Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mandatory injunctions in M/S Nirman Construction And Anr vs M/S Epfo Delhi South Region And Ors on 24 February, 2024Matching Fragments
37.The Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in Chief Engineer Central Zone v. Dayal Construction Co., AIR 2005 UTR 34 has highlighted the illegality in granting a mandatory injunction for a dispute for which a suit for recovery of money is maintainable. It was held as under:
"The most astonishing part of the story in this case is that the trial Court has completely shut its eyes to the provisions of Court Fee Act, 1870, and that of Specific Relief Act, 1963 as a mandatory injunction has been issued for payment of Rs. 4,71,852 by the learned trial Court. What appears to have been permitted by Courts below is that since for recovery of money, rate of payable court-fee is higher, the mandatory injunction has been issued for which only Rupees 500/- is maximum Court fees. Injunctions are issued under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 39, contained in Chapter VIII of said Act, which deals with the mandatory injunctions, reads as under:
"39. Mandatory injunctions -When, to prevent the breach of obligations, it is necessary, to. compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing, the Court may in its discretion grant an injunction to, prevent the, breach, complaint of and also to compel performance of the requisite acts."
In view of the said provision, a mandatory injunction SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
40.In the considered opinion of the Court, the plaintiff is not entitled to the mandatory injunctions as sought for as the first relief is time barred and the second relief is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.
41.Even on merits, the plaintiff has not brought on record any proof to show that the account maintained by the defendant has not been updated for the disputed period, apart from the period admitted by the defendant. The testimonies of plaintiff witnesses and cross-examination of defendant's witness also do not provide much help to the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to establish her case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.