Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.22 seconds)Section 54 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004
In Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors
(P) Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 705] the Apex Court held that, mere
preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay on the decree or
order appealed against nor on the proceedings in the court below.
A prayer for the grant of stay of proceedings or on the execution of
decree or order appealed against has to be specifically made to the
appellate court and the appellate court has discretion to grant an
order of stay or to refuse the same. The only guiding factor
indicated in Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code is the existence of
sufficient cause in favour of the appellant on the availability of
which the appellate court would be inclined to pass an order of
stay. While passing an order of stay under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the
Code, the appellate court does have jurisdiction to put the
applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion
I.A. No.2 of 2021 in
L.A.A.No.23 of 2021
-:28:-
reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by
delay in execution of decree, by the grant of stay order, in the
event of the appeal being dismissed and insofar as those
proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be
reasonable.
Anderson Wright And Co. vs Amar Nath Roy And Ors. on 19 April, 2005
In Anderson Wright and Co. v. Amar Nath Roy
[(2005) 6 SCC 489] the Apex Court reiterated that, as held
in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 705], once a
decree has been passed, in the event of execution of decree being
stayed, the appellants can be put on such reasonable terms, as
would in the opinion of the appellate court reasonably compensate
the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the
decree by the grant of stay in the event of the appeal being
dismissed.
M/S.Malwa Strips Pvt.Ltd vs M/S.Jyoti Ltd on 18 December, 2008
In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to
supra, while passing an order of stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the
Code, in an appeal filed by the State under Section 54 of the Act,
challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the
reference court, this Court has jurisdiction to put the appellant-
State on such reasonable terms as would be reasonably
compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by the delay in
execution of the decree. Any such condition imposed by the Court
under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code shall be reasonable. A strong
case should be made out for passing an order of stay of execution
of the decree in its entirety. Merely for the reason that, dissatisfied
with the compensation awarded by the reference court, the
claimant filed another appeal under Section 54 of the Act seeking
further enhancement of the compensation, it cannot be contended
that, in the appeal filed by the State the appellate court can direct
the State to deposit, under Order XLI, Rule 5(3) and Rule 5(5) of
the Code, whole of the amount of compensation awarded by the
reference court.