Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Appeal Dismissed Due to Res Judicata Bar, Property Attachment Essential for Mortgage Decree Enforcement</h1> <h3>Barkat Ali & Ors. Versus Badrinarain</h3> The court dismissed the appeal, holding that objections to the execution proceedings were barred by principles of constructive res judicata. It was also ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the execution proceedings were barred by limitation.2. Whether the objections to the execution proceedings were barred by principles of constructive res judicata.3. Whether the attachment of the property in execution of a mortgage decree was necessary.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the execution proceedings were barred by limitation:The appellants contended that the execution proceedings were barred by time, arguing that the court must examine the question of limitation even if no objection is raised. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Andhra Industrial Works vs. Chief Controller, Imports, which discussed jurisdictional defects and conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. However, the court found this reliance misplaced, stating that the issue was whether a plea of limitation affects the proceedings so fundamentally that it renders the exercise of jurisdiction a nullity from the inception. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ittyavira Mathai vs. Varkey Varkey, which held that a decree passed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties cannot be treated as a nullity even if the suit is barred by time. The court concluded that an erroneous decision on the question of limitation does not render the order void but must be corrected through appeal or revision.2. Whether the objections to the execution proceedings were barred by principles of constructive res judicata:The court held that the principle of constructive res judicata applies to execution proceedings. The court cited several precedents, including Raja of Ramnad vs. Velusami Tevar and Mohanlal Goenka vs. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors., which established that a decision on the question of limitation, even if erroneous, operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. The court emphasized that once the preliminary stage under Order XXI Rule 22 is concluded without objections, the judgment-debtor cannot raise objections at a later stage unless the order is appealed against and set aside. The court also dismissed the appellants' contention that interlocutory orders do not operate as res judicata, citing Satyadhyan vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar, which clarified that res judicata applies to different stages of the same suit and interlocutory orders that decide matters in issue.3. Whether the attachment of the property in execution of a mortgage decree was necessary:The appellants argued that in the execution of a mortgage decree, attachment of the property was unnecessary because the property was already subject to a charge. The court rejected this argument, stating that attachment under Order XXI Rule 54 acts as an injunction against the owner from alienating the property, whereas a mortgage only creates a charge as security for repayment. The court found no provision in the Civil Procedure Code that excludes the requirement of attachment before the sale of the property in execution of a decree. The court also disagreed with the Tripura High Court's decision in A. Choudhary & Co. vs. A.I. Syndicate, which suggested that a charge created by a court decree does not require attachment. The court concluded that the attachment of the property is necessary to prevent the owner from meddling with the property before the sale.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the court holding that the objections to the execution proceedings were barred by principles of constructive res judicata and that the attachment of the property was necessary in the execution of a mortgage decree. The court emphasized the importance of the principle of res judicata in ensuring the smooth progress of execution proceedings and preventing the re-agitation of issues that have already been decided.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found