|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1465 Records
-
2016 (4) TMI 1426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of award and the decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal - assessment of permanent disablement and possibly functional disability - HELD THAT:- Considering the date of accident (1.7.2011), the age (27 years) and the profession of the injured (Machine Operator), this court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.12,66,940/- towards loss of future income. On the basis of the medical bills produced, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,71,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the same is confirmed.
It is found that the claimants choose to examine a ‘select group of Doctors’ virtually ‘practising’ in this jurisdiction. The insurance companies and transport corporations repeatedly complain that they are ‘stock witnesses’ and challenge their assessments, even if accepted by claims tribunals after discounting the same. It is noted that some decisions which have been critical of the mode and manner of assessment of disability by these Doctors who regularly appear before the claims tribunals. It is not rocket science to identify the personnel who appear in these proceedings as they are found in the list of witnesses before various claims tribunals all over the State, very regularly. That has been the major grouse or grievance of the insurance companies and transport corporations that these medical professionals do not follow proper practices and their assessments are tilted to advance the interest of the claimants, at times, unfairly. This procedure and practice in assessment of permanent disability by various Doctors in various claims tribunal have led to huge pendency of appeals before this Court also.
The sequence of facts, has led to believe that if there was a uniform and consistent practice and procedure in the assessment of permanent disablement and possibly functional disability thereof, then the scope for expeditious disposal of claims may be possible and avoidance of appeals may also become feasible.
This Court has pointed out to Central Government Notification on assessment of disability - it is found that Disability (Permanent Physical Impairment) –Assessment and Certification- Guidelines & Gazette Notification- issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India- Regd No.DL33004/99 ( Extraordinary) Part II, Sec 1, June,13, 2001- published by National Institute for the Orthopaedically Handicapped, is a comprehensive test and manual put in place. On going through the same, it is found that it has been drafted and crafted meticulously and has given formula which may lead to arithmetical accuracy in assessment of permanent disability. Or at least it reduces the scope for divergence in assessment and introduces the much needed element of uniformity and consistency in assessment of permanent disability.
It is felt that if certificates of permanent disability are issued by Medical Boards in the Districts where the claims are pending and they are based on the Central Government Circular dt.13/6/2001, then scope for challenge of the same may be driven out to a large extent. In addition thereto, a positive fall out could be that such certificates could be marked without the need to examine the Medical Doctors , who are otherwise required to be examined. Time taken for proving the permanent disablement may be shortened and the proof also would be credible, authentic, uniform and consistent. It would be much needed and most welcome medicine for this jurisdiction now infested with far too many claims thanks to the burgeoning number of motor accidents. We have little hesitation in commending its acceptance as early as possible.
The infrastructure must be in place before the Medical Boards for facilitating the issue of such certificates of disability. Equally, the stake holders need to get ready for this changed dispensation which would result in marking of the certificate of disability from the Medical Boards as a matter of course without need to have them marked through witnesses or be subjected to cross examination as before. There should be no difficulty to embrace this procedure is mandated to be Summary in nature ( Sec.169). So be it. There cannot be complaint or grouse from either side for the remedy of credibility, authenticity allied with uniformity and consistency would overwhelm any other aspect - The sorely missing element of uniformity and consistency would surely lead to early disposal of claims and possible settlements of the same. Further, scope for dispute in appeals on divergence in assessments of disability would be considerably reduced. In effect, the procedure hit upon and devised for follow up and practice would go a long way in aiding and assisting the Parliamentary mandate to provide speedy succor and relief to innocent motor accidents claims. It would truly be a win win situation for all stakeholders concerned.
It is directed that in motor accidents claims the claims tribunals shall issue a letter to Medical Board in the District of Tamil Nadu. Within whose jurisdiction the claim petition was pending and in case there was no Medical Board in the said District to the nearest District Medical Board, to examine the injured claimant/victim and issue a certificate of disability within such time as may be specified by the claims tribunal - the Medical Board/s shall assess the permanent disability or lack thereof as per the Disability (Permanent Physical Impairment) –Assessment and Certification- Guidelines & Gazette Notification- issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India- Regd No.DL33004/99 (Extraordinary) Part II, Sec 1, June,13, 2001- published by National Institute for the Orthopedically Handicapped - the High Court Registry shall issue a Circular on these directions along with the judgment with reasons to be sent to Medical Boards in all Districts of Tamil Nadu through the Registry of the District Courts in Tamil Nadu, as soon as possible.
The award and the decree passed by the Tribunal are confirmed - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1425 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking direction to the respondents to create cadres of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) with effect from 1.7.1996 - HELD THAT:- It is pointed out that the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers (Pay, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2003') and Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2004') have already come into force. Section 1(3) of the Act of 2003 states that the Act should be deemed to have come into force on 1st day of July, 1996.
The cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was constituted from 20th March, 2004. As per Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004 the following categorization in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been formulated. However, sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 2004 states that the Rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette and the Gazette Publication was on 20th March, 2004. In the light of the said prescription made in the Rules after the categorization was made under Rule 3(3), the grievance of the applicant has now surfaced. The grievance of the applicant, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel, based on their prescription contained in Section 3 of the Act of 2003 read along with Section 4, even if the categorization came to be made under the Rules of 2004, the same should have been given effect rto retrospectively, in consonance with the specific provisions contained in the referred Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 2003 - the prescription under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 2004 and the Gazette Publication dated 20.3.2004 cannot supersede the specific provision contained in Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 2003, more so, when the Act of 2003 was deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st day of July, 1996.
Thus, the first prayer of the petitioner merits acceptance and the same is granted and the respondents are directed to create cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division), as prescribed under the Rules of 2004, and give effect to the same on and from 1.7.1996 with all consequential benefits accrued to those officers who hold the respective cadre post as from that day.
Seeking direction to the respondents to follow “post based roster” in appointments to the cadre of District Judges with effect from 31.3.2003 - HELD THAT:- It is required to ascertain as to how the 34 point roster for the three different channel are to be worked out. The High Court is, therefore, directed to apply Rule-13 which prescribes as to how seniority to be drawn by applying the said Rules, ascertain the roster point for the three different categories of promotees and direct recruits and carry out the said exercise from 31.3.2003.
The High Court is directed to place the said Report after carrying out the said exercise, to pass further orders. We only direct the High Court to carry out the said exercise within a period of two months - List on 14.7.2016.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1424 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of late filing fees u/s 234E - assessee submitted that late payment u/s 234E was levied prior to amendment to section 200A - HELD THAT:- As provisions accepting levy of late filing fees under section 234E have indeed been brought to the statute w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 and the impugned order was passed much before that date.
As following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Dharti Associates [2015 (9) TMI 1428 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] which in turn followed the order of Sibia Healthcare P.Ltd. [2015 (6) TMI 437 - ITAT AMRITSAR] we allow appeal of the assessee and delete the levy of late fee imposed under section 234E for the quarter-2 in the F.Y. 2013-14. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1423 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - legality while assessing the evidence placed on record in regard to the rebuttal of presumption available under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration, the entire evidence of PW-1, it can be said that the accused is able to probablise his defence that the cheque marked as Ex. P2 was not issued for availing Rs. 4.6 lakhs and that the same was issued as security for the said sum of Rs. 1.9 lakhs availed by her. Viewed from any angle, both the Courts have not critically evaluated the evidence placed on record and they have committed serious illegality in appreciating the evidence placed on record - Both the Courts have attached too much of importance to the presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act without looking to the categorical admission elicited from the mouth of PW-1. These important admissions could not have been so easily brushed aside by both the Courts.
Absolute interference is called for and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court are to be set aside and consequently, accused is acquitted for the offences alleged against her. The illegality so committed by both the Courts is writ large and hence revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked.
Revision petition is allowed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1422 - ITAT PANAJI
TDS u/s 195 - disallowance under sec. 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of tax at source on payments of commission to non-resident sales agents - second round of adjudication - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1078 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it has been, inter alia, held that before effecting deduction at source one of the aspects to be examined is whether such income is taxable in terms of the Income Tax Act. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal while concluding that the appellant has committed a default in not deducting the tax at source. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a finding that the services of non-resident sales agents namely Mitsui & Co. Ltd. and Allied Ore Inc, Japan, are performed outside India and the same are not taxable in India, hence, TDS is not deductable from the payments made to them. This finding of fact by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not disputed by the Revenue before us.Therefore, this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1078 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1421 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking discharge of appellant - allegation of omission in discharge of official duty in not providing Government vehicle for shifting the patient from Primary Health Centre to District Hospital, Raigad - requirement of sanction to prosecute Under Section 197(1) Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the omission complained of due to which offence is stated to have been committed, was intrinsically connected with discharge of official duty of the Appellant, as such the protection Under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure from prosecution without sanction of the competent authority, is available to the Appellant. Thus, he could not have been prosecuted without sanction. It would be for the competent authority to consider the question of grant of sanction in accordance with law.
In case sanction is granted only then the Appellant can be prosecuted and not otherwise.
Appeal allowed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1420 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Denial of CENVAT Credit - input services - installation and commissioning related services on the input side for bringing into existence a pipeline - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief returnable on 27th April, 2016.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1419 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Whether provision of section 40(a)(ia) would apply on both “paid” and “payable”? - CIT-A restricting addition relying on the judgment of Merlyn Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (3) TMI 402 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] wherein, it is held disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made on payable amount” - HELD THAT:- We find that the CIT(A) has given part relief following the ratio laid down by the Special Bench decision in the case of Merlyn Shipping Transport Private Limited (supra). The contrary view has been taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crescent Exports [2013 (5) TMI 510 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] disapproving the decision of the Special Bench and held that, provision of section 40(a)(ia) would apply on both “paid” and “payable”. The decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is not a ratio approving the decision of Special Bench and this has been elaborately dealt by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Pratibhuti Viniyog Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 8 - ITAT MUMBAI].
Now, Hon’ble P&H High court also in the case of PMS Diesel [2015 (5) TMI 617 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] have reinforced the aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal by concurring with the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and explaining the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and specifically held that the decision of Special Bench in the case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports is not a correct decision. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed.
TDS u/s 194C - As payment made by the assessee towards freight was within the statutory limits of attracting TDS provision and in support, assessee has disclosed and filed the details of payments, party-wise and month-wise payments; secondly, the assessee has also filed the copy of vehicle registration certificate, PAN card of the parties to substantiate the contention raised before the AO, who has held that, no details were filed - the assessee has also filed Form 15-I and 15-J to show that, the income of the transporters were below taxable limits.
CIT(A) without any proper reason and analysis has dismissed the assessee’s contention. In the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that, the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be examined afresh on merits and after examining the details furnished by the assessee with regard to the claim that the individual payment did not exceed ₹ 50,000/- to a single party during the year and also the Form 15-I and 15-J submitted in support of various transporters to whom the assessee has paid freight charges. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO who shall examine the issue on merits
-
2016 (4) TMI 1418 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Quantum of disallowance - AO noticed by the AO that the assessee has earned dividend income on investment made and the same is claimed to be exempt from tax - assessee disputed the quantum of disallowance worked out by the AO as per rule 8D by submitting that only the investment on which the exempt income was actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration should be taken into consideration and not the entire investment as done by the AO - HELD THAT:- As per decision of REI Agro Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein it was held that for computation of disallowance section 14A by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii), only those investments shall be considered which earn exempt income and not the total investment appearing in the balance-sheet. Respectfully following the said decision we direct the AO to recompute the disallowance to be made under section 14A by applying Rule 8D after taking into consideration only the investment which actually earned the exempt income and not the entire investment. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
:-
-
2016 (4) TMI 1417 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Classification of imported goods - Lubricant Oil-Open Gear - classifiable under tariff item No. 2710 1980 of Customs Tariff Act, 1985 or not - HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as the petitioner claims that it is a live consignment, it is deemed appropriate to direct the concerned Authority to adjudicate the show cause notice within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Application disposed off.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1416 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - exclusion of one comparable i.e. ICC International Agencies Ltd. (Seg.) - HELD THAT:- As in the case of Logica (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015 (3) TMI 401 - ITAT BANGALORE], that assessee company was engaged in the business of rendering software development services and support services to its AE. In the present case also, the assessee company is rendering market support services to its AE. Learned DR of the revenue also could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Logica (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Supra). In this case i.e. in the case of Logica (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Supra), it was held by the tribunal that keeping in mind the functions and risk analysis, it is not possible to compare that assessee with ICC International Agencies Ltd.
Correct margin of two companies i.e. Priya International Ltd. and Access Global Solutions Ltd. and adjustment on account of depreciation - These adjustments are approved because the margin of the comparable has to be correctly adopted and adjustment on account of depreciation is also justified if excess/lesser depreciation is charged by the assessee because of adopting a different method of charging depreciation as compared to method of charging depreciation by the comparables. But for factual verification of the correct margin of two companies i.e. Priya International Ltd. and Access Global Solutions Ltd. and adjustment required on account of depreciation, the matter is restored back to Assessing Officer/TPO. Needless to say, before passing the order, adequate opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee.
Disallowance of expatriate cost - HELD THAT:- A clear finding is given by DRP that the liability has been imposed by the HO and the assessee company has agreed to discharge this liability because of non – business consideration and learned AR of the assessee could not controvert this categorical finding of DRP. Regarding the argument of commercial expediency, we find that although this contention was raised but the AR of the assessee could not establish the commercial expediency for discharging this liability of the HO and hence, this contention and reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of S. A. Builders [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT] are without any merit since commercial expediency is not established. Regarding the alternative plea of exclusion from cost for TP study also, we find no infirmity in the order of DRP. Accordingly, this ground is also rejected.
Disallowance of creditor’s outstanding balance - HELD THAT:- The basis of the figure noted by the A.O. is available and for this reason, it is not required to restore the matter to the A.O. However, we find that the matter should be restored to the file of the A.O. to consider and decide about various explanations given by the assessee in respect of these differences. We, therefore, restore this matter to the A.O. to decide the issue afresh after giving a finding about various explanations of the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1415 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition u/s 69A - undisclosed credit balance of DDs - DDs purchased from disclosed CC A/c, but not reflected in financial statement or bank A/c though these DDs were in the hands of the assessee - whether DDs made by the assessee from his CC account amounts to unexplained money? - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- These DDs were made from the disclosed bank account of the assessee and were transferred to his saving bank account. It is also nowhere mentioned that this account of the assessee wasn’t disclosed in the return of income. We also observe from the finding of the AO that these DDs were made out of the CC account of the assessee. As per the provisions of Section 69A of the Act unexplained money can be brought to tax if it is not recorded in the books of accounts and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of money. In the present case, the sources of the DDs have not been doubted. Accordingly, in our considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Hence this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Undisclosed money in credit - HELD THAT:- We find that the sourc has not been doubted as it was withdrawn from the bank so the transaction of making the payment of ₹ 7.13 lakhs is out of the purview of Section 69A of the Act. As per the provisions of Section 69A of the Act unexplained money can be brought to tax if it is not recorded in the books of accounts and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of money. In this case the source of the payment has not been doubted. Accordingly, in our considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Hence this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1414 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - petitioner was not given an opportunity to file their objections - HELD THAT:- An opportunity can be given to the petitioner to file their objections before the 1st respondent. In view of the same, the impugned orders dated 09.11.2015 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration.
The petitioner is directed to file their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 1st respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the objections to be filed by the petitioner and after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1413 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Scheme of arrangement - section 230-232 of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Various directions regarding holding and convening of various meetings issued - various directions regarding issuance of various notices also issued.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1412 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - unexplained source of share application and share premium money - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the facts dealt in the case of M/s Pankaj Enka P. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015 (5) TMI 1227 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] are similar to the facts of the case of assessee, and therefore, in our opinion that assessee has been able to explain the source of share application and share premium money - Also we allow the grounds of assessee and quash the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1411 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Appealable Order or not - correspondences between the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent Central Excise, Jamnagar - exclusion of Single Buoy Mooring area from the ground plan, without assigning any reason - HELD THAT:- The matter is remanded to the original authority who is the proper officer under the law for grant of Central Excise registration to reconsider the issue afresh and record reasons while disposing the Application for registration in any manner, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant/Assessee.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1410 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 35ABB - license fee paid by the Assessee on the basis of the amount fixed at the time of acquiring the licence - telecommunication service providers were required to pay a fixed percentage of revenues earned as the licence fee - HELD THAT:- Tribunal found that the controversy of identical nature on facts and in law was before the Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi and in the case of telecommunication service providers themselves.
Tribunal has also noted in the Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2001-02 the identical issue was raised and which was decided in favour of the Assessee - Tribunal reproduced the finding of fact and held that since the matter was decided in favour of the service providers and against the Revenue in the case of very Assessee before it for the previous Assessment Year, there is no reason to deviate or differ from those views. It found that the controversy is entirely identical to the one dealt with earlier. The Tribunal did not interfere with the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal on 20th November, 2012.
We are not in agreement with Mr.Malhotra that the question framed at page 6 is a substantial question of law. It being identical and covered by the Tribunal's own order in the case of identical service provider, we do not think that a different view was possible. The Tribunal's view cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. We find and as pointed out in Bharti Hexacom Ltd . and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd [2013 (12) TMI 1115 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1409 - SC ORDER
Manufacture - production of PVC insulated winding wires amounts to manufacture or not - It was held by CESTAT that no manufacture is involved if the wire of higher cross-dimension is drawn into the wire of lesser cross-dimension - HELD THAT:- The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1408 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Approval of scheme of amalgamation - section 230 to 232 of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- In view of the approval accorded to the scheme by the shareholders and creditors (i.e. secured and unsecured) of the petitioners and, given the fact, that the RD and the OL, have not articulated any objections to the scheme, as indicated above, in my opinion, there appears to be no impediment in the grant of sanction to the scheme. Consequently, sanction is granted to the scheme in terms of Section 391 and 394 of the Act.
Application allowed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1407 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Simultaneous execution petitions - validity of filing two execution petitions for realizing or recovering the decretal amount due from two judgment debtors, which relates to same transaction - HELD THAT:- Under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, a decree holder would be entitled to proceed simultaneously against the different judgment debtors in execution of his decree as already discussed herein above. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other law which lays down positively that several applications for execution of a decree cannot be filed simultaneously. The rules of procedure are hand made of justice. Order 21 Rule 11 (2)(e) CPC mandates that the decree holder has to indicate in the execution petition as to “whether any, and (if any), what payment or other adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree” and not the amount for which the decree holder has filed any other execution petition which is pending. However, under Order 21 Rule 2(f) CPC, the decree holder has to state “whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and the results Thus, it would indicate that Order 21 Rule 11 CPC does not bar simultaneous executions.
However, in case of two execution petitions being filed namely, (1) for arrest of judgment debtor and other execution petition is filed to proceed against the property of same judgment debtor, then in such a situation, Executing Court may refuse execution against the person and property of said judgment debtor at the same time as indicated in Order 21 Rule 30 CPC.
A decree holder would be entitled to file two execution petitions for realizing or recovering the decretal amount due from two judgment debtors, when judgment and decree passed against them is joint and several.
Simultaneous execution petitions having been filed by decree holder for realization of amounts due from the Judgment debtors which decree is joint and several executing Court was not justified in dismissing the execution petitions - Petition allowed.
........
|
