Search Results Page

Search Results

31 - 40 of 624 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

Western Electricity Supply Company Of ... vs Odisha Electricity Regulatory ... on 21 April, 2015

"There is yet another dimension to the issues arising in the present appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the Appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to handover possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the Court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. It is, indeed, a rare power, the governing principles whereof would hardly require Page 44 of 49 Appeal No.64 of 2015 a reiteration inasmuch as the same which had been evolved by this Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi SorabWarden & Ors. has come to be firmly embedded in our jurisprudence......"
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anal Apartments Co.Op. Housing Society ... vs M/S. Kushagra Developers, Partnership ... on 26 September, 2018

18. There is yet another dimension to the issues arising in the present appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the Appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to handover possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the Court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. It is, indeed, a rare power, the governing principles whereof would hardly require a reiteration inasmuch as the same which had been evolved by this Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others has come to be firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - C L Soni - Full Document

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh And Ors. vs K.B. Wagh, Presiding Officer, 11Th ... on 30 September, 1993

7. On the question of interim relief, Mr. Gokhale contends that the third respondent has made out a prima facie case on merits and having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors. (supra), the workman was entitled to an interim relief. Balance of convenience clearly lay in his favour in granting the interim order.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh Sachdeva vs Ashok Monga on 3 December, 2014

Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors., 1990 1 SCR 332 _______________________________________________________________________ CM (M) No.1360 of 2012 Page 7 of 13 "The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non- contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted. But since the granting or non-granting of such an injunction may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to one of the parties, the Courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated, the guidelines are:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Waziri - Full Document

Jenson And Nicholson (India) Ltd. vs Assha Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 14 October, 1993

It is already judicially recognised [vide the cases of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, and Fhanibhusan Dey v. Sudhanmoi Roy, AIR 1987 (2) CHN 49] that in case the plaintiff or the applicant becomes unsuccessful, the restored supply may again be discontinued or may be allowed to be enjoyed by the legally entitled occupant of the property.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal & Another vs Caravan Commercial Company Limited on 17 January, 2023

35. It is further claimed that the principles for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 are not satisfied in the present case as though the suit property was owned by three sisters-in-law, they were not an undivided family, but merely co-owners, they all never lived in the suit property as a family and, therefore, they are not entitled to the relief as claimed by the plaintiffs. There is neither any dwelling house nor an undivided family for CS(OS) 1587/2011 & CS(OS) 1561/1994 Page 13 of 31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:17.01.2023 15:38:12 2023/DHC/000326 which reliance has been on Jeevan Diesel and Electricals Limited vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 601, Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273, Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491, Narashimaha Murthy vs. Susheelabai (1996) (3) SCC 644, Sunil Gupta vs. Nargis Khanna185 (2011) DLT 760, Dorab Caswasji Warden vs. Coomisarab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 and Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) (1992) 4 SCC 363.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Leela Dhar Gera & Anr. vs Special Judge S.C.S.T. Act/A.D.J. ... on 11 May, 2011

In paragraph 16 of the Cawasji Warden's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status-quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted. Granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom such order has been granted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document

Kudla Rampage vs Sri Harshendra Kumar D on 1 August, 2025

18. There is yet another dimension to the issues arising in the present appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to hand over possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. It is, indeed, a rare power, the governing principles whereof would hardly require a reiteration inasmuch as the same which had been evolved by this Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden [(1990) 2 SCC 117] has come to be firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Veena Kohli vs Rawal Apartments Pvt. Ltd. on 22 January, 1998

11. Power of the court to grant temporary injunction in the form of a mandatory injunction has been considered by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden . After referring to the English law including law from Halsbury's, the American law and also the Indian case law broad guidelines/principles have been summarised in paras 14 and 15 as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - J B Goel - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3 4   5 6 7 8 9 10 Next