https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440371 Article 226 confers judicial review, not executory jurisdiction, so a writ court cannot use a fresh petition to enforce performance of crystallised obligations or determine implementation calculations under earlier orders. Where disobedience is intentional, contempt proceedings are the proper remedy; where the writ order is otherwise capable of execution, enforcement lies through execution proceedings under the Original Side Rules, as a writ order is treated as a decree for that purpose. In the present matter, a calculation exercise had already been undertaken by consent and was still continuing, so the Court declined to grant the executory relief sought in the writ proceedings. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:30:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440371 Article 226 confers judicial review, not executory jurisdiction, so a writ court cannot use a fresh petition to enforce performance of crystallised obligations or determine implementation calculations under earlier orders. Where disobedience is intentional, contempt proceedings are the proper remedy; where the writ order is otherwise capable of execution, enforcement lies through execution proceedings under the Original Side Rules, as a writ order is treated as a decree for that purpose. In the present matter, a calculation exercise had already been undertaken by consent and was still continuing, so the Court declined to grant the executory relief sought in the writ proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440371