Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a stay order passed in pending proceedings divests the court or authority of jurisdiction before the order is communicated or otherwise brought to its knowledge, and whether steps taken in ignorance of such stay are a nullity.
Analysis: A stay order is in the nature of a prohibitory order. It does not by itself quash the proceedings or extinguish jurisdiction; it only forbids further action. The prohibition becomes effective against the court or authority only when the order is known to it, whether by formal communication or by other reliable information. Until such knowledge is received, the court or authority does not lose jurisdiction. Once knowledge is acquired, further action in disregard of the stay is illegal. The court may, in an appropriate case and in the interests of justice, invoke its inherent powers to set aside interim steps taken between the passing of the stay order and its communication.
Conclusion: The permission granted before the Magistrate had knowledge of the stay order was not a nullity, and the challenge to it failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A stay order operates as a prohibitory direction that takes effect against the tribunal or court only upon knowledge of the order; proceedings taken before such knowledge are not void, though the court may later act under its inherent powers to undo injustice where necessary.