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: (i) Whether the appellant could assail the order passed on consent and recorded concession without having challenged the consent before the same court or pleaded lack of authority in appeal; (ii) whether the amount deposited during the appeal was to be treated as satisfaction of the decree or only as security for stay, with consequential release to the respondent.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant could assail the order passed on consent and recorded concession without having challenged the consent before the same court or pleaded lack of authority in appeal.
Analysis: The recorded concession that the work had been executed and the final bill prepared by the appellant remained unchallenged before the Single Judge. No plea was taken that the consent was wrongly recorded or that the officer who appeared lacked authority, and no action was shown to have been taken against him. In such circumstances, the judicial record could not be contradicted in appeal, and the appellant could not reopen the merits of the controversy behind a consent order.
Conclusion: The challenge to the consent order was not maintainable and the order could not be assailed by the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the amount deposited during the appeal was to be treated as satisfaction of the decree or only as security for stay, with consequential release to the respondent.
Analysis: The deposit was made in connection with stay of execution proceedings and not as payment in satisfaction of the decree. Since the respondent had not received the decretal benefit, the deposited amount could be released to the respondent, while leaving open the remedy of execution for any balance amount due.
Conclusion: The deposit was not treated as satisfaction of the decree and was ordered to be released to the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the consent-based decree in favour of the respondent was left undisturbed, with the deposited amount directed to be released and costs imposed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A consent order recording a concession, once not challenged before the court that passed it and not shown to rest on lack of authority, cannot be reopened in appeal, and a deposit made only to obtain stay of execution does not amount to satisfaction of the decree.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
