<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (9) TMI 952 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174373</link>
    <description>For execution petitions under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, limitation begins when the decree becomes enforceable on pronouncement of judgment, not when the formal decree is later drawn up and signed. The judgment operates as a deemed decree until the formal decree is prepared, and the CPC scheme, including Order XX Rules 6A and 7, supports execution from the date of judgment by requiring the decree to bear that date. The delay in drawing up the decree does not postpone enforceability, and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies only where court delay causes demonstrable prejudice. Sections 5 and 12(2) were held inapplicable to extend limitation in the manner claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:17:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 952 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174373</link>
      <description>For execution petitions under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, limitation begins when the decree becomes enforceable on pronouncement of judgment, not when the formal decree is later drawn up and signed. The judgment operates as a deemed decree until the formal decree is prepared, and the CPC scheme, including Order XX Rules 6A and 7, supports execution from the date of judgment by requiring the decree to bear that date. The delay in drawing up the decree does not postpone enforceability, and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies only where court delay causes demonstrable prejudice. Sections 5 and 12(2) were held inapplicable to extend limitation in the manner claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>