Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (3.42 seconds)
Neha Goel,Faridabad vs Pcit , Faridabad on 28 May, 2025 cites

Sushil Kumar Metha vs Gobind Ram Bohra on 10 November, 1989

8.3. This judgment was subsequently followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193, wherein an issue arose whether a decree can be challenged at the stage of execution and whether a decree which remained uncontested operates as res-judicata qua the parties affected by it. Hon'ble apex court. taking support from aforesaid judgment, observed as under: "In the light of this position in law the quest ion for determination is whether the impugned decree of the Civil Court can be assailed by the appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the 11 Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant from a building in the urban area leased out by the landlord. Thereby the Civil Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree of ejectment. Therefore, though the decree was passed and the jurisdiction of the Court was gone into in issue Nos. 4 and 5 at the ex-parte trial, the decree there-under is a nullity, and does not bind the appellant. Therefore, it does not operate as a res judicata. The Courts below have committed grave error of law in holding that the decree in the suit operated as res judicata and the appellant cannot raise the same point once again at the execution."
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 224 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Supdt. Of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors vs Onkarmal Nathmal Trust Etc. Etc on 1 May, 1975

The High Court after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court on the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and also after specifically discussing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Onkarmal Nathmal Trust (supra) and Dasa Muni Reddy (supra) held that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the question of jurisdiction became final when it passed the earlier remand order. It was held that neither the question of res judicata nor the rule of estoppel could be invoked where the jurisdiction of an authority was under challenge. According to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the rule of res judicata cannot be invoked where the question involved is the competence of the Court to assume jurisdiction, either pecuniary or territorial or over the subject-matter of the dispute. Hon'ble High Court further 13 held that since neither consent nor waiver can confer jurisdiction upon the AO where it did not exist, no importance could be attached to the fact that the assessee, in the first round of proceedings, expressly gave up the plea against the erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority. According to the Hon'ble Court, the "finality or conclusiveness could only arise in respect of orders which are competent orders with jurisdiction and if the proceedings of reassessment are not validly initiated at all, the order would be a void order as per the settled legal position which could never have any finality or conclusiveness. If the original order is without jurisdiction, it would be only a nullity confirmed in further appeals". In this view of the matter. Hon'ble High Court finally answered the reference in favour of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 69 - A N Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 Next