https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283924 A decree against a minor is not automatically disregarded in later proceedings merely because the next friend acted with gross negligence. The earlier decree remains binding unless the facts support an inference of fraud or collusion, in which case Section 44 of the Evidence Act may be invoked without first setting aside the decree in separate proceedings. The consolidation authority had found gross negligence but had not examined that further question, and the High Court had not addressed the Section 44 issue correctly. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on whether fraud or collusion could properly be inferred from the negligence found. en-us Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:53:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283924 A decree against a minor is not automatically disregarded in later proceedings merely because the next friend acted with gross negligence. The earlier decree remains binding unless the facts support an inference of fraud or collusion, in which case Section 44 of the Evidence Act may be invoked without first setting aside the decree in separate proceedings. The consolidation authority had found gross negligence but had not examined that further question, and the High Court had not addressed the Section 44 issue correctly. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on whether fraud or collusion could properly be inferred from the negligence found. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283924