Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal.-NO


Lower court decreed the suit as prayed- Appeal filed – pending appeal a compromise petition filed – High court allowed the appeal as per the terms of compromise and set aside the lower court decree – I.A. filed stating that the compromise petition and memorandum are not signed by appellant and also filed suit challenging the same – defendant filed Or.7,Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – for rejection of plaint as per the provisions of Order XXIII Rule  3  CPC  and  in  particular Rule 3A which bars a suit to have a  compromise  decree  set  aside  on  the ground that the compromise on which the  decree  had  been  passed  did  not exist or take place– plaint rejected – High court declined to entertain the I.A. filed for setting aside the compromise decree as it was obtained by playing fraud on the court with forged signatures of appellant – Apex court held that it is a settled law that
"3. Compromise of suit. –
Where it is proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the
Court that a suit has  been  adjusted  wholly  or  in  part  by  any  lawful
agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by  the  parties],  or  where
the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole  or  any  part
of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court  shall  order  such  agreement,
compromise or satisfaction to be  recorded,  and  shall  pass  a  decree  in
accordance therewith [so far it relates to the parties to the suit,  whether
or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise, or  satisfaction  is
the same as the subject-matter of the suit]:

[Provided that where it is alleged by one party  and  denied  by  the  other
that an adjustment or satisfaction has been  arrived  at,  the  Court  shall
decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose  of
deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded,  thinks
fit to grant such adjournment.]

Explanation - An agreement or compromise which is  void  or  voidable  under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be  lawful  within  the
meaning of this rule."
Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a  consent  decree
to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court  which  recorded  the
compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish  that  there  was
no compromise. In that event, the court which recorded the  compromise  will
itself consider and decide the question as to  whether  there  was  a  valid
compromise or not. This is so  because  a  consent  decree  is  nothing  but
contract between parties superimposed with  the  seal  of  approval  of  the
court. The validity of a consent decree depends wholly on  the  validity  of

the agreement or compromise on which it is made.

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more