<?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>2004 (3) TMI 834 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457611</link>
    <description>Simultaneous execution of the same decree in more than one court is not maintainable unless the court that passed the decree first grants permission. The execution framework allows enforcement by the decree court or, after transfer, by the transferee court, and the Original Side Rules do not bar execution in multiple fora. However, concurrent execution is exceptional because it may prejudice the judgment-debtor, so the decree court retains supervisory control and must be satisfied that such a course is justified before allowing it to proceed. Execution petitions filed without that prior permission were therefore held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:06:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 834 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457611</link>
      <description>Simultaneous execution of the same decree in more than one court is not maintainable unless the court that passed the decree first grants permission. The execution framework allows enforcement by the decree court or, after transfer, by the transferee court, and the Original Side Rules do not bar execution in multiple fora. However, concurrent execution is exceptional because it may prejudice the judgment-debtor, so the decree court retains supervisory control and must be satisfied that such a course is justified before allowing it to proceed. Execution petitions filed without that prior permission were therefore held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>