Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991

Sri. Vidya Sheersha Thirtharu vs Sri. Siddalingaiah on 8 August, 2019

In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719] this Court held: (SCC p. 721, para 5) "5. ... Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in 'irreparable injury' to the party seeking relief and that there is no 71 other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Sri.S.Abhiramaiah vs Smt.Saroj Bagaria on 16 January, 2023

27. Referring to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v/s Prahlad Singh, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 and Gujarat Bottling Company Ltd. v/s Coca Cola Co., reported in AIR 1995 SC 2372, it was submitted that while considering application for grant of injunction, Courts were required to examine amount of substantial mischief or injury likely to be caused to parties, if injunction is refused and compare it with that likely to be caused to other side if injunction is granted. It was submitted that while 19 exercising such discretion trial Court found that proposed defendant no.2, who had purchased suit property for Rupees Four Crores and Fifty Five Lakhs would suffer greater hardship than plaintiff who had merely paid Rupees Five Lakhs as advance towards total sale consideration of Rupees Seven Crores. And as exercise of discretion by trial Court was in terms of legal principles, no interference was called for and sought for dismissal of appeal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

M/S Canara Auto Garage vs Sri. L. E. Ramachandra on 19 April, 2024

26. Reference was also made to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719] in regard to the meaning of the words "prima facie case" and "balance of convenience" and observed in Mahadeo case [(1995) 3 SCC 33] that : (SCC p. 39, para 9) 27 "9. It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession."
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

M/S. Sanjeevini Developers vs Sri. Mohan Das. R on 23 November, 2024

In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment reported in MANU/SC/0715/1991 in the case of DALPAT KUMAR AND OTHERS vs PRAHLAD SINGH AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 4 wherein it is held that Order 39 Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may be order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing or dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Sri H Nagabhushana vs Sri Viju B Jain on 24 March, 2026

12. In view of the repayment and acceptance of money by the plaintiff, the existence of a subsisting enforceable contract is doubtful and therefore, no prima facie case exists. The grant of injunction would unnecessarily restrain the defendants' property rights whereas refusal would not cost irreparable injury as the plaintiff can be compensated in monetary terms. No irreparable injury is made out particularly when the plaintiff has already accepted the amount. The Apex Court in Wander Limited Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.3 (Wander Limited) and in the case of Dalpat Kumar and Another vs Prahlad Singh and Ors4 (Dalpat Kumar) has observed that the three essential ingredients while considering a refusal or grant of injunction is prima facie case, balance 3 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 4 (1992) 1 SCC 719
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next