Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.39 seconds)Baldevdas Shivlal & Anr vs Filmistan Distributors (India) (P) ... on 29 April, 1969
25 The submission is also raised that there is no question of
extending principle of estoppel and/or res judicata, if the compromise is
20 / 31
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:24 :::
21 ao.610-2012
against the provisions of law. The Appellant-Respondent No.22 not
admitting and/or conceded at any point of time that the consent terms
and/or compromise decree is against the provisions of law. Their
argument is otherwise. The submission based upon the case of Baldevdas
Shivlal & Anr. Vs. Filmistant Distributors (India) P.Ltd & Ors. 7, that case
was revolving around Section 11 and 115 of CPC and that provisions at
the relevant time was different and basically for want of Order 23 Rule 3A
which inserted in the year 1977.
Horil vs Keshav & Anr on 20 January, 2012
28 The Apex Court recently in Horil Vs. Keshav & Anr. 6,
reiterated the concept "not lawful". The Apex Court in para-9 of the
judgment observed as under:
Parayya Allayya Hittalamani vs Sri Parayya Gurulingayya Poojari & Ors on 12 October, 2007
17 In case of Parayya Allayya Hittalamani Vs. Sri Parayya
Gurulingayya Poojari4, the Supreme Court, in facts and circumstances of
the case, even consider Section 92 of Evidence Act and observed in para
14,15 and 16 as under:
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo vs Assistant Collector Of Agricultural ... on 15 March, 1955
18 The Supreme Court in Raja Sri Sailendra Narayan Bhaanja
Deo Vs. State of Orissa5, in para-8 observed as under:
Anant Mahadeo Godbole vs Achut Ganesh Godbole And Ors. on 23 March, 1981
26 The terms "not lawful" is also interpreted by this Court in
Anant Mahadeo Godbole Vs. Achut Ganesh Godbole & Ors. 9 by recording
that it includes and covers compromise suffers from want of authority or
exceeding of authority and also observed that Rule 3A bars the remedy of
a second suit on the cause of action that the compromise which resulted
in the passing of the decree was not lawful.
Damodar Tukaram Gaunkar (Dr.) vs Gopinath Rama Gaunkar And Ors. on 30 September, 2005
Same is also recorded in the
judgment in Dr. Damodar Tukaram Gaunkar Vs. Shri Gopinath Rama
Gaunkar & Ors.10 whereby it is specifically observed that a separate suit
7 1969 (2) SCC 201
8 (1993) 1 SCC 581
9 AIR 1981 Bom 357
10 2006(3) ALL MR 88
21 / 31
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:24 :::
22 ao.610-2012
filed by Plaintiffs to challenge the consent decree on the ground of fraud
is not maintainable.
Ghulam Rasool Reshi vs Ghulam Hassan Reshi And Ors. on 29 April, 2002
27 The judgment so cited by the learned senior counsel for
Respondents in Ghulam Rasool Reshi Vs. Ghulam Hassan Reshi 11, in view
of above and in view of judgment of this court and also covering the facts
and circumstances of the present case. From every angle and for the
reasons so recorded above, I am not inclined to accept the opinion so
expressed (Ghulam-supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.