Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 624 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy And Ors. vs Kishore R. Chhabria And Ors. on 19 April, 1999

He therefore submitted that under the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan , the suit will survive for rectification and if during the pendency thereof, the acquisitions which were prima facie illegal were allowed to be acted upon, the relief will be rendered negative as held by the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, , the last uncontested status is required to be maintained till the disposal of the case. In the present case, that has to be in the context of the taking over of the management. He therefore submitted that the injunction as sought was necessary. As far as developments subsequent to the filing of the suit are concerned, it is a moot question as to, to what extent it can be considered by the time the application for interim relief comes to be decided or by the time the suit comes to be heard and decided. There are judgments to canvass either of the propositions that they should be considered or they may not be considered. Mr. Nariman submitted that in either case, as far as the present proceedings are concerned, there are two show-cause notices prior to the suit and one subsequent which are both pending.
Bombay High Court Cites 256 - Cited by 7 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited vs Sh. J.J. Tyagi on 4 April, 2007

As noticed by this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden it has held that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgement. In our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not come under any one of those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession being handed over to the respondent.''
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hafizullah vs Inder Kumar Jain on 1 February, 2017

In case law Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden, AIR 1990 SC 867, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court considering the provision of Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act, that the possession of purchaser of a share of co-owner in dwelling house of undivided family is not legal, it will cause irreparable injury to other co-owners therefore, mandatory injunction against the purchaser for eviction can be issued. This case law relates to dwelling house of undivided family.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thiru. K.Palaniswamy vs Konda on 17 August, 2022

“.........24. That apart, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have committed fundamental error in applying the principle of moulding of relief which could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of final relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage. The nature of order passed against the appellant is undeniably a mandatory order at an interlocutory stage. There is marked distinction between moulding of relief and granting mandatory relief at an interlocutory stage. As regards the latter, that can be granted only to restore the status quo and not to establish a new set of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted. This Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Page 48/178 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.227, 231 & 232 of 2022 Sorab Warden [Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117] , has had occasion to consider the circumstances warranting grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction. In paras 16 & 17, after analysing the legal precedents on the point as noticed in paras 11-15, the Court went on to observe as follows: (SCC pp. 126-27) “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Thiru. K.Palaniswamy vs Konda on 17 August, 2022

“.........24. That apart, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have committed fundamental error in applying the principle of moulding of relief which could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of final relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage. The nature of order passed against the appellant is undeniably a mandatory order at an interlocutory stage. There is marked distinction between moulding of relief and granting mandatory relief at an interlocutory stage. As regards the latter, that can be granted only to restore the status quo and not to establish a new set of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted. This Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Page 48/178 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.227, 231 & 232 of 2022 Sorab Warden [Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117] , has had occasion to consider the circumstances warranting grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction. In paras 16 & 17, after analysing the legal precedents on the point as noticed in paras 11-15, the Court went on to observe as follows: (SCC pp. 126-27) “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Metro Marins & Anr vs Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 10 September, 2004

In such a situation issuance of mandatory injunction directing the handing over the possession in favour of the plaintiff would be unsustainable in law and is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden (supra). Learned counsel also pointed out that the fact that the property in question is not used for commercial purposes or is in the possession of a Caretaker are irrelevant facts for the purpose of deciding whether an interim mandatory injunction to hand over possession should be granted or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 111 - Full Document

Committee Of Management Anjuman ... vs Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas And ... on 26 February, 2024

"9. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents produced, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. As noticed by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden (supra) has held that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgment. In our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not come under anyone of those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession being handed over to the respondent. As observed by the learned Single Judge the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession is yet to be decided in the Trial Court and granting of any interim order directing handing over of a possession would only mean decreeing the suit even before trial. Once the possession of the appellant either directly or through his agent (caretaker) is admitted then the fact that the appellant is not using the said property for commercial purpose or not using the same for any beneficial purpose or the appellant has to pay huge amount by way of damages in the event of he loosing the case or the fact that the litigation between the parties is a luxury litigation are all facts which are irrelevant for changing the status-quo in regard to possession during the pendency of the suit."
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Mahipatsinh Himatsinh Jadeja vs Pannalal Khemchand Modi And Ors. on 9 December, 1996

22. Mr. K. V. Shelat and Mr. B. J. Shelat also vehemently submitted before the Court that the facts before the Supreme Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) were and are quite totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case because in the present case the land in question admittedly belonged to the society which was purchased by late Khemchand Modi in the year 1946 and he has put up construction thereon from his self-acquired fund and, therefore, it was his exclusive property which he has right to dispose of. There was no jointness of possession or interest so far as late Khemchand Modi is concerned. They submitted that nature of acquisition by late Khemchand Modi being absolute and exclusive, he has full authority to dispose of the property in the manner he liked and he has done so by a registered testament and the codicil. They further submitted that under the registered Will and the codicil, the ground-floor portion of the bungalow was absolutely bequeathed to Dilipkumar Jayantilal and, therefore, he was the absolute owner thereof with no restriction on his right to enjoy the property.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next