Category: 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.

ISSUE:

Whether the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a party creates a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same or similar facts and praying for the same or similar writ?

RULE:

Whether or not a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is issued in its place, the substance of the order will determine whether or not the dismissal is a bar.

If the decision is on the merits, it will be a bar. On the other hand, if the decision was based on the petitioner’s laches or because of an alternative remedy or if a dismissal in limine is without a spoken order, it will not be a bar.

ISSUE:

What is an anti-suit injunction and when can it be granted by a court of natural jurisdiction?

RULE:

Courts in India and England are courts of both law and equity. It is common ground that a court in India has the power to issue anti-suit injunctions to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction in an appropriate case as courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam.

Parties cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists on a court to which the CPC applies. However, in cases where parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, the foreign court does not permit the invoking of its jurisdiction.