https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168095 A writ court under Article 226 cannot use a compromise to settle private law disputes such as title, property, partnership or family claims, and it must independently examine whether any compromise is lawful before recording it. A compromise entered without notice to, or signature of, a materially affected party cannot bind that party merely because counsel says there are no instructions. An order recording such a compromise is without jurisdiction, and statutory or civil-court actions taken in reliance on it also fall. The impugned compromise-based orders were therefore set aside and the parties were restored to their status before those orders. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168095 A writ court under Article 226 cannot use a compromise to settle private law disputes such as title, property, partnership or family claims, and it must independently examine whether any compromise is lawful before recording it. A compromise entered without notice to, or signature of, a materially affected party cannot bind that party merely because counsel says there are no instructions. An order recording such a compromise is without jurisdiction, and statutory or civil-court actions taken in reliance on it also fall. The impugned compromise-based orders were therefore set aside and the parties were restored to their status before those orders. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168095