Void Order

Any action that is void ab initio and without lawful authority cannot be protected under the doctrine of a 'past and closed transaction'.

Any action that is void ab initio and without lawful authority cannot be protected under the doctrine of a 'past and closed transaction'.

When the basic order is without lawful authority, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically.

When the basic order is without lawful authority, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically.

When the basic order is without lawful authority, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically.

When the basic order is without lawful authority, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically.

Any order passed by an authority without having jurisdiction is void ab-initio.

Mere irregular, incorrect, erroneous or illegal order does not necessarily fall within the conception of term "Void".

Void order has to be challenged within a reasonable time.

When the basic order is without lawful authority and void ab initio, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically.

Even a void order has to be assailed within the period of limitation prescribed under the law.

If an order was void, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and passed in disregard of the law, any superstructure raised over it would automatically fall to the ground and it could not be sustained in the eyes of law.

If an order was void, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and passed in disregard of the law, any superstructure raised over it would automatically fall to the ground and it could not be sustained in the eyes of law.

If an order was void, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and passed in disregard of the law, any superstructure raised over it would automatically fall to the ground and it could not be sustained in the eyes of law.

No perpetual right could be gained on the basis of illegal order.

Where on the basis of a void order subsequent orders had been passed either by the same authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal the changed position of the parties was in operation, fell to the ground because such orders had as little legal foundation as the void order on which they were founded.

Void order which adversely affected the rights of a party must be challenged within a reasonable time.

Order passed by a Court having no jurisdiction would be void.

Illegal order was that which was not passed in accordance with law.

When basis of an action is held untenable, subsequent superstructure cannot be allowed to remain in field merely on account of ratification by competent authority.

No limitation was fixed for filing an appeal/revision against a void order.

Limitation would not run against void order.

No limitation against void order.

When initial order was void and against the mandatory provision of law then subsequent superstructure could not stand.

When initial order or act was contrary to law and illegal then subsequent proceedings and action taken thereon would have no basis and would fall.

Such decision would be of no legal effect whereas a decision which was either erroneous or wrong but given by a forum or court having jurisdiction in the matter would be termed as illegal order.

When an order was passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority which had no jurisdiction either about subject matter, pecuniary value or territorial limits then same would be treated as void order.

No limitation had been prescribed to competently and successfully challenge a void order and notification.

If on the basis of void order, subsequently orders have been passed either by the same authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders together with superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them must unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal the changed position of parties is in operation, fall to the ground because such orders have as little foundation as the void order on which they are based

Pure question of law can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

If on the basis of void order, subsequently orders have been passed either by same authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders together with super structure of rights and obligations built upon them must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizes it as legal, fall to the ground because such orders have a little foundation as the void order on which they are based.

No limitation runs against a void order.

Void order did not require to be set aside.

Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings.

Termination order passed wholly without jurisdiction was void ab initio and no limitation ran against void order.

Such subsequent orders or proceedings have a little legal foundation as void order on which they are founded.

Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings.

Limitation would not run against order passed in contravention of mandatory provisions of law as such order was a nullity

Passage of time would not confer legality upon a void order.

Order of a Court having jurisdiction to pass same could be termed as wrong order, but not without jurisdiction or void order.

Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings.

Where any forum or court adjudicated and decided a matter without jurisdiction, such decision would be void and of no legal effect.

Entire superstructure raised on such order would be bound to fall.

No limitation runs against void order and there may not be any limitation at all to challenge an illegal order.

Limitation would not run against a void order, rather same could be ignored and might not be allowed to stand thereagainst.

Principles.

Bar of limitation is not applicable against void order.

No limitation.

Order/ judgment has to be challenged within the period of limitation, if the order is allegedly a void order.

Principles stated.

Legal effect stated.

When the basic order' is without lawful authority and void ab initio, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls on the ground automatically.