Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (2.76 seconds)
Documents citing Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

Arun Pathak vs Vijay Sarma on 6 October, 2021

"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 [(1990) 2 SCC 117] 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. As observed by the learned Single Judge the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession is yet to be decided in the trial court and granting of any interim order directing Page No.# 11/12 handing over of possession would only mean decreeing the suit even before trial. Once the possession of the appellant either directly or 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 or the appellant has to pay huge amount by way of damages in the event of he losing 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."
Gauhati High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - P Saikia - Full Document

Jujhar Singh vs M/S Hotz Industries Ltd on 12 January, 2021

3. The aforesaid would show that the learned Single Judge took notice of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 117, wherein it had been held that illegal possession can be corrected, even by directing status quo ante, and directing injunction against the defendants not to enter into possession of an undivided joint family residential house by exercising powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Seena Niwas Co-Operative Housing ... vs Roshanlal S. Medh And 6 Ors on 9 March, 2021

In this behalf, the decision of this court in Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden 8 has analyzed precedents and found that the plaintiff must have a strong case that it should be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for prohibiting injunction and that it is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money and the 6 Writ Petition No.10285 of 2009 7 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 762 8 (1990) 2 SCC 117 23/26 IA-1350-2020-SEENA NIWAS CHSL.doc Dixit balance of convenience should be in favour of the person seeking such relief. The facts of the present case, in my view, clearly justify grant of such relief. The grant of a mandatory injunction in the present set of facts would, in my view, be justified considering the society's decision to go for re-development rather than repeated repairs at the huge costs.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A K Menon - Full Document

M/S National Highways Authority Of ... vs M/S Bhubaneswar Expressway Private ... on 11 May, 2021

37. Moreover, even if any liability whatsoever of NHAI for termination payment to BEPL were to be dependent upon any finding to be returned by the Arbitral Tribunal, the grant of the relief of payment, as an interim measure, in the mandatory form, is contrary to the principles of grant of interim mandatory injunction, as laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 followed in Metro Marins Vs. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 478, Kishore Kumar Khaitan Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006) 3 SCC 312 and Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs. Aurora Properties and Investments MANU/SC/0884/2018, that interim FAO(OS) (COMM) 66/2020 Page 48 of 59 mandatory relief is to be granted only to restore 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 which have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining, and not to create a different situation than as existing at the time of commencement of the dispute, on a prima facie view of the matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 7 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp on 17 June, 2021

“….The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the “wrong” decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been “wrong” in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle.” (emphasis in bold supplied) 120 92.1. While referring to various expositions in the said decision, this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.: (1990) 2 SCC 117 observed as under: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 21 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Navayuga Bengalooru Tollway Pvt Ltd vs National Highways Authority Of India on 6 July, 2021

30. The power to issue directions in the nature of „interim measures‟ or „protection‟ under Section 9 of the A&C Act can only be exercised, if it does not involve a final adjudication and at best, is on a prima facie view of the matter and does not require interpretation of the terms of a contract and enforcement thereof. Even if a party were to offer to secure deposits directed to be mandatorily made, by furnishing a Bank Guarantee, the Court would still go beyond its domain were it to decide substantive claims and direct payments while disposing of a petition under Section 9 Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 152/2021 Page 18 of 19 Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:06.07.2021 12:51:57 of the A&C Act. Grant of such a relief as prayed for in the present petition, would be one directing mandatory payment, which would also go against the principles of grant of interim mandatory injunction as laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 followed in Metro Marins v. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 478, Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006) 3 SCC 312 and Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties and Investments (2018) 17 SCC 203.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Menon - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next