Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Budhu Sao VS Baleswar Prosad Sao...
1985 0 Supreme(SC) 23 : In execution proceedings, a party cannot raise a new issue that was not part of the original suit or appeal, particularly when the issue concerns a jurisdictional fact (such as whether a person is a moneylender) that is already sub judice in an ongoing appeal. The court held that the dispute regarding whether the plaintiffs were moneylenders was already decided in the original suit and was the subject matter of an appeal pending before the High Court. Therefore, the execution proceedings could not be stayed or challenged on the basis of a new dispute referred to a conciliation board under Section 23 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, as the jurisdictional fact remained sub judice. The High Court''''s decision to quash execution proceedings on the basis of a notification under Section 23 was set aside because the appeal on the core issue (whether the plaintiff was a moneylender) was still pending, and thus the matter could not be reopened in execution. This establishes that a party cannot introduce a new challenge in execution that was not part of the original appeal, especially when the issue is already under appellate consideration.Checking relevance for Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. VS Era Infra Engineering Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Hira Lal Patni VS Kali Nath...
Checking relevance for VIJAY KARIA VS PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL...
2020 2 Supreme 417 : Under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India is subject to a limited and specific set of grounds. The courts are not permitted to conduct a ''''second look'''' at the award or review it on merits. The scheme of Section 48 does not allow for piecemeal consideration of issues such as the maintainability of an execution case and the enforceability of the award separately. All contentions, including those relating to maintainability, must be raised at the threshold and considered simultaneously with the issue of enforceability. If such grounds were not raised at the initial stage, they are barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. Therefore, a party cannot introduce new grounds for challenging the enforcement of a foreign award—such as the maintainability of the execution proceeding—after the initial enforcement proceedings have commenced, especially if those grounds were available and should have been raised earlier. This principle prevents successive and multiple rounds of litigation, in line with the legislative intent of speedy disposal and limited judicial interference in foreign arbitration awards.Checking relevance for UNION OF INDIA VS HARBANS SINGH TULI AND SONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ...
2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1181 : Yes, questions raised in a civil revision petition challenging the execution of a court decree can be added to the appellate court''''s consideration even if they were not originally part of the subject matter of the appeal, provided the appeal is still pending. The Supreme Court explicitly held that all questions raised by the Union of India in the revision petition shall be allowed to be raised before the appellate court as long as the appeal (C.A. No. 31/2001) remains pending. The Court further directed that any stay on the appeal proceedings be vacated and the appellate court must dispose of the appeal within six months without unnecessary adjournments.Checking relevance for Menka Gupta VS Umashree Devi...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2186 : A transferee pendente lite cannot be allowed to challenge the execution of a decree on grounds that were not part of the original subject matter of the suit. The court held that a transferee pendente lite, who purchases property during the pendency of litigation, has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree passed by a competent court. This is based on Rule 102 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which explicitly states that Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 do not apply to resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite. The doctrine of lis pendens, recognized under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, treats such a transferee as having constructive notice of the pending litigation and binds them to the outcome. Therefore, a transferee pendente lite cannot raise new grounds for challenging the execution of a decree that were not part of the original subject matter of the suit, as their rights are not crystallized until a decree is passed in their favor. The court emphasized that while such a transferee may later apply for restitution if they succeed in the suit, they cannot obstruct execution during the pendency of the suit.Checking relevance for Surinder Pal Soni VS Sohan Lal (D) Thru LR...
Checking relevance for TORRENT POWER LIMITED VS KEVALCHAND DHANRAJ BHANDARI...
Checking relevance for Mukesh Kumar VS UOI...
2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1393 : The court held that a petitioner cannot challenge the date of execution set by the Additional Sessions Judge without first filing a curative or mercy petition, and that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a challenge after the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence. Therefore, a challenge to the execution date cannot be raised before the appellate court if it was not part of the original subject matter of challenge and no curative or mercy petition was filed.
