Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.74 seconds)
Gopi Krishna Das And Anr. vs Anil Bose on 23 July, 1964 cites

National Coal Co. Ltd. vs L.P. Dave And Ors. on 2 March, 1956

In National Coal Co. Ltd. v. L. P. Dave, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court expressed the settled view at p. 297 that consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to a Court or a Tribunal when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Court or the Tribunal. But where the want of jurisdiction has to depend upon proof of certain facts, then if those facts have not been raised and proved, a party cannot be permitted to raise a plea of want of jurisdiction so as to render its decision void and ineffective, and in that context the Patna decision holds that when a party submits to the jurisdiction of a Court and takes a chance of getting a decision in its favour, it cannot be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of that Court after the decision has gone against it. But that principle does not apply to the facts of the present case. Here the question of jurisdiction does not depend on proof of any facts.
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Deoki Rai vs Harakh Narain Lal on 17 May, 1926

16. In support of the petitioners' case that the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court are a nullity and completely without jurisdiction, the learned Advocate for the petitioners relies on certain authorities. They may now be examined. The first authority is Deoki Rai v. Harakh Narayar Lal, a decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It lays down that in order to decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court nature or not one should refer to the allegations of the plaintiff contained in the plaint. If those allegations make but a case, which is exempted from cognizance of the Small Cause Court, it is immaterial what the defence raised is and what the actual findings arrived at by the Court are. It points out that if the defendant were held to be estopped from contending that the suit was exempted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court, merely because he had not admitted the commission of any offence, the result would, be that the plaintiff would always be entitled to prefer a second appeal if the decision went against him, but the defendant would be estopped from doing so. Lastly, this decision lays down that Article 35(ii) is intended to cover all suits for compensation for loss occasioned by an offence under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The object seems to be to take away cases, where serious allegations amounting to the commission of an offence are made, from the cognisance of the Courts of Small Causes. In that case, the allegations in the plaint were that the defendants unlawfully colluded with each other and forcibly cut and appropriated a tree without any light in spite of the remonstrances of the plaintiff's servant. On those facts, it was held that those allegations undoubtedly made out an offence of theft and mischief and, therefore, the suit was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next