Consequence of transaction in breach of court order

It is well settled principle of law that an authority proceeding with any matter after the prohibitory order passed by the Competent Court, has to be seriously viewed and the parties should be put back to the original position as no one can be permitted to enjoy the fruits of any order which was passed in contravention to the stay order. The said principle is fully explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) SC 519 Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs.)

See also: 
2011(3)CTC46 (Madras)
AIR 1967 SC 1386
 AIR 1996 SC 135
AIR 2007 SC 1386

Writ not maintainable when consequential order alone is challenged

2011 29 LCD 610

Land Acquisition - Avoid Agricultural Land

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Order II, Rule 2

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2198 of 2012

Petitioner :- M/S.Roxy Petrochem Pvt.Ltd.Delhi Through Its Director

Respondent :- U.P.Financial Corporation Limited Kanpur Through M.D.&

Ors.

Petitioner Counsel :- S.B.Pandey

Respondent Counsel :- Prashant Kumar

Alternative Remedy

A Full Bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow and others, 1991 (2) UPLEBC 898 has held that when a litigant wants to bye pass statutory alternative remedy, he must plead and place necessary facts in the writ petition to show that alternative remedy is not efficacious and speedy

Obiter dicta is also binding precedent - when

Obiter whether precedent- 2007(5)scc 428, 2012(30)lcd 1066.

Not necessary to hear the Respondent on a restoration application of a case dismissed in default where the Respondent was also absent

2012 (2) AWC 1408