Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Senior Advocate, endeavoured to repudiate the
submissions advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the appellants,
by advancing three contentions. Firstly, an order passed by a Court with
jurisdiction having attained finality, was binding between the concerned
parties, and was liable to be complied with under all circumstances. In
reference to the instant submission, the assertion of learned counsel was,
that the order dated 10.3.2000 passed by the High Court at Madras had
been passed by a Court having jurisdiction. The said order had attained
finality. And accordingly, there was no justification at the hands of any
other party concerned, to wriggle out of the same. Secondly, even if an
order is passed by a Court which has no jurisdiction with reference to a
controversy, and as such, could be termed as a void order, the order of the
Court would continue to remain enforceable in law, till the same is set aside
and/or vacated by a subsequent order. Insofar as the instant aspect of the
matter is concerned, it was submitted, that the order dated 10.3.2000
having attained finality and having not been varied or vacated, was binding
between the parties, and as such, its compliance was mandatory.
In our determination
hereinabove, we have not held, that a void order can be legitimized. What
we have concluded in the foregoing paragraph is, that while an order passed
by a Court subsists, the same is liable to be complied with, till it is set
aside.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6042-6048 OF 2011
Anita International Vs Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh
and others
Citation:(2016) 9 SCC 44
Print Page
submissions advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the appellants,
by advancing three contentions. Firstly, an order passed by a Court with
jurisdiction having attained finality, was binding between the concerned
parties, and was liable to be complied with under all circumstances. In
reference to the instant submission, the assertion of learned counsel was,
that the order dated 10.3.2000 passed by the High Court at Madras had
been passed by a Court having jurisdiction. The said order had attained
finality. And accordingly, there was no justification at the hands of any
other party concerned, to wriggle out of the same. Secondly, even if an
order is passed by a Court which has no jurisdiction with reference to a
controversy, and as such, could be termed as a void order, the order of the
Court would continue to remain enforceable in law, till the same is set aside
and/or vacated by a subsequent order. Insofar as the instant aspect of the
matter is concerned, it was submitted, that the order dated 10.3.2000
having attained finality and having not been varied or vacated, was binding
between the parties, and as such, its compliance was mandatory.
In our determination
hereinabove, we have not held, that a void order can be legitimized. What
we have concluded in the foregoing paragraph is, that while an order passed
by a Court subsists, the same is liable to be complied with, till it is set
aside.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6042-6048 OF 2011
Anita International Vs Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh
and others
Citation:(2016) 9 SCC 44
