Category: Jurisdiction

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

Whether the court has jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

Whether the Civil court of Delhi had jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

Whether the agreement or compromise in question was lawful and not void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court/Supreme Court has the power to transfer a suit from a Civil Court to the DRT?

Whether Article 142 is applicable to direct a transfer from a Civil Court to DRT?

RULE:

A debtor under the common law of contract as also in terms of the agreement may have an independent right; no forum has been created for endorsement of that right. Jurisdiction of a civil court is barred only in respect of matters which strictly come within the purview of Section 17 of DRT Act and not beyond the same, the civil court therefore will continue to have jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether the leave obtained had been rightly obtained or wrongly obtained is not a matter which can be agitated at the execution stage?

RULE:

The objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a Court to try a case. The competence of a Court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction and where it is lacking it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court can be waived and this principle has been given statutory recognition by enactments like S. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

ISSUE:

Whether on the final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit?

RULE:

The Apex Court concluded that since the causes of action would be distinct in each case as they pertain to different periods of non-user, the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC was turned down.

ISSUE:

Whether the bar to proceed with the trial of the subsequently instituted suit, contained in section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to the summary suit filed under Order 37 of the Code?

RULE:

The Supreme Court’s opinion, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was in error in taking a different view. It had relied upon the decision of this Court in Harish Chandra v. Triloki Singh (AIR 1957 SC 444).

That was a case arising under the Representation of People’s Act and, therefore, it was not proper to apply the interpretation of the word ‘trial’ in that case while interpreting section 10 in the context of Order 37 of the Code.