<?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>2005 (8) TMI 721 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198720</link>
    <description>A Lok Adalat award under the Legal Services Authorities Act is deemed to be a civil court decree, final and binding, and enforceable in the same manner as a decree. The court must give practical effect to the compromise rather than defeat it on technical objections. Correctly addressed notice and the postal endorsement raised a presumption of service, and the returned notice with a subsequent telegram supported readiness and willingness to perform. The executing court could grant time for deposit in appropriate circumstances, so the High Court should not interfere with that exercise of jurisdiction. The respondent remained bound to execute the sale deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 721 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198720</link>
      <description>A Lok Adalat award under the Legal Services Authorities Act is deemed to be a civil court decree, final and binding, and enforceable in the same manner as a decree. The court must give practical effect to the compromise rather than defeat it on technical objections. Correctly addressed notice and the postal endorsement raised a presumption of service, and the returned notice with a subsequent telegram supported readiness and willingness to perform. The executing court could grant time for deposit in appropriate circumstances, so the High Court should not interfere with that exercise of jurisdiction. The respondent remained bound to execute the sale deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>