Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Decision of Court is Null and Void if it is given by court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Facts: A obtains a decision from a court that did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter.
पर्याय
A decision can be enforced because both the parties were present
A decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void
A decision can be enforced because it is given a court
A decision can be enforced
Advertisements
उत्तर
A decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void
Explanation:
A decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void. It is null and void because the decision was obtained by A from a court which did not have the jurisdiction over the subject matter. This fact clearly complies with the principle that the decision given by a court is null and void if it is given by court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and the fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once the reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
If a judge reflects a predisposition so strong that it seems he had already made up his mind as to the outcome of the case, will it be according to judicial norms to ask for recusal by the litigants?
Mark the best option:
How many members in the Rajya Sabha are nominated?
Which among the following is the correct expression of the term secular in India?
In 1950, the Constitution of India contains how many classifications of States of Indian Union?
Which among the following state is a member of the Seven Sister?
In the Indian Constitution, the Right to Equality is granted by which of the following Articles?
Which of the following is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution in India?
Which officer of the Government of India has the right to take part in the proceeding of Parliament of India even though he is not a member?
Gangaram is a wood-cutter. He earns his livelihood by cutting forest trees in Nainital, Uttranchal. The State of Uttaranchal makes a law prohibiting the cutting of forest trees. Is Gangaram's Constitutional Right infringed?
Principle: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant's own lawful rights, no action should lie.
Facts: There was an Established School ('ES') in a particular locality. Subsequently, a New School ('NS') was set up in the same locality, which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronizing the new school. Because of the competition, 'ES' had to reduce its fees. 'ES' filed a case against 'NS' saying that 'NS' had caused it ('ES') financial loss and thus claimed compensation. Which of the following derivations is correct?
