Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on execution of decree against firm dating back to the year 1954.
Order XXI Rule 99, CPC is lucid that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court opined that the respondents had all throughout shown their intention to pay the balance consideration for execution of the sale deed whereas the appellants appeared interested only in challenging the decree before higher Courts.
“It is immaterial if the term or directions in a decree is contrary to law. The Executing Court cannot go behind the same, and has to give effect to the decree.”
If the part of an Award proposed to be annulled is independent, stands unattached to the other part and can be validly incised, the partial setting aside would be valid and justified. The same also applies to execution proceedings.
“The decree holder was not required to await the outcome of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, if it did choose to remain under a self-imposed embargo, then it can’t demand interest.”
by Sanjeev Kumar and Anshul Sehgal*
Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., discharged the petitioner (proprietor of the defendant Company) of the notice served upon him