<?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>1950 (10) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200692</link>
    <description>Execution proceedings must be properly presented through valid authority, and a power of attorney is strictly construed to the authority actually conferred. Here, the execution application sent by post was treated as not properly presented, and the advocate&#039;s authority was found invalid because the foundational authority was not adequately proved. The petition also failed to contain the mandatory particulars required under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, including the procedural history of prior execution applications, and the defects were not cured. On limitation, the steps relied upon did not constitute a valid step-in-aid, so the execution application was held to be time-barred. The objections to execution were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:02:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (10) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200692</link>
      <description>Execution proceedings must be properly presented through valid authority, and a power of attorney is strictly construed to the authority actually conferred. Here, the execution application sent by post was treated as not properly presented, and the advocate&#039;s authority was found invalid because the foundational authority was not adequately proved. The petition also failed to contain the mandatory particulars required under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, including the procedural history of prior execution applications, and the defects were not cured. On limitation, the steps relied upon did not constitute a valid step-in-aid, so the execution application was held to be time-barred. The objections to execution were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>