Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad 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.  

Similar News