Whether the appellant is a necessary or proper party to the suit for specific performance filed by the first respondent?
When a third party neither claims any right or remedy against the first party in a suit for specific performance between the first and second party, the third party cannot be impleaded as a necessary or proper party.
Whether the leave granted to the plaintiffs is to be revoked?
The principal requirement to bring a suit within Rule 8 is “sameness of interest of the numerous persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted” and not the sameness of cause of action. There must be a common interest or a common grievance which they seek to redress.
Whether the high court judgement is valid in law and facts?
Whether the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
If the two suits and the relief claimed are based on the same cause of action, only the subsequent suit will be barred under Order 2 Rule 2.
The high court, being the final court of facts in a first appeal, is required to decide all the points formulated by it.
Whether a suit for possession of immovable property and a suit for the recovery of mesne profits from the same property are based on the same cause of action?
Whether the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
A plea of a bar under Order 2 Section 2 can be established only if the defendant filed in evidence the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proved to the court the identity of the cause of action in the two suits.
Whether a decree passed on appeal by a court that had jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason of undervaluation, be set aside on the ground that on a true valuation the court was not competent to entertain the appeal?
It is a well-established fundamental principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could 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.
Whether the court has jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent?
The suit is essential for the enforcement of personal obligation undertaken by vendors in agreement, Whichever be a form of decree that may have to be passed in suit, the effect is to pass title effectively to the plaintiff in fulfillment of that personal obligation for purpose of which alone suit is filed.
Whether the Civil court of Delhi had jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?
The court said that the proviso is an exception to the main part of the section which in their considered opinion, cannot be interpreted or construed to enlarge the scope of the principal provision. It would apply only if the suit falls within one of the categories specified in the main part of the section and the relief sought could entirely be obtained by personal obedience of the defendant.
Whether, in view of Clause 18 of the consignment agency agreement dated 13.10.2002, the Calcutta High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the application made by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
For a jurisdiction clause in the agreement the words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” or “exclusive jurisdiction” are not decisive and do not make any material difference, that the intention of the parties by having Clause 18 in the agreement is clear and unambiguous and that the courts at Kolkata shall have jurisdiction which means that the courts at Kolkata alone shall have jurisdiction.
Whether the agreement or compromise in question was lawful and not void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act?
Under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all types of civil disputes unless its jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority.
Nothing in Order XXIII Rule 3-A bars the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited and restricted jurisdiction.
Whether the suit was barred expressly by Section 17 of the Act or any implication arising from the Act?
Whether the relief of repayment has to be sought by the 'taxpayer’ by an action in a civil court or whether such an order can be made by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution?
Whether the jurisdiction conferred on the taxing authorities included the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the transaction or was the decision about the character of the transaction, a decision on a collateral fact?