Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Amalendu Kumar Bera VS State of West Bengal...
Checking relevance for Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. VS P. R. Selvam Alagappan...
Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. VS P. R. Selvam Alagappan - 2017 3 Supreme 196 : Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, objections to the executability of a decree can be filed by any party or their representative involved in the execution proceedings. The executing court has jurisdiction to consider objections only in relation to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, and not to re-examine the merits of the decree or go behind it. The court may entertain objections if the decree is a nullity (void ab initio) due to lack of jurisdiction or other fundamental defects, but not if it is merely erroneous in law or fact. The right to file an objection under Section 47 is not limited to the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor alone, but extends to any person whose rights are affected by the execution, including representatives of the parties. However, the objection must be based on a jurisdictional infirmity or a defect that renders the decree inexecutable, not on grounds that could have been raised in appeal, revision, or review.Checking relevance for MMTC Limited VS Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Limited...
Checking relevance for Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. VS Karnataka Housing Board...
Checking relevance for R. P. A. Valliammal VS R. Palanichami Nadar...
R. P. A. Valliammal VS R. Palanichami Nadar - 1997 2 Supreme 587 : Under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, objections to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree can be raised by the parties to the suit or their representatives. The Explanation 1 added to Section 47 by the Amendment Act, 1976 clarifies that a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are considered parties to the suit for the purposes of this section. However, such objections must be raised at the appropriate stage, and once a right or title has been finally negatived in a prior proceeding, it cannot be re-agitated. The right to object is not unlimited and cannot be used to challenge the executability of a decree after the finality of a prior decision on title, even if the objection is based on grossly inadequate price or excessive execution. The opportunity to object is generally limited to one occasion, and repeated applications are unwarranted. Therefore, only those who are parties to the suit or their representatives, and who have not already lost their right through a final decision, can validly file an objection under Section 47.Checking relevance for URMILA DEVI VS BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Asma Lateef VS Shabbir Ahmad...
Checking relevance for State of Jharkhand through the Collector of Palamu VS Kishore Prasad Gupta, S/o. Late Ram Awatar Prasad Gupta...
State of Jharkhand through the Collector of Palamu VS Kishore Prasad Gupta, S/o. Late Ram Awatar Prasad Gupta - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 285 : Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), objections to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree can be raised by the parties to the decree or their representatives. The executing court is empowered to determine such questions, but only on grounds of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness (i.e., where the decree is a nullity). Objections based on mere error in law or fact, or on the grounds of erroneous interpretation of the decree, are not permissible. The executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands unless it has been set aside by a higher court through appeal or revision. The right to raise such objections is limited to those who are parties or their representatives, and the objection must appear on the face of the record, particularly in cases involving lack of inherent jurisdiction of the court or failure to bring legal representatives on record.Checking relevance for Om Prakash Chabra VS Bijay Kumar Sarawgi S/o Late Rikhab Chand Sarawgi...
Checking relevance for Electrosteel Steel Limited (now M/s ESL Steel Limited) VS Ispat Carriers Private Limited through its Director Durga Yadav, son of Late Jadhari Yadav...
Checking relevance for Shivashankar Prasad Shah VS Baikunth Nath Singh...
Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Intnl. Security And Intelligence Agency LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Mahadev Govind Gharge VS Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka...
Checking relevance for M. P. Shreevastava VS Veena...
Checking relevance for MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. VS APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited VS Praveen D. Desai (Dead) thr. Lrs. ...
Checking relevance for RAJINDRA PRASAD SINHA VS KARAM CHAND THAPAR & CO. ...
RAJINDRA PRASAD SINHA VS KARAM CHAND THAPAR & CO. - 1975 0 Supreme(Pat) 38 : Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), only a person who is a party to the suit can file an objection. A person against whom a suit is dismissed cannot be considered a party to the suit within the meaning of Section 47, and therefore cannot file an objection or appeal under that provision. This principle was upheld in the case where the appellant, who had been dismissed from the suit through a compromise petition, was held not to be a party to the suit and thus lacked the authority to file an objection petition in execution proceedings.Checking relevance for Arun Kumar VS Shyampati Kuer...
Checking relevance for Ramu Prasad Jaiswal VS Rakesh Narayan...
Checking relevance for Ramu Prasad Jaiswal VS Rakesh Narayan...
Checking relevance for Gaffar Khan VS Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, Kolkata...
Checking relevance for State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Road Construction Department (National Highway Wing) VS Surendra Singh, Son of Sri. Ram Sakal Singh...
State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Road Construction Department (National Highway Wing) VS Surendra Singh, Son of Sri. Ram Sakal Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(Pat) 304 : The legal documents indicate that objections under Section 47 of the CPC can be filed by a party in execution proceedings, but only if the objection relates to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal or the validity of the award. However, such objections are not permissible if the party has already failed to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University held that if a party wishes to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, it must do so through an application under Section 34 of the Act at the appropriate stage, and cannot later raise the same objection in execution proceedings under Section 47 of the CPC. Therefore, while any party involved in execution proceedings may technically file an objection under Section 47 CPC, such a filing is impermissible if the party has already abandoned the remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The documents emphasize that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a complete code, and Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to arbitral awards once the statutory remedies under the Act have been waived.
