Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.92 seconds)

Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs Anil Kumar Sahay on 8 November, 2019

In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of status quo wherein the order of status quo has been passed has considered the factual aspect and given observation along with the finding that the prima facie case is to be shown before passing interim order of maintaining status quo. It is settled position of law that the judgment will have its binding effect if any ratio has been laid down and the judgment rendered by the higher Court is not ipso facto applicable rather it depends on the facts and circumstances of each and every case, herein the fact is not pertaining to eviction of the tenant rather the suit herein pertains to the declaration of right and title and when the trial court after taking into consideration the nature of issues which is to be adjudicated i.e., pertaining to title, as such after taking into consideration the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has passed an order, therefore, on fact the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. vs. Praveen Kumar Singh (supra) is not applicable in this case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Vivek Shantaram Kokate And 10 Ors vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 19 August, 2019

11 In Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr v Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312, the Supreme Court said it was not proper to order a status quo (there, in Page 10 of 19 19th August 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 01:34:33 ::: Vivek Shantaram Kokate & Ors v MCGM & Ors OSWP-931-2019-D.doc status quo against natural elements. It is one in one thing to direct to parties to a contract to maintain the status quo. This may be an order against one person seeking another's eviction. This has no application whatsoever to a situation where the complaint is about the deterioration day by day of the physical condition of a built structure exposed to the elements.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 12 - G S Patel - Full Document

Veena H. Hinduja And Anr vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019

24. The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in Kishore Kumar Khaitan v Praveen Kumar Singh,4 saying that a mandatory injunction, being possible only in exceptional circumstances, required the demonstration of prima facie materials justifying a fnding that one of the parties to the litigation had altered the status quo; and that justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Mohinder Rijhawani And 2 Ors vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019

24. The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in Kishore Kumar Khaitan v Praveen Kumar Singh,4 saying that a mandatory injunction, being possible only in exceptional circumstances, required the demonstration of prima facie materials justifying a fnding that one of the parties to the litigation had altered the status quo; and that justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - G S Patel - Full Document

Veena H. Hinduja And Anr vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019

24. The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in Kishore Kumar Khaitan v Praveen Kumar Singh,4 saying that a mandatory injunction, being possible only in exceptional circumstances, required the demonstration of prima facie materials justifying a fnding that one of the parties to the litigation had altered the status quo; and that justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Mohinder Rijhawani And 2 Ors vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019

24. The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in Kishore Kumar Khaitan v Praveen Kumar Singh,4 saying that a mandatory injunction, being possible only in exceptional circumstances, required the demonstration of prima facie materials justifying a fnding that one of the parties to the litigation had altered the status quo; and that justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Dilip Suryavanshi vs Shri Santosh Singh on 27 September, 2019

26. The case reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312 parties being Kishore Kumar Khaitan Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh has to be appreciated. The jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is of exceptional in nature and to be used in most exceptional cases where the court has acted arbitrarily, illegally and exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court can exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the validity of 18 W.P. Nos.14987/2016 & 15907/2016 the order passed by the subordinate court. It can also be exercised where it is shown that the grave injustice has been done, to aid any party.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramnarayan Nathuprasad Pande And 30 Ors vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 13 August, 2019

9 In Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr v Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312, the Supreme Court said it was not proper to order a status quo (there, in respect of premises) without indicating what the status quo was Page 17 of 27 13th August 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 19:59:53 ::: 7-OSWPL2217-17.DOC to a situation where the complaint is about the deterioration day by day of the physical condition of a built structure exposed to the elements.
1   2 Next