CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Decree Void for Lack of Jurisdiction, Emphasizes on Adjudication of Jurisdiction Before Decreeing: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


"A decision rendered by a court on the merits of a controversy without first adjudicating on its competence...would amount to a decision being rendered on an illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment (Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013), delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar, has declared a decree void and inexecutable due to the Trial Court's failure to adjudicate its own competence. The case, involving Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors., revolved around the execution of a decree related to an alleged oral gift of property.

The Court emphasized the importance of jurisdictional adjudication, stating, "A decision rendered by a court on the merits of a controversy without first adjudicating on its competence...would amount to a decision being rendered on an illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction."

The appeal challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment concerning the maintainability of the suit under the UPZA & LR Act and the validity of a sale deed amidst pending litigation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the Trial Court's decree against one of the defendants, Samiullah, was inexecutable as it lacked inherent jurisdiction.

In its detailed analysis, the Supreme Court clarified the requirements for a judgment and decree under the CPC, noting, "It is only a 'judgment' conforming to the provisions of the CPC that could lead to a 'decree' being drawn up."

The case also brought into focus the transfer of property during pending litigation. The Supreme Court did not make a definitive ruling on the sale deed's validity in favor of the Purchasers (Respondents 1 to 3), stating that this aspect should be determined by a competent forum.

Furthermore, the Court discharged the Court Receiver appointed for the property, directing that accounts related to the property be settled in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 12th January 2024

ASMA LATEEF & ANR. VS SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News