LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label LIMITATION FOR EXECUTION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LIMITATION FOR EXECUTION. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

the compromise decree had the status of a final decree. The latter suit filed by the appellants was for partition and declaring the ex parte compromise decree as null and void. As has already been stated, there was no stay of the earlier judgment or any proceedings emanating therefrom. In the absence of any interdiction from any court, the decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree. It needs no special emphasis to state that there was no impediment or disability in the way of the

›
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPE...
Friday, February 10, 2012

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - s.47 - Suit praying for decree of declaration in regard to entitlement to receive higher pay scales and a decree of mandatory injunction directing release/payment of higher pay scales with interest from due date - Decreed by Civil Court - Execution petition moved by decree-holder - Objection to, by judgment-debtor - Held: On facts, the decree-holder legally would not have been entitled to the reliefs prayed for by it - However, as the decree passed has attained finality, the Executing Court is directed to execute the decree strictly in terms thereof. Appellant-Board has two thermal power plants, one at Faridabad and the other at Panipat. Respondents were employees at the Faridabad plant. Inter alia on the premise that employees similarly situated and working at the Panipat plant were receiving higher salary, they filed suit praying for a decree of declaration in regard to their entitlement to receive higher pay scales and a decree of mandatory injunction directing release/payment of higher pay scales in their favour with interest from the due date. The Trial Court decreed the suit on basis of the judgment and decree passed in Anil Kapoor case which was then pending in second appeal before the High Court. The said second appeal was ultimately dismissed and the Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Subsequently, appellant filed appeal against the decree passed in the suit filed by respondents, which was dismissed on the ground of delay. Revision petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The decree passed in the suit filed by respondents attained finality. An execution petition in respect of the decree was filed. Appellant filed objection contending that a mere declaratory relief having been passed in favour of the respondents-decree holder, they were not entitled to arrears of pay. The objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court. Revision petition filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.

›
Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A decree should ordinarily be confined to the prayer made in the plaint. The respondents not only...
Saturday, August 28, 2010

LIMITATION FOR RECOVERY OF BANK DEBT

›
PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR RECOVERY OF DEBT DUE TO BANK IN TERMS OF RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, IS ONLY 4 YEARS BU...