The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court rejected the judgment debtor’s argument that a compromise clause allowing an aggrieved party to approach the court displaced execution of the decree.
Judge / Bench — Justice Rajnesh Oswal
The petitioner’s payment obligation to the first respondent had fallen due and could be enforced through execution. Payments to the second respondent, however, were not due until March-April 2027 and could not be executed prematurely. The decision distinguishes an enforceable compromise decree from a mere agreement and requires separate examination of each creditor’s payment schedule. For drafting and execution practice, counsel should identify the decretal obligation, the event or date triggering payment and the relief presently due, rather than treat a general approach-to-court clause as excluding the ordinary execution remedy.
Case — Zahid Mushtaq Dar, Director, Alfalah Agri Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shahnawaz Ahmad Khan and another · CM(M) 438/2026 · 6 October 2026 · Srinagar wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Mr. Shabir Ahmad Dar, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. P. S Ahmad, Advocate.