Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ratan Shukla on 16 August, 1955
While
answering the question in the
negative, the learned Judge rightly
distinguished the decision of the
Allahabad High Court in State of
U.P. v. Ratan Shukla [A.I.R. 1956
All.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991
To the same effect is the opinion of Jagannatha Shetty,
J. in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh [1991 (4) SCC
1].
Ravi S. Naik vs Union Of India on 9 February, 1994
Administrative Law, 6th edn.
p.352)' the principle must be
equally true even where the `brand'
of invalidity is plainly visible;
for there also the order can
effectively be resisted in law only
by obtaining the decision of the
court. Prof. Wade sums up these
principles: (Ibid)
`The truth of the matter is
that the court will invalidate an
order only if the right remedy is
sought by the right person in the
right proceedings and
circumstances. The order may be
hypothetically a nullity, but the
court may refuse to quash it
because of the plaintiff's lack of
standing, because the does not
deserve a discretionary remedy,
because he has waived his rights,
or fore some other legal reason. In
any such case, the `void' order
remains effective and is, in
reality, valid. It follows that an
order may be void for one purpose
that an order may be void for one
purpose and valid for another; and
that it may be void against one
person but valid against another."
We may also refer to yet another decision of this Court
in Ravi S.Naik v. Union of India [1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 641 at
662] S.C. Agrawal, J., speaking for the Division Bench,
observed:
Nalla Senapathi Sarkarai Manradiar. vs Sri Ambal Mills (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 3 February, 1965
In Nalla Senapati Sarkarai Mandariar Pallayakottai v.
Shri Ambal Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 1966 Mad.53] similar
view has been expressed - without of course deciding the
question finally. Quoting Oswald on Contempt (1910 Edn.
D.M. Samyulla vs Commissioner, Corporation Of The City ... on 15 March, 1990
In D.M. Samyulla v. Commissioner, Corporation of the
City of Bangalore & Ors. [1991 Karnataka Law Journey 352],
the Karnataka High Court stated the law in the following
terms, with reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal
in Hadkinson v. Hadkinson: "the principle laid down in the
said decision is, a party who knows an order, whether it is
null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to
disobey it and it would be dangerous to allow the party to
decide as to whether an order was null or valid or whether
it was regular or irregular".
Kapil P. Mohmed vs S. Anthony on 10 November, 1983
We do not,
however, wish to go into the said controversy in view of
Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code and the correct
principle of law, as we understand it. The above decision
has been distinguished by another learned Single Judge in
Kapil v. S.Anthony [1984 (2) Bombay Case Reporter 199]
precisely on this ground, viz., with reference to Section
9-A Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge has opined that
by virtue of Section 9-A, the court does possess the
jurisdiction to pass interim orders and they have to be
obeyed by the person concerned even though ultimately it may
be found that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
said suit.
Dr. Vivekanand Atmaram Chitale And ... vs Vidya Vardhini Sabha And Others on 24 January, 1984
The other decision of the Bombay High Court,
which is also strongly relied upon in the order under
appeal, is of the Division Bench in Vivekanand Atmaram
Chitale and another v. Vidyavardhini Sabha and others [1984
MLJ 520]. That was a case where the Revenue Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to pass any interim order in an appeal
preferred under Section 71 of the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950. The Tribunal, however, passed an interim order
restraining the holding of a meeting. The persons, against
whom the order was issued, knowingly and deliberately
disobeyed the order stating that the order against them was
without jurisdiction. They were proceeded against for
contempt.
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
The Division Bench affirmed the general principle
with reference to this Court's decision in Kiran Singh v.
Chaman Paswan [A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 340] that a decree passed by
a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its
invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought
to be enforced or relied upon-even at the stage of execution
and even in collateral proceedings and then relaying upon
the decision of the learned Single Judge in Dwarka Dass
Mulji v,. Shadilal Laxmidas, the Bench held thus: