Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

Mr. Barun Kumar Nahar vs Parul Nahar & Anr. on 5 February, 2013

21. Ld. counsel for defendant No.1 heavily placed reliance on the preposition that grant of interim mandatory injunction in favour of the CS(OS) No. 2795/2011 Page 14 of 32 plaintiff would result in granting final relief to the plaintiff and secondly that the grant of interim mandatory injunction can be granted only to restore the status quo ante. To support his argument counsel for defendant No.1 placed reliance on the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors. (supra). Counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance on the same case to counter the argument of counsel for defendant No. 1. The Apex Court in this case observed that the relief of interlocutory and mandatory injunction is generally granted 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 or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. The following paras from the said judgment would further amplify the legal position.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 57 - K Gambhir - Full Document

M/S.Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt.Ltd. vs Shri Dattaram Gajanan Kavtankar on 13 March, 2013

In my view Mr.Madon, the learned senior counsel was right in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) in support of his plea that the plaintiff has to make out a strong case for trial and unless such case is made out, no interim relief can be granted. In my view, the learned senior counsel is also right in his submission that the relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status and such discretion shall be based on sound exercise of a judicial discretion and such grant of mandatory based on the sound discretion of the court has to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned senior counsel submits and is right in my view that in this case, no such case is made out by Mr.Kavtankar to grant any such interim measures and more particularly in the nature of mandatory injunction which has effect of grant of specific performance at the stage of deciding application under section 9 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S.Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt.Ltd. vs Shri Dattaram Gajanan Kavtankar on 13 March, 2013

In my view Mr.Madon, the learned senior counsel was right in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) in support of his plea that the plaintiff has to make out a strong case for trial and unless such case is made out, no interim relief can be granted. In my view, the learned senior counsel is also right in his submission that the relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status and such discretion shall be based on sound exercise of a judicial discretion and such grant of mandatory based on the sound discretion of the court has to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned senior counsel submits and is right in my view that in this case, no such case is made out by Mr.Kavtankar to grant any such interim measures and more particularly in the nature of mandatory injunction which has effect of grant of specific performance at the stage of deciding application under section 9 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Amba Lal & Ors vs Dadhimati Mataji Mandir Pranyas & Ors on 1 August, 2013

Reliance was place on a large number of judgments in support of the contentions noticed hereinbefore; Suraj Ratan Thirani & Ors. v. Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd. & Ors. : AIR 1965 SC 295, Parashram Harnand Rao v. Shanti Parsad Narinder : (1980) 3 SCC 565, Smt. Malti v. Ramesh Kumar : AIR 2006 Delhi 271, Govardhan Das through L/R's v. Som Dutt : (2007) 3 RLW 2389, Smt. Mohnit Devi v. Rajasthan State Financial Co. Jaipur : 1978 WLN (UC) 556, Satyanarayan v. Shanti Lal (1993) 1 RLR 753, U.I.T. & Anr. v. Leela Devi : 1987 WLN (UC) 551, Inderjeet v. Kulbhushan Jain : (2009) 15 SCC 79 and Dorab Chawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors. : (1990) 2 SCC 117.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Upkar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. vs Shri Shri Bhagwan Goyal (Deceased) And ... on 11 January, 2013

12. Shri Navin Sinha has relied upon Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others AIR 1990 SC 867 and M/s Julien Educational Trust vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy and others 2010 (78) ALR 898 in support of his argument for grant of injunction in a case where a suit for specific performance of contract has been filed by the plaintiffs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

M/S.Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt.Ltd. vs Shri Dattaram Gajanan Kavtankar on 13 March, 2013

In my view Mr.Madon, the learned senior counsel was right in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) in support of his plea that the plaintiff has to make out a strong case for trial and unless such case is made out, no interim relief can be granted. In my view, the learned senior counsel is also right in his submission that the relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status and such discretion shall be based on sound exercise of a judicial discretion and such grant of mandatory based on the sound discretion of the court has to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned senior counsel submits and is right in my view that in this case, no such case is made out by Mr.Kavtankar to grant any such interim measures and more particularly in the nature of mandatory injunction which has effect of grant of specific performance at the stage of deciding application under section 9 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Tecnimont Icb Pvt .Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd on 30 August, 2013

In support of the submission that the ex parte ad-interim relief granted in the present case is mandatory in nature, learned Senior Advocate Shri Mihir Joshi has drawn attention of the Court to the decisions in the cases of (1) State Bank of Patiala and others vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, (2010)4 SCC 368, (2) Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and ors., (1990)2 SCC 117, (3) Inhouse Productions Pvt.Ltd.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - R D Kothari - Full Document

Soumyendra Roy Choudhury vs Uco Bank & Ors on 29 November, 2013

In dealing with the submissions made with regard to the power of the Court to grant mandatory interlocutory injunction at the interlocutory stage. It was submitted that the cases referred to by the petitioner relate to wrongful dispossession from immovable property and after restoration of possession thereof. Dorab Cawasji (supra) was distinguished by contending that it was a case of transfer under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. All the English judgments have been noted in paragraph 11 and Indian and Indian judgments have been noted in paragraph 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that relief of interlocutory mandatory injunction are granted generally to preserve or restore status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the controversy. In the instant case, there is no question of status quo or preserving the status quo which preceded the pending controversy. The plaintiff was not a director when the impugned decision was given by the Nomination Committee on 24th May, 2013. The last time the plaintiff was a director was in 2003. The guidelines given by the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 are three-fold. It is submitted that the plaintiff has failed to make out a strong case for trial. Balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and no irreparable of serious injury has been shown by the plaintiff. It is submitted that far from granting mandatory injunction, no injunction should at all be passed on the merits of the case as made out by the plaintiff. There is no adequate pleading of balance of convenience or irreparable injury.
Calcutta High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - S Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next