Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)Rameshwar Dass Gupta vs State Of U.P & Anr on 27 August, 1996
In the case of Rameshwar Dass Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and
Another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in paragraph 4 clearly
observed that it is a well settled legal position that an Executing Court
cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution and it gets
jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure
laid down under Order XXI of the CPC. In the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court in setting aside the order
directing payment of interest in the case of a decree which did not
award interest observing that the Executing Court cannot step out and
grant a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for
execution on the ground of delay in payment.
Kartik Chandra Pal vs Dibakar Bhattacharjee on 24 February, 1949
In my view, Mr.Madon's reliance upon the decision of the Calcutta
High Court in the case of Kartick Chandra Pal vs. Dibakar Bhattacharjya
(supra) is not of any assistance, in as much as, firstly the said decision
itself observes that the most important part of the decree is that portion
where the court directs the contract to be specifically performed. As noted
above, the prayers in the suit only sought specific performance of the
agreement arrived at on 27th March 2019 for sale of the 50% sharholding
of the Agarwals in the said company to the Kotharis and nothing more.
No doubt, details which follow in a contract for specific performance do
not, in any way, limit the jurisdiction of the Executing Court to the
particular steps which are mentioned in the decree but all such other
steps, which ought to be taken for giving full effect to the decree for
specific performance, are not only within the competence of the Court but
the Court is bound to assist the party to that extent. However, that is not
what is being sought for by the Kotharis here. What is being sought for is
the part of autoamatic sale that was not even sought for in the suit for
specific performance. The consent by the Agarwals with respect to prayer
clauses (A) to (D) was only with respect to the sale of 50% shares by the
Agarwals to the Kotharis. Therefore, in my view, the principle laid down
by the said decision of the Calcutta High Court would not apply to the
facts of this case.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Topanmal Chhotamal vs Kundomal Gangaram And Ors. on 8 September, 1959
In Topanmal Chhotamal V. Kundomal Gangaram3 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that it is well settled principle that a Court executing a
decree cannot go behind the decree.
Meenakshi Saxena vs Ecgc Ltd(Formerly Known As Export ... on 18 May, 2018
Again in Meenakshi Saxena vs
ECGC Ltd.4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the whole purpose
of execution is to enforce the verdict of the Court. Executing Court
while executing the decree is only concerned with the execution part of
3 AIR 1960 SC 388
4 (2018) 7 SCC 471
avk 38/49
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:51:31 :::
501-EXA-1041-22-EXAL-139-20.doc
it and nothing else. The Court has to take the judgment on its face
value.
1