Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Ajay Mohan & Ors vs H.N. Rai & Ors on 12 December, 2007

Smt. Gita Devi Saha & Others vs Amber Tour & Travels Pvt. Limited & ... on 6 October, 2010

In the case of Ajay Mohan & Others Vs H. N. Rai, which was relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the High Court, as such the court became functus officio. It was further observed that the High Court without hearing the parties and assigning any reason passed an order of status quo. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after granting permission for withdrawal of appeal, the court became functus officio. On the other hand, naturally it was contended by the learned Advocate that the learned first appellate court was not justified in passing the order of stauts quo after dismissing the appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Coastal Andhra Power Limited vs Andhra Pradesh Central Power ... on 15 January, 2019

21. On the point of whether interim relief could be continued after a proceeding is withdrawn and the Court becomes functus officio, the respondents have relied upon judgments in State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta AIR 1952 SC 12 (CB); Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 496; GE Power Controls India & Ors. vs. S Lakshmipathy & Ors.(2005) 11 SCC 509; Ajay Mohan & Ors. vs. H. N. Rai& Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 507; Kalabharti Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Shree. Samsthana vs U.F.M. Ananthraj on 24 August, 2020

50. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am aware about my limitation to interfere with the impugned order and cautioned with the well settled principle of law that, neither the trial court nor the appellate court shall conduct a mini trial at the time of consideration of injunction application. Equally, it is true that the appellate Court cannot substitute its own discretion with the discretion exercised by the trial Court if it is legal and proper. However, upon following the law declared by the Hon'ble 74 Supreme Court in the case of AJAY MOHAN AND OTHERS v. H.N. RAI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 804, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiffs fail to establish that balance of convenience lay in their favour and they would suffer irreparable injury or hardships. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall be concluded, that, at present, the balance of convenience weighs in favour of the defendants in view of the discussions made above. It is needless to say that, if the impugned order is affirmed, the plaintiffs shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever in nature and on the other hand, pursuant to the notification issued by the Government dated 12.08.2008, the custody of the entire temple in question and managing the affairs of the temple was handed over to the defendant No.2 and as such, it would affect the day to day management of the temple in question. In addition to this, the court must weigh all the factors and situations while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC preferably, in the instant case, the consequence of issuance of temporary injunction would affect major portion of the society (devotees in this case). If the impugned order is allowed to be continued, irreparable loss 75 would be caused to defendants.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri.Kshetra Upadhivanta Mandal vs U.F.M. Ananthraj S/O Dattatreya Adi on 24 August, 2020

50. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am aware about my limitation to interfere with the impugned order and cautioned with the well settled principle of law that, neither the trial court nor the appellate court shall conduct a mini trial at the time of consideration of injunction application. Equally, it is true that the appellate Court cannot substitute its own discretion with the discretion exercised by the trial Court if it is legal and proper. However, upon following the law declared by the Hon'ble 74 Supreme Court in the case of AJAY MOHAN AND OTHERS v. H.N. RAI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 804, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiffs fail to establish that balance of convenience lay in their favour and they would suffer irreparable injury or hardships. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall be concluded, that, at present, the balance of convenience weighs in favour of the defendants in view of the discussions made above. It is needless to say that, if the impugned order is affirmed, the plaintiffs shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever in nature and on the other hand, pursuant to the notification issued by the Government dated 12.08.2008, the custody of the entire temple in question and managing the affairs of the temple was handed over to the defendant No.2 and as such, it would affect the day to day management of the temple in question. In addition to this, the court must weigh all the factors and situations while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC preferably, in the instant case, the consequence of issuance of temporary injunction would affect major portion of the society (devotees in this case). If the impugned order is allowed to be continued, irreparable loss 75 would be caused to defendants.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India ... on 18 October, 2021

In Bhanu Kumar Jain v, Archana - Kumar' (2005) 1 SCC 787, it was clarified that the principles of constructive ses judicats alse apply with full force at subsequent stage of the same proceedings [he Supreme Court in Ajay Mohan v. H.N. Rai* held that a mere amendment of the plaint does not entitle the plaintiff to injunction under Order 39 Ruler J and 2 CPC which had been denied on an earlier occasion.
Gujarat High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - B N Karia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next