Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs M/S. Raiganj Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd on 19 May, 2011

In our opinion the case of the writ petitioner herein does not come under the exceptions which has been noticed by the Supreme Court in Metro Marins's Case (Supra) relying on Borab Caswasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden. Therefore, it is not such a case where on exceptional ground an ad-interim mandatory injunction order directing the respondent authority to supply the BPL atta to the writ petitioner can be granted before the conclusion of the enquiry in terms of the show cause notice.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 44 - 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

Kokilaben vs Madhuben on 24 August, 2011

The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others (supra). The observations made in paragraphs 14 with regard to the guideline clearly provide that not only a prima facie case but balance of convenience and the comparative hardship is required to be considered. The Court is required to weigh the respective claimants and try to balance the same so that least harm is caused to either party. That has lead to the evolvement of the concept of comparative hardship, which again has a reference comparing the hardship that may be caused to either party, by passing the order. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in light of the circumstances and the developments which have taken place and also considering the provisions of Specific Relief Act, it could be said that, ultimately the right of the Appellants Plaintiffs should be protected for claiming the adequate damages. Therefore, if it could be compensated in terms of money, the injunction should not follow.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Malik vs Virinder Nehra & Ors. on 3 August, 2011

In this behalf, reference may be made to the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.1990(2) S.C.C. 117, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interim injunction must be granted to restore status quo and is not granted to establish a new state of things. It is yet to be determined during trial as to whether the renovation activity of the defendants is lawful or not. Pending such determination, the defendant cannot be compelled to restore the condition of the shops.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next