Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (3.65 seconds)
Documents citing Tituram Mukerji vs Cohen on 4 August, 1905

Raja Maharaj Kumar Sataya Niranjan ... vs Ram Lal Kaviraj on 25 November, 1925

6. There is admittedly conflicting authority on the point, but the learned Subordinate Judge, and also the Judges of the High Court, considered that the authorities in favour of the putnidar were overruled by the decisions of the Board in the series of oases mentioned above. Their lordships cannot agree with that view. Tituram Mukerji v. Cohen (1905) L.R. 32 I.A. 185 : S.C. 7 Bom. L.R. 920 was the case of a maintenance grant. This was held not to include minerals.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ram Kissen Joydoyal vs Pooran Mull And Ors. on 9 February, 1920

4. Now as was pointed out by Sir Arthur Wilson in the case of Tituram Mukerji v. Cohen 33 C. 203 : 32 I.A. 185 : 2 C.L.J. 408 : 9 C.W.N. 1073 : 15 M.L.J. 379 : 7 Bom.L.S. 920 : 3 A.L.J. 59 : 8 Sar.P.C.J. 908 (P.C.), "The right to an injunction, depend?, in India, upon Statute and is governed by the provisions of the Specific Belief Act." We must, therefore, examine the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the Act. Chapter IX it headed 'Of Injunction generally.' Section 52, the first of the sections contained in Chapter IX, states that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the Court by injunction, temporary or perpetual, Section 53 next defines the injunctions as of two classes. The second paragraph, which is devoted to perpetual injunctions, lays down that a perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. The defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right or from the commission of an Act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. This provision consequently defines the mode in which a perpetual injunction can be granted and its restraining effect on the defendant when it has been granted. The next Chapter is headed 'Of perpetual injunctions' and opens with section - 54, which defines when perpetual injunctions can be granted. The first paragraph of the section lays down that, subject to the other provisions contained in, referred to by, this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant, whether expressly or by implication, the next two paragraphs deal with two distinct classes of cases, namely, first, the case when the obligation arises from contract, and secondly, the case when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiffs right to, or enjoyment of, property. In the former class of cases, the principle is formulated that the Court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in the Second Chapter of the Statute. In the latter class of cases, it is stated that the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in five specific categories of events. Mr. Bose, for the respondents, has not seriously contended that the prayer for injunction in the present litigation can be brought within the scope of Section 54. This is fairly clear from the opening and controlling paragraph of the section, which provides that in order to entitle a litigant to a perpetual injunction, he must establish that the injunction is required to prevent a breach of an obligation. The term 'obligation' is defined in Section 3 to include every duty enforceable by law, so that when a legal duty is imposed on one person in respect to another, that other is invested with the corresponding legal right. The first paragraph of the section thus establishes the broad and general rule that given the breach of an existing legal right which is vested in the applicant, the breach thereof may be restrained by injunction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Anr. vs Puri Municipality And Ors. on 30 September, 1983

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act lays down when perpetual injunction may be granted. In order to be entitled to perpetual injunction, the plaintiff must establish apprehended breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication. He must establish the right before he gets the injunction "to prevent recurrence of its violation" and the court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction ''to restrain an act which inflicts no legal wrong on the plaintiff". It has been observed by the Privy Council in (1905) 32 Ind App 185 (Tituram v. Cohen):
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R C Patnaik - Full Document

Sm. Parul Bala Roy vs Srinibash Chowmal And Ors. on 25 February, 1949

12. The Judicial Committee of the P. C. in the case of Tituram Mukherjee v. Cohen, 33 Cal. 203, laid down the proposition in the concluding portion of the judgment that the law of perpetual injunction is codified in India. That passage in the judgment of the Judicial Committee has been taken to mean that for the purposes of seeing whether any perpetual injunction can be granted or not, it is not legitimate in India to go outside the provisions of chap. 9 & chap. 10 of the Specific Relief Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Brojanath Bose vs Durga Prosad Singh on 18 March, 1907

Such being the Case we see no reason to differ from the view taken in the case of Sri Ram Chakrabutty v. Kumar Sari Narain Sinha (1905) 3 C.L.J. 59, and we hold that the Digwar, as holder of a permanent tenure, possesses all underground rights, including mining rights, unless there is an express reservation to the contrary (see also Shyama Charan Nundy v. Abhiram Goswami (1906) 3 C.L.J. 306, Tituram Mukerji v. Cohen (1905) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 203, 215. In this case no such reservation is shown to have been made in fact, nor can it be implied from the conduct of the zemindar.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next