Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 202 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke And Ors. vs Puna Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 24 January, 1995

Dwarka Prashad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025

19. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke (supra), Sopan Sukhdeo Sable (supra) and Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (supra) when applied on the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/plaintiff was not a true owner of the land bearing survey No.643 on the basis of the sale deed. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no relief of injunction can be granted against the true owner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dwarika Pathak vs Smt. Raman on 21 August, 2025

19. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke (supra), Sopan Sukhdeo Sable (supra) and Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (supra) when applied on the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/plaintiff was not a true owner of the land bearing survey No.643 on the basis of the sale deed. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no relief of injunction can be granted against the true owner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nabekishore Sahu And Anr. vs East India Arms Co. on 21 January, 1998

13. Before parting with, another question of" considerable importance that arises for consideration is whether a defendant to a suit against whom an order of interlocutory o interim injunction has been obtained can be compensated if ultimately the plaintiff's suit is dismissed on merit. It is common experience that now a days a suit for injunction simpliciter takes long years to reach its finality in the Court of first instance. In such a suit or any other suit if the plaintiff obtains an order of interim injunction in respect of the property in question and the same remains valid and effective till conclusion of the trial, the defendant who is ultimately found by the Court to be the owner of the property is prohibited or restrained from doing certain acts or dealing with the property in any manner he chooses. Take for example, adefendant desirous of owning a house on the suit land collects material and just before taking up the work he is prohibited by the process of the Court to come over the land and put up a new construction. Had he proceeded with the construction, the expenditure to be incurred would have been less than what he would incur after the suit is finally decided. Though utlimately the Court finds title to the suit property with him, but because of the order of interim injunction, he could not use the some and take up construction of the house. Therefore, while dismissing the plaintiff s suit, it would be within the competence of the court to award damages against him, for obtaining the order of interim injunction. This view of mine gets support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahadeo Salvaram Shelke, (1995 AIR SCW 1439) (supra), where the Court observed :
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Chand Sehgal vs Sh. Vinod Kumar Paul & Ors on 15 July, 2010

18. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and Suit No.346/09 ...............14/15 relying upon the judgment Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipaul Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33 (Supra), I am of the view that the plaintiff at this stage has failed to make out a prima facie case in her favour as prayed. The plaintiff has not been able to satisfy any of the ingredients of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the present case and is not entitled to the interim relief. Hence, the interim application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.L. Sharma vs G.S. Sharma on 16 November, 2011

(18) In view of the discussion made above and relying upon the judgment titled as Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed Suit no. 402/10 7/ 8 to make out a prima facie case in his favour and has not been able to satisfy any of the ingredients of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the present case and is not entitled to the interim relief. Hence, the interim application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby dismissed, accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul & Ors on 15 November, 2010

18. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judgment Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipaul Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33 (Supra), I am of the view that the plaintiff at this stage has failed to make out a prima facie case in her favour as prayed. The plaintiff has not been able to satisfy any of the ingredients of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the present case and is not entitled to the interim relief. Hence, the interim application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby dismissed."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - M C Garg - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next