https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181588 Execution objections cannot reopen issues that have already attained finality in earlier proceedings; once the validity of the sale, compromise, delivery of possession, and related execution steps has been conclusively decided, fresh objections on the same points are not maintainable. The Supreme Court also clarified that an appellate court is not bound to remit a matter merely because the order under appeal is non-speaking; it may decide the dispute on merits where remand would only prolong long-pending litigation. The operative principle is that finality of prior orders bars re-agitation, while remand remains a matter of judicial discretion, not an automatic consequence of absence of reasons. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181588 Execution objections cannot reopen issues that have already attained finality in earlier proceedings; once the validity of the sale, compromise, delivery of possession, and related execution steps has been conclusively decided, fresh objections on the same points are not maintainable. The Supreme Court also clarified that an appellate court is not bound to remit a matter merely because the order under appeal is non-speaking; it may decide the dispute on merits where remand would only prolong long-pending litigation. The operative principle is that finality of prior orders bars re-agitation, while remand remains a matter of judicial discretion, not an automatic consequence of absence of reasons. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181588