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 the execution court could cancel an earlier delivery recorded in execution proceedings and thereafter order a second delivery of the same properties.
Analysis: The earlier delivery was found to have been cancelled on an application alleging that the delivery record was false and that no real delivery had in fact been made. The inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. That power includes the authority to set aside an order obtained by fraud. The order cancelling the first delivery was also held to bind the sub-tarwad represented in those proceedings, and there was no basis to treat it as inoperative against the person now objecting to the second delivery.
Conclusion: The execution court was competent to cancel the first delivery and, after such cancellation, to order a second delivery. The challenge failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
