Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Joitaram Ganesh And Anr. on 15 April, 1968

Gandhi Gopaldas Gordhandas vs Bai Lalitabai Marghabhai on 30 June, 1970

14. In support of his submissions Mr. K.C. Shah has invited our attention to a few decisions. The first one of them is in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Joitaram Ganesh reported in 10 Guj LR 43. A Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Mr. Justice J.B. Mehta and Mr. Justice B.G. Thakire (as he then was) was considering in that case the question relating to compromise decree. Mr. Shah has placed particular reliance on the observations made by the learned Judges in Paragraph 6 of the report. The Division Bench firstly considered the distinction between nullity and invalidity and recorded the finding that whereas nullity of a decree can be pleaded in execution proceedings, its invalidity cannot be pleaded. While defining the base of nullity and invalidity, after having reviewed a number of decisions on the subject, it held that whereas inherent lack of jurisdiction would give risk to nullity, irregular or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction which a Court has would give rise to invalidity. In the instant case, this question does not arise. It was then contended before the Division Bench that the question whether a decree creates a fresh lease or not cannot be agitated in execution proceedings.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dhami Navnitbhai Amratlal And Ors. vs Bhagvanlal Chhaganlal And Anr. on 4 July, 1977

This view was endorsed by a Division Bench of our High Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Joitaram 10-Guj. L.R. 431 at 441 wherein it has been observed that the expression "so far as it relates to the suit" in its wider context would include matters which form a consideration and are thereby intimately connected with the suit and the Court need not confine the operative portion of the decree only to what is strictly the subject matter of the suit, as seen from the frame of the suit and reliefs claimed. It was further observed that every Court must approach the problem keeping in view those objections which are of a technical nature and ,which could be waived and the real or substantial objection on the score of competence of the Court over the subject matter or the parties, which could not be waived and which strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any such consent decree or any decree on merits as well. It is only when the Court lacks such inherent competence over the subject matter or the parties that the decree would be a nullity and this objection can be urged even before the Executing Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - D A Desai - Full Document

Gurawwa And Anr. vs Dilawar Hussain Shiledar And Ors. on 8 November, 1974

In ILR (1969) Guj 291, (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Joitaram Ganesh) the question was whether a consent decree passed by the court in a previous suit was a nullity. The respondents in the previous suit contended that she Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 applied to the suit lands and their tenancy and claimed an injunction in that suit against the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. The Corporation contended that the lands were exempted from the provisions of that Act. The suit was ultimately compromised and a consent decree was passed. It was held that it is only an objection as to the powers of the court over the subject-matter to try the suit or over the parties which cannot be waived and which would therefore render a decree a nullity in the true sense and such an objection alone can be raised before the executing court or even in collateral proceedings, and that the other objections as to the defect of jurisdiction were those which would be capable of waiver.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1