citedby: 1666603

Teesta Urja Limited (Now Sikkim Urja ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 17 August, 2023

In Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312, the Supreme Court held that, before ordering an interim mandatory injunction or refusing it, the court has first to consider whether the plaintiff has proved that he was in possession on the date of suit and on the date of the order, and he had been dispossessed the next day; unless a clear prima facie finding that the plaintiff was in possession on those dates is entered, an order for interim mandatory injunction could not have been passed; and any such order passed would be one without jurisdiction.

Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Sh. Rameshwar Dass vs Sh. Hukam Chand on 18 April, 2016

"47. The learned trial Judge when rejecting the application under Order 39, Rule 4 filed by the defendant, appellant herein, did not consider the other application filed by the same defendant under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate, when passing the order of status quo that status is to be decided first i.e. when passing status quo as regards the possession, it is to be decided as to who is in possession, otherwise the purport or implications of the order of status quo fails as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh"

Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. T.K. Gowramma W/O. T. Krishna Kumar vs Sri. C.K. Raviprasanna S/O. Late C.P. ... on 21 February, 2007

7. Keeping in mind the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan's case it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of plaint schedule property. The respondent claims that he is in possession of the schedule property. The parties produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions. Both the Courts below concurrently held, that the respondent has made out prima facie case. The findings of both the Courts below is supported by pleadings and documentary evidence on record. Though a different view is possible, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Courts below. Under Article 227 of the Constitution this Court cannot substitute its own discretion in place of the judicial discretion of both the Courts below particularly in the absence of error of jurisdiction.

Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - H N Das - Full Document