Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 85 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana And Ors. vs Vinod Kumar And Ors. on 14 October, 1985

Mohinder Singh And Ors. vs Raghu Nath on 4 February, 2002

The brief facts of the decision rendered by the Full Bench in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar (supra) reveal that the order of the Collector was challenged therein on the ground that inspite of the fact notice was served upon them by the Collector before declaration of surplus area and the tenant's permissible area and that the land measuring 432 bighas 14 biswas out of the total holdings was banjar quadim, banjar jadid and ghair mumkin and as such being not "land" could not be counted towards the total holdings of the land-owners. It is on the facts as stated above that it was held that an order passed by the Tribunal of special jurisdiction in violation of provisions of statute or principles of natural justice, the same would be nullity and thus the civil Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit. There can be no dispute that if the Tribunal of a limited jurisdiction may pass order which the provisions of the statute may not permit, the civil Court will always have jurisdiction to try the suit as in that case the Court of limited jurisdiction proceeds to decide the matter for which it has no jurisdiction and such an order is always amenable to the jurisdiction of Civil Court. The order that might have been passed without issuing notice whatsoever is a nullity which too can be challenged before the civil Court. In the present case, however, the plaintiff was heard in the matter. It is not the case of violation of principles of natural justice. The mere fact that no reasons have been recorded in the order, in considered view of this Court, would not be enough to challenge it in a civil Court, if such an order cannot be challenged in view of the bar created by the special statute. The jurisdiction of the civil Court was clearly barred to interfere with order Ex. P1 and, therefore the suit ought to have been dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Megh Raj And Ors. vs Manphool Singh And Ors. on 28 January, 2008

17. The question that, however, merits attention is, whether civil Courts, despite the explicit bar set out in Section 26, would have jurisdiction to entertain challenge to an order passed under the Haryana Act, which appears to be beyond or without jurisdiction. The answer to this question need not detain us any further as it is well settled that where the impugned order is a nullity or without jurisdiction statutory bars as enacted by Section 26 would not oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a challenge thereto. A Full Bench of this Court in Slate of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar (supra), while dealing with this proposition held as follows:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Dr.O.P.Mittal And Another on 8 March, 2011

However, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent also cannot be accepted as he has not chosen to challenge the order of recovery passed by the authorities under the Act by filing appeal before the special Tribunal constituted under the Act. Once the jurisdiction is given to a special tribunal then the remedy of the civil Court is to be held to be impliedly barred. It is only in case of tribunals not acting in accordance with law or acting in violation of the statute that an order can be challenged as a nullity before the civil Court, as was held in the case of State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar and others (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - R C Gupta - Full Document

The Primary Cooperative Agri & Rural ... vs Rama Rani on 7 August, 2018

The preliminary jurisdiction for adjudication of civil right of the plaintiff can be ousted by way of express bar of jurisdiction, but subject to reservoir as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Vinod Kumar and others' case (supra). The pleadings made in para No.14 of the plaint would show that the defendants have acted in violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be invoked to set the action of the defendants right besides claiming rebate available to the plaintiff as per Government instructions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Haryana Urban Development Authority ... vs Rakesh Budhiraja Etc on 6 January, 2023

to the institution of a civil suit in respect of matters covered under the HUDA Act, 1977. However, this argument of learned counsel for the appellants is noted to be rejected on the short ground that the matter is no longer res integra and stands settled by this Court vide its decision in The Estate Officer, HUDA vs. Parveen Kumar, 2009 (3), SLJ, 1712 following the decision of Hon'ble the Full Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana and others vs. Vinod Kumar, AIR, 1986 (P&H) 406 wherein it was held that even where the statute expressly barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Civil Court still had the jurisdiction over orders passed by the authorities under the Act if the impugned orders were violative of the principles of natural justice or the same were dehors statutory provisions or were without jurisdiction.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B S Walia - Full Document

State Of Haryana Etc vs Rameshwar Etc on 16 August, 2023

7. While deciding issue No.2, learned trial Court believed the submissions addressed by the plaintiff that where the order is illegal the same can be challenged before the Civil Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court (Punjab and 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-08-2023 21:47:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:106348 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:106348 RSA No.20 of 1990 4 Haryana High Court) titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Vinod Kumar and others 1986 (1) PLR 222; Law Finder Doc ID# 52149.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Datar Singh vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 2 September, 1997

9. It is settled law that if an order is passed by an authority constituted under the statute without affording opportunity of hearing and without issuing notice, then the civil Court would have jurisdiction. See : the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case reported as State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, AIR 1986 P&H 407. In this case, the land was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This was done without giving hearing to the land owners. The Full Bench expressed an opinion that the civil Court would have jurisdiction and the bar created under section 25 of the Punjab Act, would not operate. As a matter of fact, the law is well settled in this regard, the civil Court would have jurisdiction when an order is passed without affording hearing or the person who passed the order had no authority to pass such an order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Parkash Singh Badal And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 May, 1987

40. Even if it may be accepted for the sake of argument that the filing of the application, Annex. P-1 before the Speaker gave rise to a question as to the disqualification of the petitioners and the Speaker was seized of the matter, the order, Annex. P-3, passed by him would be non est and ineffective so far as respondent No. 7 is concerned. The principle of law is well established that an order passed in a given proceedings would not bind any person affected thereby who was neither party to those proceedings nor given an opportunity of being heard before passing the same. It was on the same principle that a Five Judges Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1986(1) 89 Pun LR 222: (AIR 1986 Punj & Har 407) held an order of the Collector Agrarian to be ineffective and non est against the persons who were affected thereby but were neither party to the proceedings nor afforded any opportunity of being heard. The Fifty-Second Amendment has been enacted to prevent defections which necessarily means that it has been enacted primarily for the benefit of the political parties whose members constitute the House, though broadly speaking any citizen can invoke its provisions. The voluntary giving up of the membership of any political party would affect such a party and so would any order passed under para 6. Consequently an order passed under para 6 affecting adversely any political party would be ineffective and non est against it if no notice is issued to it for opportunity of being heard afforded. By making a claim under para 3, the petitioners are deemed to have voluntarily given up the membership of the Shiromani Akali Dal on whose tickets they were elected. So, they were liable to be declared as disqualified from being members of the House. If their defence was to be accepted under para 3 and decision, as envisaged under para 6, to be made, the principles of natural justice would require a notice to be served on the President of the political party concerned. It has already been discussed above in detail that the Speaker would be a Tribunal while acting under para 6 and the proceedings before him of quasi-judicial nature. Any order passed by him under that paragraph without issuing notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the interested party, therefore, would be non est and ineffective against such a party. As before passing the order, Annex. P-3, neither the political party nor any other person interested in the matter was heard, it would bind none and in that sense it can be said to be an order void ab initio. On both the grounds, therefore, the Speaker was justified in ignoring the order, Annex. P-3. However, the order dated July 4, 1986, Annex. P-8, has to be quashed because the claim of Shri Amrinder Singh that he has been elected leader of the splinter group could be disposed of only after the question of disqualification of the members of that group has been settled and their defence under para 3 upheld.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Hamco Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 27 February, 1991

10. This argument is sought to be countered by the petitioner's Counsel by contending that once the right of hearing is recognised and then denied, then the order passed by the Government is non est. It is contended that the order passed without giving hearing would be nullity and for this reliance is being placed on Full Bench decision of this Court reported as State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 222 (F.B.) The above case was with regard to the interpretation of the provisions dealing with the determination of surplus area under the land law and it was held that where order is passed without giving opportunity the order would be null and void and can be chalenged in a Civil Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next