Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.49 seconds)Section 47 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors on 18 March, 1970
21. Judicial precedents to the effect that the purview of scrutiny
under Section 47 of the Code qua a decree is limited to objections to
its executability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness
are plethoric . This Court, amongst others in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs.
Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others 1971 (1) SCR 66 in essence enunciated
that only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of
objection under Section 47 of the Code and not one which is erroneous
either in law or on facts. The following extract from this decision
seems apt:
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001
22. Though this view has echoed time out of number in similar
pronouncements of this Court, in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash
University and others, AIR 2001 SC 2552, while dwelling on the scope of
Section 47 of the Code, it was ruled that the powers of the court
thereunder are quite different and much narrower than those in
appeal/revision or review. It was reiterated that the exercise of power
under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow
inspection hole and an executing court can allow objection to the
executabilty of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio
and is a nullity, apart from the ground that it is not capable of
execution under the law, either because the same was passed in ignorance of
such provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree
inexecutable after its passing. None of the above eventualities as
recognised in law for rendering a decree inexecutable, exists in the case
in hand. For obvious reasons, we do not wish to burden this adjudication by
multiplying the decisions favouring the same view.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Companies Act, 1956
1