bank failed to refer her case to the revival committee constituted under the Union of India’s notification dated 29th May 2015 issued under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act). She contended that this omission rendered the NPA declaration and subsequent actions illegal.
Procedural History
The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court on the same factual and legal grounds:
- Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 4667 of 2024: Dismissed by a Division Bench on 1st July 2024; Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 18th November 2024.
- Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 14829 of 2025: Dismissed by another Division Bench on 7th October 2025, which explicitly referenced and affirmed the earlier judgment.
Despite these adverse rulings, the petitioner filed the present petition (Writ Petition No. 35579 of 2025), reiterating identical contentions.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refer her case to the MSME revival committee and to set aside the NPA declaration and all consequential actions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a litigant may repeatedly file writ petitions on the same legal and factual issues after those issues have been finally decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court, even when invoking exceptions to res judicata under A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty to argue that res judicata cannot apply to writ petitions involving public law or statutory rights, and that the doctrine of estoppel cannot bind the law. They contended that each petition presented a fresh cause of action due to ongoing financial consequences and that judicial error must be corrected regardless of prior dismissal.
For the Respondent
The respondents countered that the petitioner had already litigated the same issues twice before the same court, with both petitions dismissed on merits. They emphasized that the petitioner’s conduct constituted an abuse of process, and that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP confirmed the finality of the earlier judgments. The respondents cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to argue that repetitive litigation undermines judicial efficiency and public confidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of res judicata as applied to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that while res judicata does not strictly apply to writ petitions in the same manner as civil suits, the principle of finality and the doctrine of abuse of process are equally binding. The Court observed that the petitioner’s repeated attempts to re-litigate the same issues, despite two prior dismissals and a dismissed SLP, amounted to a clear abuse of the court’s process.
"The petitioner is not seeking justice; she is seeking a different forum to reargue a concluded matter. This Court cannot permit such serial litigation to continue."
The Court distinguished A. R. Antulay and Canara Bank, noting that those cases involved fundamental errors in procedure or jurisdictional flaws, not mere disagreement with a reasoned judgment. Here, the petitioner had full opportunity to argue her case, and the earlier judgments were neither set aside nor found to be per incuriam. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s reliance on these precedents was misplaced, as they do not sanction repetitive litigation on identical grounds.
The Court emphasized that the High Court’s power under Article 226 must be exercised with restraint, and that litigants cannot treat writ petitions as appeals in disguise or as tools for endless litigation.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that repeated filing of writ petitions on identical issues, after final dismissal by a Division Bench and rejection of an SLP, constitutes an abuse of process and is not permissible under the doctrine of finality. The petitioner’s contentions were barred by the principle of res judicata by necessary implication and the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Repetitive Writ Petitions Are Abuse of Process
- Practitioners must assess whether a legal issue has already been finally decided by the same court before filing a fresh petition
- Filing successive petitions on the same grounds without new facts or legal errors invites dismissal on grounds of abuse of process
- Courts will not entertain petitions that merely seek to reargue a concluded matter, even if framed as a 'public law' issue
Precedent Finality Trumps Strategic Litigation
- A dismissed SLP reinforces the finality of the High Court’s judgment and strengthens the bar against re-litigation
- Counsel must advise clients that persistence does not equate to legal merit when courts have spoken on the issue
- The doctrine of res judicata by necessary implication now applies robustly to writ petitions involving repeated factual-legal claims
Judicial Efficiency Requires Discipline
- Courts will actively identify and dismiss serial litigants who exploit procedural flexibility
- Advocates must avoid filing petitions that are substantially identical to prior dismissed ones, even with minor rephrasing
- This judgment sets a clear precedent for lower courts to summarily dismiss repetitive writs without detailed hearing
