Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GHAZIABAD versus SMT. JAIMALA

Decided
2 December 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 423 · 1996 INSC 1424

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 423, margin G

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Allahabad, made on May 10, 1996 in CR No. 352 of 1995. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts relating to the controversy in execution. It is now not in dispute that against the decree of the trial Court, the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appeal is now pending. When the respondent had taken out execution of the decree of the trial Court, the respondent had also filed another Revision No. 56/95 and the High Court has granted stay on May 15, 1995 of the execution of the decree. Thereafter without knowledge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, appears to have made a statement in the executing Court as well as in the High Court that no revision was filed against the order passed by the executing. Court. As a consequence, a direction was given in the impugned order to enforce the decree and exemplary costs were awarded. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the Court has stayed the execution of the decree and the appellant have under threat of contempt executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent. In view of the fact that sale deed has already been registered in favour of the respondent in execution of the decree, we decline to go into the question of the legality of the execution, in spite of the order of stay granted by the High Court in the aforesaid revision. However, whether the respondent requires to pay at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. yd. or at the rate of Rs. 800 per sq. yd. is the subject matter of the dispute in the pending appeal. Under these circumstances, the execution of the sale deed will be subject to the result in the appeal. Accordingly the imposition of the exemplary costs bythe High Court for a sum of Rs. 25,000 is not warranted on the facts in this case and is accordingly set aside.

p. 424, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 424, margin E