Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006

M/S.Skol Breweries Ltd vs M/S.Sriram Engineering ... Opposite ... on 12 July, 2013

10. Applying the said principles in the case in hand, it is seen that the learned appellate court has not only misread the pleading but also has taken a wrong view of the case and addressed itself to determine the matter in hand. This Court is of the opinion that the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. V. Praveen Kumar Singh (supra) is applicable and the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsingpur is amenable for correction.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S K Mishra - Full Document

Imtiyaz Ahammad vs Abdulmunaf S/O Ibrahimsab Khatib, on 5 June, 2013

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner is right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN AND ANOTHER Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH [ILR :6: 2006 KAR 1975]. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellate court has not examined the matter in its proper perspective, exercising its appellate jurisdiction and recording proper findings with regard to the prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, if any, that may result, which are the essential conditions for granting an order of temporary injunction.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Harihar Behera @ Narahari Behera vs Ashok Kumar Das And Another ... Opposite ... on 30 October, 2013

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the reported case of KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN AND ANOTEHR VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH; (2006) 3 Supreme Court Case 312; wherein the Supreme Court has held that an order passed by the appellate court to maintain status quo in respect of suit premises without indicating what the status quo was, is not proper. In that case, the Supreme Court has further held that a court ask itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, applying this principle, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellate court neither asked itself a wrong question nor approached the question in an improper manner. So the allegation that the finding of facts given by the appellate court is without jurisdiction, is not tenable.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Mishra - Full Document

Baldev Singh Son Of S. Shiv Singh vs Nam Ratra International Education And ... on 19 September, 2013

Whether the petitioner usurped or not and whether the Trust had lawfully removed him or the society continued to run the administration would be essentially matters that would be considered only at the time of trial. At least prima facie, the alleged handing over management does not appear to be correct for the plaintiffs to have an immediate relief and to prevent the petitioner from managing the school on an averment made in the plaint that the petitioner was mismanaging the affairs and was indulging in anti-social and unlawful activities. Interim orders are passed for preservation of status quo except in rare cases where the mandatory relief is also given to enforce some new acts in order to secure a status quo ante. The Supreme Court has held in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh 2006(3) SCC 312 that status quo order passed by a Court without indicating what the status quo was, was improper.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Kannan - Full Document

Amar Singh And Others vs Dalel Chand on 18 November, 2013

13. The contempt petitions are the result of court's direction for retention of status quo which each party believed was in his possession. There is always an error to a court in granting a relief of status quo without actually setting out what the status quo is. The Supreme Court has observed in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh 2006 (2) SCR 176 that it will be improper for a court to issue status quo orders without setting out what the status quo is. If the contempt petitions have been filed, it was only because of the nature of the order that has been passed by this court and I will, therefore, not precipitate the mutual animosity between the parties by escalating to further stages and punishing any party. No act of the court can prejudice the party. I do not think that any further direction are necessary in this regard as well. Both contempt petitions are also dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K Kannan - Full Document

Syed Mahaboob Pasha S/O Late Syed Abdul ... vs C.Neha D/O Panduranga Shetty & Ors on 13 August, 2013

16. That is how the execution proceedings was proceeded with and the Executing Court executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit schedule property on 21.2.2013. In the light of the above observations, there cannot be any impediment for the Executing Court to deliver possession of the property. It is also necessary to state here that the application-I.A.No.I seeking an order of injunction filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the trial Court on 22.9.2012. This order has attained finality. The property is admittedly the joint family property. It is well established that Panduranga Shetty, who is the adult member, is the father of the plaintiffs and kartha of the family. Therefore, for the sale of the property belonging to joint family, permission of the Civil Court is not required as held by the Apex Court in SRI NARAYAN BAL's case (supra). It is also necessary to note that the court below without indicating what the status quo was, has directed the parties to 15 maintain status quo, which is again contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN's case (supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

M/S Bagmane Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Sri D Digambarnath on 13 November, 2013

3. AIR 2006 SC 1474 = 2006 (3) SCC 312 - KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN AND ANOTHER vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH "5. It is necessary to notice at this stage that in an original suit of this nature, it was not appropriate for the Additional District Judge to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo, without indicating what the status quo was. If he was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction. But simply directing the parties to maintain status quo without indicating what the status quo was, is not an order that should be passed at the initial stage of a litigation, especially when one court had found no reason to grant an ex parte order of injunction and the appellate court was dealing 11 with only the limited question whether an ad interim order of injunction should or should not have been granted by the trial court, since the appeal was only against the refusal of an ad interim ex parte order of injunction and the main application for injunction pending suit, was still pending before the trial court itself. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the Additional District Judge ought not to have passed an equivocal order like the one passed in the circumstances of the case. But of course, that aspect has relevance only to the extent that before ordering an interim mandatory injunction or refusing it, the court has first to consider whether the plaintiff has proved that he was in possession on the date of suit and on the date of the order and he had been dispossessed the next day. Unless a clear prima facie finding that the plaintiff was in possession on those dates is entered, an order for interim mandatory 12 injunction could not have been passed and any such order passed would be one without jurisdiction."
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Rajinder Kumar vs . Dinesh Kumar on 15 March, 2013

The Supreme Court in another case Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 held that "An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction."
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1