Dismissed¶19

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Industries and Commerce) v. Reyaz Ahmad Qureshi

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Execution proceedings

J&K HC1 Aug 2025CM(M)/304/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; execution petition; scope and limits of Executing Court; decree compliance report; release and disbursement of 100% subsidy on 31 equipments; objections by Judgment Debtors; no coercive measures; fresh decision within one month; High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar; CM (M) No. 304/2025; UT of J&K and Ors v. Reyaz Ahmad Qureshi; Sanjay Dhar, J.; order dated 01.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; however, the Executing Court was directed to furnish the documents produced by the Decree Holder to the Judgment Debtors for a fresh decision within one month, with no coercive measures to be taken in the interim. ¶19

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Industries and… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the Executing Court's order dated 22 April 2025 directing the Judgment Debtors to submit a fresh compliance report.

¶19

Court's answer

The Executing Court has not passed any order beyond the scope of the decree, nor has it taken any coercive measures against the Judgment Debtors; therefore, this is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The learned Executing Court is directed to furnish to the Judgment Debtors the documents produced by the Decree Holder before it; the Judgment Debtors shall consider the said documents and take a fresh decision within a period of one month, and until such fresh decision is taken no coercive measures shall be taken by the Executing Court against the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Execution proceedings — Executing Court (Sub-Judge/CJM, Srinagar) directed Judgment Debtors No. 1, 3 and 4 to submit a fresh compliance report within one month, after observing that the Decree Holder had produced all necessary documents — Trial Court decree dated 04.05.2023 had directed Defendants No. 3 and 4 to process the plaintiff's case for release and disbursement of 100% subsidy on all (31) equipments — Held: the Executing Court had not passed any order beyond the scope of the decree, nor taken any coercive measures against the Judgment Debtors; not a fit case for exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 — Petition dismissed — Executing Court directed to furnish the documents produced by the Decree Holder to the Judgment Debtors, who to consider them and take a fresh decision within one month; no coercive measures in the interim (Sanjay Dhar, J.).

¶1

Serial No. 107 Supp Cause List.

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CM (M) No. 304/2025 CM No. 4830/2025.

¶4

UT OF J AND K AND ORS

¶5

…Petitioner (s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Waseem Gull, GA.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

REYAZ AHMAD QURESHI.

¶9

…Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

01.08.2025

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 22 April 2025, passed by the Executing Court ( Sub-Judge/CJM) Srinagar whereby a direction has been issued to the Judgment Debtors No. 1, 3, and 4 to submit a fresh compliance report within a period of one month.

¶15

Heard and considered.

¶16

It appears that, vide Judgment and Decree dated 4^th of May 2023, the learned Trial Court had directed Defendants No. 3 and 4 to process the plaintiff's case for the release and disbursement of 100% subsidy amount in respect of all (31) equipments. It appears that when the decree was not complied with by the Judgment Debtors, the Decree Holder filed an Execution petition before the Executing Court. The Judgment Debtors, in response, filed objections to the Execution petition, wherein it was, inter alia, contended that the Decree

¶17

Holder did not furnish the requisite documents, and, as such, the claim was rejected.

¶18

In the impugned order, the Executing Court has observed that the Decree Holder has produced all the necessary documents before the court. Consequently, the Court directed the Judgment Debtors to reconsider the case of the Decree Holder afresh.

¶19

Having regard to the fact that the Executing Court has not passed any order beyond the scope of the decree, nor has it taken any coercive measures against the Judgment Debtors, the present case does not appear to be fit one where this Court should exercise its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition as such, is dismissed .

¶20

However, it is directed that the learned Executing Court shall furnish the documents, as produced by the Decree Holder before it, to the Judgment Debtors, who shall consider the said documents and take a fresh decision in the matter within a period of one month. It is further provided that, until a fresh decision is taken by the Judgment Debtors, within the aforesaid period no coercive measures shall be taken by the Executing Court against the Petitioners/Judgment

¶21

Debtors.

¶22

Disposed of.

¶23

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

¶24

SRINAGAR 01.08.2025 Showkat Khan

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Industries and Commerce) v. Reyaz Ahmad Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Industries and Commerce) v. Reyaz Ahmad Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Khalil Shah and Ors. Vs Mohammad Yousuf Shah and Ors.

Shafaq Afshan, Principal Delhi Public School Vs Mosab Wani (Minor)

Noor Mohd Vs Fakar Din Others

Noor Mohd Vs Fakar Din and Others

Mst Saleema Akhter Vs Abdul Majeed Tantray and Anr.

Hdfc Bank Private Limited Vs Shahnawaz Ahmad Baba and Anr.

Nirmal Khajuria and Others Vs Raj Kumar

Yawar Abbas Bhat Vs Zehra Nazir

M/S Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Limited and Ors. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Zaffar Ahmad Jan and Ors. Vs Sanjeev Verma and Ors. (Forest Department)

Abdul Majeed Mir and Ors. Vs Ali Mohammad Mir

Nazim Ahmad Sheikh Vs Union Territory through Police Station Karnah (Home)

Dr. Shazia Salam Vs Union Territory of J and K and Others. (Health and Medical Education Department)

Safeer Ahmad Bhat Vs Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home Department)