Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing Cotton Corporation Of India vs United Industrial Bank on 19 September, 1983

Horlicks Ltd. And Anr. vs Heinz India (Pvt.) Limited on 23 October, 2009

60. It is also relevant to note that in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western Company of North America; (1987) 1 SCC 496, the judgment in Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Ors‟s case (supra) has been referred and distinguished on the ground that it refers to an anti suit injunction in a domestic forum and the ratio would not be applicable to a foreign forum. The Indian company had entered into a contract with an American company and the parties opted to be governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The award rendered by the umpire in London (being the agreed venue) was sought to be enforced by the American company in the New York court. The Indian company instituted proceedings before the Bombay High Court by filing arbitration petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and sought an injunction restraining the American company from enforcing the award.
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 19 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Subho Ram Kalita (Deceased By L.R.S) And ... vs Dharmeswar Das Koch And Ors. on 29 April, 1986

In Cotton Corporation India v. United Industrial Bank, AIR 1983 SC 1272, Supreme Court examined the question whether in view of the provision contained in Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court will have jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining any person from instituting any proceeding in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought? In other words, can a person be restrained by an injunction of the Court from instituting any proceeding which such person is otherwise entitled to institute in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought? The High Court too is of the view that it had such powers in view of the provisions contained in Order 39, of the C.P.C. read with Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151, C.P.C. The question arose under the following facts and circumstances. The respondent Bank, (shortly 'the Bank') sued the appellant Corporation (shortly 'the Corporation') in original side of Bombay High Court for declaration that the acceptance and/or co-acceptance of the bills of exchange and/or hundies by the second defendant Tapan Kumar Ghosh on behalf of the Bank was null and void and not binding upon the Bank and calling upon the Corporation to deliver those up to the Court for cancellation. The Bank took out a notice of motion seeking to restrain by an interim injunction the Corporation from enforcing any claim whatever in any forum and for an interim injunction restraining the Corporation from negotiating or endorsing the bills. The notice of motion was dismissed and the Bank having appealed, a Division Bench allowed the appeal and granted an interim injunction restraining the Corporation from presenting a winding up petition against the bank. Their Lordships discussed the scope of preventive relief in Part III of the Specific Relief Act, and how Section 56(b) of the old Act of 1887 stood amended in Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which said :
Gauhati High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Dlf Ltd. vs Il&Fs Engineering And Construction ... on 21 December, 2022

In the said case, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited & Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 625 and held that Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits a Court from granting injunction restraining a person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought. Accordingly, it was held that NCLAT could not have passed an order restraining the High Court from hearing proceedings under the Act of 1996. Against the decision of the learned Single Judge, two appeals came to be filed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court - one appeal bearing Appeal (L) No. 10472/2021 at the instance of the petitioner - Bay Capital, whose petition under Section 9 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on merits and the other appeal, bearing Appeal (L) No. 11080/2021, at the instance of the concerned IL&FS entity challenging the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it held the Section 9 petition to be maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - V K Rao - Full Document

Smt. Ningamma And Another vs Chikkaiah And Another on 10 August, 1999

But so far as the provisions of other statutes or enactments are concerned, which prescribe for certain mode of exercise of power vested in the Court including in the matter of admissibility and relevancy of evidence shall remain operative and may control exercise of inherent powers. Inherent power have to be exercised so as not to conflict with the sound principles of general law or other special law. It is well-settled that the Court is expected to do justice according to law. When I so observe I find support for my view from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited v United Industrial Bank Limited and Others, in the context of power of the Court to grant temporary injunction under the inherent powers in a case not covered by Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. Their Lordships observed as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Deputy Superintendent Of Police, ... vs Nabeesa W/O Abdulla And Ors. on 14 August, 1996

In the decision reported in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 1272, it was held that a preventive relief by way of prohibitory injunction cannot be granted by a Court with a view to restraining any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding and under Section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act there is a clear bar in granting such injunction. While granting injunction, Court cannot nullify the provisions of Section 41(b). In view of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, there is a specific bar in obtaining injunction.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Suresh Kumar vs Sandhya And Ors. on 10 September, 1990

In the decision in Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, AIR 1983 SC 1272 it has been held that Section 41(b) of the Relief Act curtails the power to grant injunction in personam and where the final relief cannot in terms be granted, temporary relief in the same terms can hardly if ever be granted as power to grant temporary relief is in aid or as auxiliary to the final relief in order to maintain status quo so that the final relief can be appropriately moulded without the party's position being altered during the pendency of the suit and that Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked to nullify the provision in Section 41(b) of the said Act. This provision of the Relief Act have also to be considered in matter relating to temporary injunction.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1