https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187824 Madras HC held that a suit seeking declaration that a Debt Recovery Tribunal order and sale certificate were null and void, with consequential injunction, was not a suit for land because it did not directly seek title or possession of immovable property. The suit was also not barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, since the plaintiff was neither bank nor borrower and the impugned order was recorded as a consent order, leaving no appeal under Section 20. The court reaffirmed that fraud vitiates every judicial act, so an order obtained by fraud may be challenged in civil proceedings. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:42:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187824 Madras HC held that a suit seeking declaration that a Debt Recovery Tribunal order and sale certificate were null and void, with consequential injunction, was not a suit for land because it did not directly seek title or possession of immovable property. The suit was also not barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, since the plaintiff was neither bank nor borrower and the impugned order was recorded as a consent order, leaving no appeal under Section 20. The court reaffirmed that fraud vitiates every judicial act, so an order obtained by fraud may be challenged in civil proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187824