CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

EXECUTION COURT CANNOT ALTER DECREE TERMS: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Krishna Murari, held that an execution court cannot go beyond the terms of a decree and alter its provisions. The judgment, titled Sanwarlal Agrawal & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Kothari & Ors., emphasized the sanctity of a decree and the need for its strict adherence.

The dispute in question arose from an email agreement for the sale of shares between the appellants and respondents who had entered into a joint venture agreement for a multi-specialty hospital. The disagreement centered around whether the agreed amount included an outstanding loan. The respondents contended that the loan amount was part of the agreed consideration, while the appellants disputed this inclusion.

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance, and a decree was passed on admission. However, during execution proceedings, the executing court interpreted the decree to include the loan amount. This interpretation was affirmed by the High Court. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Bhat stated, "Executing court erred in going behind the decree and expanding its scope by considering pleadings. The decree should be taken as it stands, and the court cannot alter or expand its terms." The court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of the decree and the parties' agreed-upon terms.

The court further highlighted that the joint venture agreement between the parties had a separate mechanism for settling outstanding loans. The inclusion of the loan amount in the decree was found to be an error by the executing court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment.

This landmark judgment reaffirms the principle that the terms of a decree should be strictly interpreted and executed as agreed upon by the parties. It provides clarity on the scope of an execution court's powers and ensures that the sanctity of a decree is upheld throughout the execution process.

Date of Decision: February 21, 2023

SANWARLAL AGRAWAL & ORS.    VS ASHOK KUMAR KOTHARI & ORS.  

Latest Legal News