Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.”
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the right available to the judgment debtor under
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah* and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., set aside the order of
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of C.V. Bhadang, J. held that the petitioners in the present writ petition was liable
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.B. Shukre, J. allowed a writ petition filed against the order of District Judge
Supreme Court: In the matter relating to the executability of decree for permanent injunction against the legal representatives of judgment-debtor, the Bench