https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103211 A jurisdictional objection that an ejectment order was a nullity for want of leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act could not be reopened in execution when the same point had already been raised and expressly rejected in the ejectment proceedings. That determination had attained finality because it was never appealed or otherwise challenged. A matter directly and finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be reagitated in execution merely by recasting it as a jurisdictional issue. The objection was therefore barred by res judicata, and the execution court was entitled to proceed. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:36:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103211 A jurisdictional objection that an ejectment order was a nullity for want of leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act could not be reopened in execution when the same point had already been raised and expressly rejected in the ejectment proceedings. That determination had attained finality because it was never appealed or otherwise challenged. A matter directly and finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be reagitated in execution merely by recasting it as a jurisdictional issue. The objection was therefore barred by res judicata, and the execution court was entitled to proceed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 03 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103211