Search Results Page

Search Results

71 - 80 of 234 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Cotton Corporation Of India vs United Industrial Bank on 19 September, 1983

Sri T. Joseph Thyagaraj vs T.Philomena on 29 February, 2024

17. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (1983) 4 SCC 625 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.10 of the judgment with regard to scope of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC being confined to temporary injunction, an unnecessary grey area will develop. It is indisputable that temporary injunction is granted during the pendency of the proceeding so that while granting final relief the Court is not faced with a situation that the relief becomes infructuous or that during the pendency of the proceeding an unfair advantage is not taken by the party in default or against whom temporary injunction is sought. But power to grant temporary injunction was conferred in aid or as auxiliary to the final relief that may be granted. If the final relief cannot be granted in terms as prayed for, temporary relief in the same terms can hardly if ever be granted. If this be the purpose to achieve which power to grant temporary relief is conferred, it is inconceivable that
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

M/S Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt Ltd vs M/S Blue Horizon Hotels Pvt Ltd on 23 November, 2024

28. Admittedly, the Mortgage Deed dated 04.04.2014 is not a registered document. The defendant No.1 also not disputes the fact of availing loan of Rs.5 Crores from the plaintiff. But, denies the very execution of the document of Mortgage Deed dated 04.04.2014. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant No.1 did not deny the signature available in the document of Mortgage Deed dated 04.04.2014. It is also the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that subsequently, stamp duty is paid in 2017 and receipt is also produced. There is no dispute with regard to 21 the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Kangaro Industries (Retd.) And Ors. vs Jaininder Jain And Anr. on 29 January, 2007

But the position of law laid down in the Cotton Corporation's case (supra) does not help the appellants' case as the Court of Dubai in respect of which injunction orders were passed by this Court cannot be said to be a Court which is superior or co-ordinate to this Court. Therefore, this Court was empowered to issue an inunction restraining the appellants from instituting the proceedings in Dubai.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Techno Electric & Engineering Company ... vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 20 August, 2020

Learned counsel for the Appellant Techno states that since Techno does not have any other remedy available to it under applicable law, judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising's case and Cotton Corpn. of India Ltd's case relied on by the Respondent-APSPDCL have no relevance to the present case.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited vs Indusind Bank Limited & Anr. & Ors. on 21 December, 2020

[See: Horlicks Ltd. & Anr. vs. Heinz India (Pvt.) Limited, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3342; and Cotton Corpn. of India Ltd. vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd., (1983) 4 SCC 625] 9.3. The fact that Zee is a defaulter can be ascertained from a bare perusal of the memorandum and the circular dated 21.11.2019 issued by the SEBI. These I.A. Signature Not No. Verified 10556/2020 in CS (COMM) 500-2020 Page 15 of 30 Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:22.12.2020 00:14:57 documents set out defaults by listed companies qua payment of interest/repayment of principal amount against loans taken inter alia from banks/financial institutions. SEBI is required to disclose this information.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda vs Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty on 17 April, 2021

20. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants relied upon the well settled principle that interim relief can be granted only in the aid of final relief and in this case, there is no relief 29 prayed for recovery of money. He relied upon well known decision of the Apex Court on this aspect in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Others9.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document
Previous   4 5 6 7 8   9 10 11 12 13 Next