Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: second injunction application in M/S Legacy Global Project Private ... vs Sri. Shivakumar on 30 November, 2017Matching Fragments
3. The learned counsel for the appellant raises two points, the first being that the trial court, after granting an exparte order of temporary injunction gave three days time for complying under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which is opposed to mandate of law. Second point is that the application for temporary injunction has to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of granting an exparte order according to Order XXXIX Rule 3 A CPC. Contrary to this, the trial court, after passing an order on 19.09.2016, posted the case to 03.02.2017. Thus the trial court has grossly flouted the mandatory requirement to dispose of the application within 30 days from 19.09.2016. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan and other [(2000) 7 SCC 695] to argue further that inaction of the trial court has given rise to prefer an appeal and secondly to recommend for taking disciplinary action against the trial court judge.
7. The second point relates to disposal of application for temporary injunction within 30 days from the date when the court grants or passes an ad interim order by dispensing with notice to defendant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu (supra) has held as below:
"17. The aforesaid Rule casts a three-
pronged protection to the party against whom the ex parte injunction order was passed. First is the legal obligation that the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application of injunction within the period of thirty days. Second is, the legal obligation that if for any valid reasons the Court could not finally dispose of the application within the aforesaid time the Court has to record the reasons thereof in writing".