Execution Proceedings-

-
  Execution Proceedings (Ss.47, 60, 122 Or.21 Rs.11, 98 & Or.11 R.14):- Executive Proceedings-Executing court must dispose of executive proceedings within six months from date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. This would mean that every effort should be made to dispose of execution petition within said time-limit and executing court should have reasons for not being able to dispose of execution petition. Executing court is duty-bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of matter within six months (Bhoj Raj Garg vs Goyal Education & Welfare Society: (2025) 9 SCC-618.
Post a Comment

Res Judicata:Applicability:-

-

 

Res Judicata:Applicability:-

Doctrine of res judicata is applicable even to Writ jurisdiction exercised by Superior Courts (Shiv Chander More vs Lt. Governor (2014) 11 SCC-744.A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India has considered the applicability of rule of res judicata in Writ proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution in Daryao & ors vs State of UP & ors (AIR 1961 SC-1457).In Forward Construction Co. vs Prabhat Mandal (1986) 1 SCC-100, the Apex Court  held that the principle would apply to Public Interest Litigation  provided it was a bona fide litigation.Res judicata applicable on Execution proceedings (Dipali Biswas vs Nirmalendu Mukherjee,2021 SCC Online SC-869).The principle of res judicata  would apply in different proceedings arising out of the same course of action but would also apply in different stages of the same proceedings (Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs Archana Kumar & anr (2005) 1 SCC-787).

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Applicability of CPC & Limitation Act in Writ Proceedings:-

-
  Applicability of CPC & Limitation Act in Writ Proceedings:-   The issue concerning applicability of the provisions of the CPC in the writ proceedings is no longer res integra in view clear pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in “ Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others” reported in (1996) 2 SCC-205 , wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue as to whether the provisions contained under Order 22 of the CPC are applicable to proceedings under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether provisions of the Act, 1963 would apply in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Smt. Sudama Devi v Commissioner and others ” reported in (1983) 2 SCC-1.  
Read more

golden principles of circumstantial evidence

-
                 In “ Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra” :AIR 1984 SC-1622,the SC elaborated the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Hanumant Vs.State of MP:AIR 1952 SC-343 which has been strictly abided by the SC itself in various leading cases and therefore are very important. 1.      The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2.      The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. 3.      The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4.      They should exlcude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 5.      There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that...
Read more

Sentence less than Minimum Sentence:-

-
  Sentence less than Minimum Sentence:-                    In “ State of MP vs Vikram Das ” reported in (2019) 4 SCC-125,the Supreme Court has held that awarding sentence less than the minimum sentence is impressibility .                    In “ State v. Ratan Lal Arora” : (2004) 4 SCC-590, the Supreme  Court of India said that in cases where an enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be invoked.                  
Read more