Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 154 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors on 8 May, 2012

Embassy Property Developments Limited vs Jumbo World Holdings Limited on 20 June, 2013

40. The decision of the supreme court, in BEST SELLERS RETAIL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2012) 6 SCC 792, had been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the original side appeals, in O.S.A.Nos.1 to 4 of 2013, to reiterate his contention that the Court concerned would have to see if the non interference by the court would result in irreparable injury being caused to the party seeking the relief and as to whether the parties seeking the interim relief need protection from the consequences of the apprehended injury or dispossession resulting in irreparable injury being caused. The learned counsel had submitted that if an irreparable injury would be caused to the party concerned, the court would have to grant an interim order to preserve the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kirtanlal International Dmcc vs Sgs India Private Limited And 2 Ors on 5 July, 2019

47. It is difficult to accept the contention as urged on behalf of the plaintiff that a prima facie case has been made out and /or the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs. The facts demonstrate that it is Rama who would be caused an irreparable damage if an injunction as prayed for is granted in favour of the plaintiff considering the clear mandate of law as laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in "Best Sellers Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Ors." 2
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

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

60. It is well settled that prima facie case itself is not enough and it must be shown that injury suffered by refusal of injunction is irreparable in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Best Sellers Retail (India) Privte Limited vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and others reported in (2012)6 SCC 792, wherein at paragraphs 29 and 30 it is held as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

V4 Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Jindal Biochem Pvt Ltd on 5 May, 2020

22. We are strengthened in our view by the judgement of the Supreme Court in Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. And Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 792, where it has been held that an injunction would not lie in a suit for specific performance, where the alternate remedy of refund has been claimed in the suit. If the alternate remedy is to be granted by the court in finality, then the injury suffered on account of refusal of injunction cannot be said to be irreparable. In the said case, the Respondent had claimed specific performance for certain agreements with alternate relief of expenses and losses amounting to Rs. 20 crores. The Respondent also prayed for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from alienating the suit property, which was granted by the Additional City Civil Judge and approved by the High Court. Sitting in appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the injunction since the Respondent could not satisfy that any irreparable harm would be caused to him if the injunction was refused. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in approving the injunction since FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 19 of 23 if the Respondent ultimately succeeded in getting the alternate relief, no irreparable injury could have been suffered by the Respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - S Narula - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next