Quashing the Impugned Award Due to Contradictory Judgments

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran Iran,

10.22059/jlq.2025.400020.1008017

Abstract

 Introduction
The subject of the research deals with one reason for the legal reversal of a final judgment related to two contradictory final decisions on the same issue. The existence of any dispute gives its beneficiary the right to bring it to action and trial only once. After the issuance of a final judgment on it, whether against or for the plaintiff, and its conclusion on the merits of the dispute, that dispute is eliminated due to res judicata, and prevents both parties from reviving it. But if the loser of the case does not accept the final judgment of the court and files a new lawsuit, and the case continues due to the court's inattention to the end of the proceedings and the issuance of a new judgment, how can the absolute validity of the first final judgment be maintained and the second judgment be nullified?
What is the purpose of establishing the rule of res judicata? Why can't litigants re-file their lawsuits that have been finally decided? One of the reasons for the legal reversal of the legal proceedings is the reopening of a lawsuit or dispute that was previously resolved by issuing a final award, and by issuing a new final judgment that is contrary to the previous final one in a resolved lawsuit, the parties to that resolved dispute are dragged into another dispute. In the event of issuing two conflicting rulings, who is the beneficiary in the final decision of the matter in Article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
The losing party of the first and second final judgment or the winning party of the first and second final judgment? If the first final award has passed the Supreme Court's scrutiny and been finalized, can the Supreme Court still overturn the aforementioned judgment in a subsequent proceeding if it finds it contrary to the law? Identifying the type of each of the two contradictory judgments is very important; must both contradictory awards be of the same type and nature, such as two judgments or two orders, or is a conflict between a judgment and an order also possible?
Method
In this research, a descriptive and analytical method was used, and its legal source is the procedural laws and decisions of the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the issuance of two final judgments in one issue is contrary to each other, and the second one is subject to quashing before the Supreme Court.  Among the final technical orders, the order of disposal of a suit under certain conditions can stand up against the court ruling; especially when the order was issued before the court judgment is made. In this research, the reason for legal reversal is two court rulings opposed to each other. If there is a contradiction between the court order and the court judgment, we will not always use the same way of quashing the second award. If, after the arbitration award is issued, a final judgment is issued by the court in the same case, the arbitration award will maintain its validity unless the parties have explicitly or implicitly abandoned the preceding arbitration award by bringing the same claim to the court.
The above conditions should also be added to the legal causation element. The legal cause means a new law that that is different from the previous law governing the dispute. If a new law is passed after the final judgment is issued and the beneficiary is permitted to bring the same case or the relevant and opposed case, the ruling issued by the second litigation will not be reversible due to the aforementioned reason. To recognize the second judgment from the first one, the date of issuing the judgment is the criterion for the validity of the judgment, not the time of serving the judgment; so, each of the two judgments that is issued and finalized earlier is the first judgment, and the other must be considered the second judgment. But to calculate the deadline for objection, the judgment that has been announced or served later than the other, the legal deadline of the objection will be calculated from the date of service of the next final judgment; although it has been issued and finalized earlier. In the event of issuing a second judgment on the same solved and adjudicated case, appealing the second judgment and overturning it due to its opposition to the first final judgment is a legal remedy; whatever the second judgment is, it loses its validity by law and the decision of the Supreme Court. Reversing the second judgment due to the existence and validity of the first judgment makes the overturning of the judgment without sending it to an inferior court, unless the first judgment is also overturned due to its contradiction with the law; in this case, the first judgment will be submitted to the lower and equal court.
 
 

Keywords

References

منابع
حسن‌زاده، مهدی (1391). بررسی تطبیقی جهات فرجام در حقوق ایران و فرانسه. دو فصلنامۀ علمی حقوق تطبیقی دانشگاه مفید، )23).61-78
https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_47025.html   (8 شهریور 1404)
حیاتی، علی عباس (1400). بررسی جهات مغایرت آرا در طرق فوق‌العادۀ شکایت از آرا. فصلنامۀ علمی دیدگاه‌های حقوقی قضایی، 26 (93). 91-108
https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_703658.html ( 8 شهریور 1404)
شمس، عبدالله (1382). موافقت‌نامۀ داوری و صلاحیت دادگاه. مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، (37)، 11-43
https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_105363.html ( 8 شهریور 1404)
شمس، عبدالله (1387). آیین دادرسی مدنی دورۀ پیشرفته، ج2، تهران: دراک.
شمس، عبدالله (1393). سبب، امور موضوعی و توصیف آنها در دعوای مدنی. مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، (65)، 1-24.
https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56145.html(8 شهریور 1404)
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1368). اعتبار امر قضاوت‌شده در دعوای مدنی. تهران: کانون وکلای دادگستری.
کشاورز صدر، محمدعلی (1351). تجدید رسیدگی؛ طرق فوق‌العادۀ رسیدگی در امور مدنی.بی جا: چاپخانۀ مرد مبارز.
متین دفتری، احمد (1378). آیین دادرسی مدنی و بازرگانی، دورۀ دوجلدی، ج 2، تهران: مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد.
مجموعه رویۀ قضایی، آرای هیأت عمومی دیوان عالی کشور از سال 1328 تا سال 1342 (1352). ج 2، آرای مدنی، بی‌جا، آرشیو حقوقی کیهان.
نهرینی، فریدون (1390). تشخیص ماهیت و نوع رأی دادگاه. فصلنامۀ حقوق دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، (2)، 301-320.    DOI:20.1001.1.25885618.1390.41.2.18.8
نهرینی، فریدون (1397). ایستایی اجرای حکم دادگاه. تهران: گنج دانش.
نهرینی، فریدون (1400). آیین دادرسی مدنی. ج1، 2 و 3، تهران: گنج دانش.
نهرینی، فریدون (1401). آیین دادرسی مدنی «شیوه‌های عادی شکایت از رأی دادگاه و چگونگی بازنگری آن». ج 4، تهران: گنج دانش.
واحدی، قدرت‌الله (1377). آیین دادرسی مدنی. کتاب دوم، تهران: میزان.
References
Collection of judicial cases, Opinion of supreme court, Civil court decision from1949 -1973, 2, Keyhan legal archives.[In Persian]
Hasan zadeh, M. (2012(. A comparative study of causes of appeal to the supreme court in Iranian and French law. Journal of comparative law, 23. 61-78https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_47025.html (Accessed 30 August 2025). [In Persian]
Hayati, A. (2021). Investigation the inconsistency of judgments in extroardinary ways of protesting against hudgments with a comparative study in the civil procedure of Iran and France. The quarterly hournal of judicial law views, 26(93), 91-108 https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_703658.html (Accessed 30August 2025) [In Persian]
Katouzian, N. (1990). The validity of Re Judicata in civil cases,Tehran,Iran bar association Publications, [In Persian]
Keshavarz Sadr, M. (1972). Appeal procedure Extraordinary methods of Proceeding civil matters. Mardemobarez publication. [In Persian]
Loughlin, P.& Gerlis,S.(2004). Civil Procedure. Great Britain: Cavendish Publishing.
Marcus, R. L.& Sherman ,E. & Erichson.H. (2010).Complex Litigation: Cases and Materials on Advanced Civil Procedure. West(A Thomson Reuters Business).
Matin Daftari, A. (1999). Civil & Comertial Procedure. Vol. 2, Majd Scientific and Cultural Association Publications.
Nahreini, F. (2012). Identifying the nature & type of court judgment. Private law studies quarterly faculty of law and political science, 41(2), 301-320
DOI:20.1001.1.25885618.1390.41.2.18.8 [In Persian]
Nahreini, F. (2018). Stay of judgment’s enforcement,Tehran,Ganjedanesh Publications. [In Persian]
Nahreini, F. (2021). Civil procedure. Vol.1, 2, 3, Ganjedanesh Publications. [In Persian]
Nahreini, F. (2022). Civil procedure. Vol.4,Tehran, Ganjedanesh Publications. [In Persian]
Rose, W., Stuart Sime & Derek French (2005). Civil Practice. Oxford university press.
Kay.M (Editor-In-Chief) & Stuart .S & French.D) 2015 (lackstone’s Civil Practice. Oxford.
Shams, A. (2008). Civil procedure advanced course. 2,Tehran,Drak Publication. [In Persian]
Shams, A. (2014).Cause, subject matters & their description in civil litigation,17(65), 1-24.
https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56145.html (Accessed  30 August 2025) [in Persian]
Shams, A. (2020). Arbitration agreement & court jurisdiction, legal research quarterly shahid beheshti university faculty of law, 6(37), 11-43 https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_105363.html(Accessed August 2025). [in Persian]
Stuart.S (2005). A Practical Approach to civil procedure, Oxford.
       Vahedi, Gh. (1998). Civil procedure. Vol.2, Mizan Publication.[In Persian]
Williams,V.(2005). Civil Procedure Handbook, Oxford University Press.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Law Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 3
October 2025
Pages 479-520

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics