Sri Raj Paul vs Sri Sudarsan Sharma on 6 March, 2017
In Dorab Caswasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden
and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117, the apex court has
observed as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
21 - 30 of 624 (0.41 seconds)Metro Marins & Anr vs Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 10 September, 2004
In such a
situation issuance of mandatory injunction directing the handing over the
possession in favour of the plaintiff would be unsustainable in law and is
contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji
Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden (supra). Learned counsel also pointed
out that the fact that the property in question is not used for commercial
purposes or is in the possession of a Caretaker are irrelevant facts for the
purpose of deciding whether an interim mandatory injunction to hand over
possession should be granted or not.
Chinnayyan Nadar vs Selvi on 10 July, 2006
"9. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the documents produced, we are satisfied that the impugned
order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. As
noticed by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs Coomi Sorab Warden
(Supra) has held that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in
exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgment. In
our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not come under anyone of
those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case which calls for the
issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession being
handed over to the respondent. As observed by the learned single Judge the
issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession is yet to be decided in
the Trial Court and granting of any interim order directing handing over of a
possession would only mean decreeing the suit even before trial. Once the
possession of the appellant either directly of through his agent (caretaker) is
admitted then the fact that the appellant is not using the said property for
commercial purpose or not using the same for any beneficial purpose of the
appellant has to pay huge amount by way of damages in the event of his loosing
the case or the fact that the litigation between the parties is a luxury
litigation are all facts which are irrelevant for changing the status quo in
regard to possession during the pendency of the suit".
Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & Ors vs Shrichand Vishandas ... on 6 May, 2011
"9. Having considered the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the documents
produced, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the
appellate court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law.
As noticed by this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji
Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden it has held that an interim
mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional
cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said
judgment. In our opinion, the case of the respondent herein
does not come under any one of those exceptions and even
on facts it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of
an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession
being handed over to the respondent."
Smt.Hameeda Begam vs Inder Kumar Jain on 1 February, 2017
25. It was argued by Shri Hafizulla, learned counsel for the
appellant that, the suit house is a dwelling house which
belongs to undivided family of the plaintiff. He is not the
member of family of plaintiff, but a stranger; therefore, he
cannot enter into joint possession with members of undivided
-20- F.A. No.664/2006
family. Inviting the attention of this Court towards provision
of Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act., and Section 4 of
the Partition Act. Shri Hafizulla argued that, Inder Kumar Jain
has no right to remain in possession of suit house and if he
has wrongly been given the possession of house then he is
liable to be evicted and mandatory injunction to evict him
can be granted. He relied upon case laws, Dorab Cawasji
Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden, AIR 1990 SC 867,
Bhuban Mohan Guha and another Vs. Brojendra
Chandra Ghose and Others, (28) AIR 1941 Calcutta
311, Dulal Chandra Chatterjee vs. Gosthabehari
Mitra, AIR 1953 Calcutta 259 (Vol.40 C.N.94), Ashim
Ranjan Das Vs. Sm. Bimla Ghosh and Others, AIR
1992 Calcutta 44.
Smt. J C Dhanamani vs Dr Raviprakash on 20 April, 2023
" 6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that merely for the reason
that the party who seeks temporary injunction makes out a
prima facie case, the court will not be justified in granting
the injunction. His submission is that after establishing
prima facie case the person who seeks temporary
injunction will have to establish that the balance of
convenience is in his favour and that in case injunction is
refused, irreparable injury will be caused to him. The
learned counsel then relies on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden
(AIR 1990 SC 867). After referring to various English
decisions the court observed as follows:
Smt. J C Dhanamani vs Dr Raviprakash on 20 April, 2023
" 6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that merely for the reason
that the party who seeks temporary injunction makes out a
prima facie case, the court will not be justified in granting
the injunction. His submission is that after establishing
prima facie case the person who seeks temporary
injunction will have to establish that the balance of
convenience is in his favour and that in case injunction is
refused, irreparable injury will be caused to him. The
learned counsel then relies on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden
(AIR 1990 SC 867). After referring to various English
decisions the court observed as follows:
R.K. Narang vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation on 24 December, 2011
28. The Supreme Court quoted some of the English judgments with
approval in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden &
Others (1990) 2 SCC 117 and it will be sufficient to refer only to one such
case namely Shepherd Homes Ltd. V. Sandham (1970) 3 All England
Reporter in which it was said as under:
Vishal Gupta vs L & T Finance Limited on 9 September, 2009
31. It was observed in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden
AIR 1990 SC 867 as under (AIR, p.873-74):
Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha And ... vs A.D.J., Court No.16, Muzaffarnagar And ... on 6 November, 2017
In our view, the judgment of this Court in Dorab Cawasji case clinches the issue. Although the evidence in the present appeal shows that two of the Pai brothers were residing elsewhere, there is no evidence to show that qua the suit property, the Pai brothers had separated or that there was any inter se partition effected vis-à-vis the suit property.