TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether clause (b) of the proviso to Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to an application filed before the clause was added, and whether the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to comply with its requirements before rejection.
Analysis: The expression "entertain" was understood to mean adjudicate upon or proceed to consider on merits, so the amended proviso governed proceedings pending when the court came to deal with the application. Clause (b) vested the court with discretion as to the amount of deposit and also empowered it to dispense with deposit for recorded reasons. In such circumstances, and especially where the application had been filed before the amendment and the parties had proceeded on the footing that the new requirement did not apply, the proper course was to allow an opportunity for compliance and, if necessary, remand the matter to the executing court for exercise of its discretion.
Conclusion: The amended clause applied to the pending application, but the applicant ought to have been given an opportunity to satisfy its requirements; refusal to do so was erroneous.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the matter was sent back to the executing court for decision according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural requirement introduced by amendment governs the stage of consideration of a pending application, the court should ordinarily afford an opportunity to comply with the requirement, particularly when the provision confers discretion on the court to regulate or dispense with compliance for recorded reasons.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
