https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295860 An appeal challenging a decree could not be entertained on merits where defendants 2 and 3, against whom the original decree also operated, were not impleaded. The court held that any retrial or remand affecting liability could not proceed in the absence of indispensable parties, because their rights could not be reopened without hearing them. It further observed that the foreign judgment relied on by the defendants was not conclusively displaced on the material before it, and allegations of fraud could not justify a merits-based retrial without the necessary parties. The non-joinder rendered the appeal incompetent. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:09:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295860 An appeal challenging a decree could not be entertained on merits where defendants 2 and 3, against whom the original decree also operated, were not impleaded. The court held that any retrial or remand affecting liability could not proceed in the absence of indispensable parties, because their rights could not be reopened without hearing them. It further observed that the foreign judgment relied on by the defendants was not conclusively displaced on the material before it, and allegations of fraud could not justify a merits-based retrial without the necessary parties. The non-joinder rendered the appeal incompetent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295860