Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ss. 18, 30, 31 and 3(b) - Proceedings in Reference Court - Direct impleadment of or application for apportionment of
compensation by a third party (not a party in LA Act proceedings at any stage) - Impermissibility - Said impleadment or
application for apportionment, held, is impermissible - Said third party is not entitled to set aside award made by
Reference Court by seeking help of Or. 9 R. 13 r/w S. 151 CPC - Such inherent powers cannot be invoked by alleging
fraud on a party (as distinguished from fraud on a court) - Impugned High Court order setting aside the award of
Reference Court, therefore, set aside - Respondents given liberty to seek appropriate remedy by resorting to appropriate
proceedings as permissible under law,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
S. 151 - Inherent powers under - Applicability - Principles reiterated - Such powers can be used: (a) when CPC has no
remedy, (b) in a pending suit, (c) at the behest of persons who are parties to suit in a manner consistent with justice and
equity, (d) in case, a party is prejudiced, (e) in case of failure of justice, (f) in case of fraud on court (as distinguished from
fraud on a party), and (d) for consolidation of suits, where there are common questions of fact and law (not being a case
of misjoinder of parties) - But such powers cannot be used to re-open settled matters or to restrain the execution of a
decree at the instance of one who was not a party to suit - Said powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, or in
conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law, (2013) 11 SCC 296-B
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
S. 151 and Or. 9 R. 13 - Exercise of inherent powers for setting aside of ex-parte decree - Scope of applicability,
clarified,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ss. 18, 30, 31 and 3(b) - Proceedings in Reference Court - Direct impleadment of or application for apportionment of
compensation by a third party (not a party in LA Act proceedings at any stage) - Impermissibility - Said impleadment or
application for apportionment, held, is impermissible - Said third party is not entitled to set aside award made by
Reference Court by seeking help of Or. 9 R. 13 r/w S. 151 CPC - Such inherent powers cannot be invoked by alleging
fraud on a party (as distinguished from fraud on a court) - Impugned High Court order setting aside the award of
Reference Court, therefore, set aside - Respondents given liberty to seek appropriate remedy by resorting to appropriate
proceedings as permissible under law,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
S. 151 - Inherent powers under - Applicability - Principles reiterated - Such powers can be used: (a) when CPC has no
remedy, (b) in a pending suit, (c) at the behest of persons who are parties to suit in a manner consistent with justice and
equity, (d) in case, a party is prejudiced, (e) in case of failure of justice, (f) in case of fraud on court (as distinguished from
fraud on a party), and (d) for consolidation of suits, where there are common questions of fact and law (not being a case
of misjoinder of parties) - But such powers cannot be used to re-open settled matters or to restrain the execution of a
decree at the instance of one who was not a party to suit - Said powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, or in
conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law, (2013) 11 SCC 296-B
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
S. 151 and Or. 9 R. 13 - Exercise of inherent powers for setting aside of ex-parte decree - Scope of applicability,
clarified,
No comments:
Post a Comment