Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)
Managing Committee, Baijnath Shriram ... vs Rajpal Singh S/O Shri Prabhu Singh on 1 July, 2019 cites

Bhavan Vaja And Ors. vs Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang And Anr. on 3 February, 1972

In taking that view, we are supported by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bhavan Vaja and Others Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Another - (1973) 2 SCC 40, which held that executing court cannot go behind the decree under execution but that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree and for construing a decree, it can and in appropriate cases, it ought to, take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the decree. It was further held that in order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree the court often has to ascertain the circumstances under which those words came to be used. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the pleadings as well as the earlier judgmnets rendered by the Board as well as by the appellate court had been placed before it, the execution court does not appear to have considered those documents. We would do well to reproduce the relevant discussion in para 20 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 157 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Managing Committee S.S. Jain Subodh ... vs Rajendra Kumar Rao And Ors. on 1 August, 2005

In so far as the division bench of this court in Managing Committee S.S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, supra, is concerned, no doubt it was held therein that payment of retiral dues and other payable arrears falling within the approved expenditure cannot be made to depend (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:31:13 PM) (32 of 33) [CW-15837/2018] upon payment of grant-in-aid to the aided institutions, but that judgment was rendered in appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by aided institutions challenging the order of the Education Tribunal requiring them to make payment of the arrears of selection scale and leave encashment and other retiral dues. The Management Committee concerned did not press the challenge to the judgment of the Tribunal before the Single Bench but confined the relief to the prayer that the State Government be directed to reimburse the amount payable to such employee to the extent of such institution was in receipt of grant-in-aid, which was 80% of the approved expenditures. The learned Single Judge directed that the claim of reimbursement should be preferred only after making payment to the concerned employees, and the State Government would consider the same within a period of four weeks. In the aforesaid judgment, neither the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989 nor those of the Rules, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1993 were discussed and analyzed and the issues as to the liability of the State Government to directly make payment to the concerned employee as per the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989 in the event of failure of the aided institution concerned to pay, was not considered.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next