Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court emphasizes timely execution of decrees, warns against misuse of judicial process.</h1> <h3>Ravinder Kaur Versus Ashok Kumar</h3> Ravinder Kaur Versus Ashok Kumar - 2003 (8) SCC 259 Issues Involved:1. Misuse of judicial process by unscrupulous litigants.2. Correctness of the site plan attached to the ejectment petition.3. Execution of the eviction order and objections raised by the tenants.4. High Court's handling of the objections and issuance of warrants of possession.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Misuse of Judicial Process by Unscrupulous Litigants:The Supreme Court noted that the judicial process was being misused by unscrupulous litigants. The High Court succumbed to an unjust plea by the respondents in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the need to curb such abuses of the judicial process.2. Correctness of the Site Plan Attached to the Ejectment Petition:The appellant, the owner of a shop, filed an ejectment application for eviction of the respondents from Shop No.3. One of the specific issues raised pertained to the correctness of the site plan attached to the ejectment petition. The onus of proving this issue was on the respondents-tenants, but they did not address any argument regarding the same. The trial court decided the issue against the respondents. The first respondent admitted in his evidence that the site plan of Shop No.3 was correct. This issue was not agitated in subsequent appeals or revisions.3. Execution of the Eviction Order and Objections Raised by the Tenants:After obtaining an eviction order, the appellant faced multiple objections from the respondents during the execution process. The respondents disputed the correctness of the boundaries of the shop and the identity of the property. The executing court repeatedly rejected these objections, holding that the issue was already settled in the original ejectment proceedings. The High Court, in a revision petition, also observed that the tenants' attempts were to delay their ejectment. Despite these rejections, the respondents continued to raise objections, leading to multiple warrants of possession being issued and not executed.4. High Court's Handling of the Objections and Issuance of Warrants of Possession:The High Court, in its impugned order, directed the executing court to first consider the objections raised by the respondents before issuing warrants of possession. The High Court also ordered the restoration of possession to the respondents. The Supreme Court found this order erroneous, noting that the objection regarding the site plan was already settled and could not be re-agitated in the execution proceedings. The High Court's observation that the shop in question was not the one regarding which the eviction order was passed was contrary to the finding in the original proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondents' objections were a tactic to delay the eviction and abuse the judicial process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned order with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000, emphasizing that courts should be vigilant against litigants who misuse the judicial process to delay the execution of decrees. The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings and ensuring that decree holders can enjoy the fruits of their decrees without undue delay.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found