Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Anita International VS Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh...
2016 5 Supreme 1 : When a decree becomes unenforceable and non-maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, it is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including execution or collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is coram non judice and invalid, and its invalidity can be raised even in subsequent proceedings. Such a defect cannot be cured by consent, acquiescence, or waiver of parties. The court or tribunal must have inherent jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and if it lacks jurisdiction, the order is void ab initio and unenforceable. The doctrine of waiver does not apply, and the legislature alone can confer jurisdiction. Therefore, when a decree is unenforceable and non-maintainable due to jurisdictional defects, it must be set aside, and any action taken in reliance on it may be liable to be reversed or punished as disobedience to a court order.Checking relevance for Bhanu Kumar Jain VS Archana Kumar...
Checking relevance for Ashok Kumar Srivastav VS National Insurance Company LTD. ...
1998 4 Supreme 292 : When a decree is found to be unenforceable and non-maintainable, the party seeking enforcement may challenge it through appropriate legal remedies. In this case, the respondent-company resisted execution of the decree by arguing that it was unenforceable and void due to lack of jurisdiction. The execution court rejected these objections, holding the decree was validly passed. Subsequently, the respondent filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the execution order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction and that the suit was maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Thus, the legal process for addressing an unenforceable or non-maintainable decree involves challenging it through writ jurisdiction or appellate review, depending on the stage of proceedings. The doctrine of res judicata applies to such decisions, preventing re-litigation of issues already finally decided, including maintainability of the suit.Checking relevance for Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi...
2003 7 Supreme 267 : When a decree becomes unenforceable or non-maintainable due to fraud on the court, the court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to set aside the decree. Fraud, including suppression of material facts or collusive proceedings, vitiates every solemn act and is incompatible with justice. Once it is established that a decree was obtained by fraud, the principles of res-judicata do not apply, and the court must not shut the doors of justice. The High Court erred in refusing to consider the appellant''''s claim based on earlier orders, as a decree tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated by equitable doctrines. The matter must be reconsidered in light of the fraud and the creation of third-party rights, such as those arising from an auction sale confirmed by the executing court.Checking relevance for Vidya Drolia VS Durga Trading Corporation...
Checking relevance for Pandurangan VS T. Jayarama Chettiar...
Checking relevance for Gram Panchayat Of Village Naulakha VS Ujagar Singh...
2000 7 Supreme 102 : When a decree is obtained by fraud or collusion, it becomes unenforceable and non-maintainable. Under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a party may show in a subsequent suit or proceeding that a prior judgment, order, or decree was obtained by fraud or collusion, without the necessity of first filing an independent suit to set it aside. This principle is supported by decisions of the Allahabad, Calcutta, Patna, Bombay, and other High Courts, as well as English legal authorities such as Spencer-Bower and Turner on Res Judicata, which confirm that no active proceedings for rescission are required. Collusion is defined as a fictitious pretense of litigation by confederates with a common purpose, rendering the judgment a ''''fabula non judicium''''—a play, not a real judicial proceeding. Therefore, if a decree is collusive or fraudulent, it cannot operate as res judicata and is not binding in subsequent proceedings.Checking relevance for Valluru Siva Prasad, S/o. Late Valium Babu Rao vs District Registrar Registration Stamps Guntur, Guntur City, Guntur District. (For Registration Of Alienation Deeds)...
Checking relevance for K. J. Sumathy W/o Late K. S. Jagannathan VS District Registrar, Dharmapuri Registration District...
2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3505 : When a decree becomes unenforceable and non-maintainable due to fraud, the court has inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud, as such an order is considered ''''non est'''' (not existing). Fraud on the court, including suppression of material facts or documents, renders the transaction void ab initio. Even if statutory remedies or bars like res-judicata would normally apply, they do not prevent the court from setting aside a decree obtained through fraud. Once fraud is proved, all advantages gained through fraudulent means can be taken away, and the court may intervene even in judicial proceedings to prevent perpetuation of a fraudulent transaction.
