<?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>1997 (5) TMI 427 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175960</link>
    <description>A final eviction order under Section 21 of the Mamlatdar&#039;s Court Act, 1906 could be executed despite a long lapse of time because the special statute prescribed no limitation for execution. The general law of limitation was treated as excluded by necessary implication where the special enactment governed the field. The plea that execution had to be initiated within a reasonable time was rejected, and the order was held executable at any time; the delay-based objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:17:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 427 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175960</link>
      <description>A final eviction order under Section 21 of the Mamlatdar&#039;s Court Act, 1906 could be executed despite a long lapse of time because the special statute prescribed no limitation for execution. The general law of limitation was treated as excluded by necessary implication where the special enactment governed the field. The plea that execution had to be initiated within a reasonable time was rejected, and the order was held executable at any time; the delay-based objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>