Stay Order

 

Stay Order


If any step
is taken by any subordinate Court having ordinary normal jurisdiction in
ignorance of any order of a superior Court, the subsequent orders passed by the
subordinate Court are not ipso facto null and void. They will stand unless they
are either recalled or are set aside.

Rani
Harsamukhi Sinha Vs. Maharaja Sashi Kanta (1955) 7 DLR 473 (475 rg.h.col).

 

—Although an
ex parte order of stay is a valid order it does not ipso facto, nullify all the
proceedings of the court of the first instance passed subsequently. If the
Court comes to know of the order of the superior court, it should always act on
the orders of the superior Court and the question is not a communication only,
but is one of knowledge of the Court with this knowledge  be direct or redirect As soon as a
subordinate Court is satisfied of the existence of such an order of a superior
Court, it must act on it.

Rani
Harsamukhi Sinha Vs. Maharaja Sashi Kanta (1955) 7 DLR 473 (475 ri.h.col).

 

—It cannot
be said that the moment an order for stay of proceedings is pronounced, that
operates as staying the hands of the trial Court. The effect of the order for
stay passed by the superior Court upon an order of trial Court in contravention
of the order for stay is irregular and not a nullity.

Rani
Harsamukhi Sinha Vs. Maharaja Sashi Kanta (1955) 7 DLR 473 (475 rt.h.col).

 

Where an
order, either of stay or of injunction which stands almost on the same footing,
has been made by a superior Court, it does not render void all orders made .or
acts done by the subordinate Court subsequent to such an order but before it is
actually communicated they merely render such subsequent orders or acts
voidable.

Almas Khatun
Vs. Ezhar Mia. (1956) 8 DLR 82.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.