• Execution  - Meaning - The word ‘execution’ in its widest sense signifies the enforcement of or giving effect to the judgments or orders of the court of justice. In a narrower sense, it means the enforcement of those judgments or orders by a public officer under the writs of fierifacias, possession, delivery, sequestration, fierifacias de bonisecclesiaticis, etc – Words and phrases – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 25 and 27. (2018)2 SCeJ 1166
  • Execution  - The whole purpose of Execution proceedings is to enforce the verdict of the court -  Executing court while executing the decree is only concerned with the execution part of it but nothing else - The court has to take the judgment in its face value - It is settled law that executing court cannot go beyond the decree - But the difficulty arises when there is ambiguity in the decree with regard to the material aspects - Then it becomes the bounden duty of the court to interpret the decree in the process of giving a true effect to the decree - At that juncture the executing court has to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretation and conscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree - The executing court shall strike a fine balance between the two while exercising this jurisdiction in the process of giving effect to the decree - In conclusion, reading the judgment as a whole, without undertaking a piece meal approach, interpreting the decree in a manner which may amount to substitution of a new decree is not countenanced under law  - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 25 and 27 – Execution of decree.  (2018)2 SCeJ 1166
  • Execution – Determination of the relevant date for conversion of currency  - In a case of this nature the only remedy available to the court is either to look at the terms of the contract or in the absence of the same to follow the procedure laid down by this court in Forasol v. ONGC, 1984 (Supp.) SCC 263 - In the light of the ratio laid down in supra, in determining the relevant date for conversion of currency, the first procedure to be adopted by the court is to decide the same in accordance with terms of the contract, if such a clause is not available in the agreement then the courts have to determine the best possible date, then this court went ahead and dealt with the procedure to be adopted -  But in the present facts that exercise is not relevant as there is a specific clause in the agreement i.e clause 17 which deals with rate of interest - The clause clearly says that currency should be converted into rupees at the bank buying rate of exchange at Mumbai on the date of relevant shipment -  A close look at the relevant order of the forum also discloses that the district forum has granted interest on the amount from 24.7.2002 which can be construed that the District Forum though has not mentioned about clause 17 of the agreement but taking in to consideration the very same clause has given interest from that day - The interpretation given by District Forum as well as the State Commission to the order dt. 12.10.2006 is contrary to the terms of the agreement and amounts to drawing a new decree which is not permissible - We are unable to agree with the contention that the NCDRC has gone beyond the decree and the NCDRC ought not to have gone into clause 17 are meritless hence rejected - In a case of this nature the only remedy available to the court is either to look at the terms of the contract or in the absence of the same to follow the procedure laid down by this court in the above stated judgment - The order passed by NCDRC is strictly in accordance with the settled legal position and we do not find any infirmity with the order - Therefore, it is clear that as per the insurance contract, the respondent insurer was required to pay the insurance claim in accordance with the conversion rate of the invoiced foreign currency in Indian rupee as per the bank buying rate of interest at Mumbai on the date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issued. Held, there is no dispute about the fact that the liability of the respondent company to a tune of 90% value of 11875.75 Euros with interest at the rate of 12% from 24.7.2002 has attained finality. Admittedly, during the pendency of the execution proceedings an amount of Rs. 4,86,953 as 90% value of 11,875.75 Euros as on 24.4.2002 and interest thereon of Rs. 6,33,653 as directed by the court were paid by the respondent herein. Both the State Commission and District Commission interpreted the order dt 12.10.2006 observing that Euro conversion rate has to be calculated as on the date of payment and hence the respondent company has to pay the remaining amount. However the NCDRC has taken a different view while interpreting clause 17 of the agreement and concluded that conversion rate has to be as on the date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issued and as the full amount with the same calculation is paid by the respondent, NCDRC has dismissed the revision petition. (2018)2 SCeJ 1166

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

5 UPDATES A WEEK  

Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp

 

FREE with

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/-punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502 

 

  • Execution - Though normally the executing court cannot go beyond the decree, this principle will not apply in cases where the decree is not in accordance with law and suffers from the fundamental vice of a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction - Punjab Tenancy Act 1887(16 of 1887) S. 77 (3)(e) - Wakf Act 1995 (29 of 1995). (182) PLR
  • Execution - Objections - Respondents in their suit specifically set up the family settlement under which their predecessor became exclusive owner of the suit property by virtue of family settlement with his real brother - Both the brothers were owners of the suit property and by virtue of family settlement, the respondents' predecessor became exclusive owner thereof - Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have raised objection regarding stamp duty and registration in the written statement filed. (173) PLR