Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing H. Bevis And Co. vs Ram Behari And Ors. on 28 September, 1950

Chirag Aashiana Pvt. Ltd.A-4 vs Smt. Santosh And Another on 20 November, 2025

AIR 1983 Col 250, and ad interim injunction passed prior to issue of notice to the defendant is appealable is a view taken in the case of Saraju Prashad Singh Vs. Gangaprosad Shah and Others; MANU/WB/0070/1951 : AIR 1951 Cal 446, as well as in the case of H. Bevis and Co. Vs. Ram Behari and Others (supra) and L.D. Meston School Society Vs. Kashi Nath Misra; MANU/UP/0389/1950.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cantonment Board And Anr. vs District Judge (Incharge) And Ors. on 27 April, 2006

33. One of the case which has been brought into the notice of this Court is in H. Bevis and Co., Kanpur v. Ram Behari and Ors. AIR (88) 1951 All 8. In the said case learned trial court had refused to pass any ex parte temporary injunction. While refusing to pass the ex parte temporary injunction the trial court had also rejected the application. Since the application was rejected by the trial court (para 3) this Court held that revision shall be maintainable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 2 - D P Singh - Full Document

Iqbal Singh And Ors. vs Chanan Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1965

There is, however, force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in H. Bevis and Co., Kanpur v. Ram Behari, AIR 1951 All 8. In that case, an application under Order 39, rule 1 of the Code had been filed by the plaintiff. At the ex parte stage, the following order was passed by the trial Court on that application. --
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Aia Engineering Ltd. on 14 November, 2008

3. When such a specific sub-rule covers the case of 'notice', it FAO (OS) No.280/2008 Page 8 of 51 cannot be .contended that an order ordering notice is also 'an order' under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. thereforee, the order of the learned Judge is clearly one under Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code and if that be so, no appeal is provided in Order 43 Rule 1 (r) Civil Procedure Code against an order under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. Such a view has been taken by the Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Mysore, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab High Courts. (Lakhai vs. Ram Niwas and Ors MANU/UP/0206/1987, H. Bevis Co. vs. Ram Behari MANU/UP/0287/1950, Khusi Lal vs. Gorelal MANU/MP/0014/1986; Hamumaga vs. Anjanappa (1973 (2) Mys.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 9 - M Singh - Full Document

Ram Dhani And Others vs Raja Ram And Others on 5 May, 2011

16. We may now consider the judgment in H. Bevis & Compay (Supra). That was a case before the amendment of the C.P.C. and its further amendment. In that case, the appeal was pending and the Court did not grant ex parte injunction. Mushtaq Ahmad, J. observed that such an order was appealable and thereafter proceeded to hold that if it was not appealable, he would have exercised his revisional jurisdiction. Desai J., on the contra, was pleased to observe that Rules 1 and 2 are subject to Rule 3, which lays down the procedure, and so long as that procedure is followed and final orders are not passed on the application, it cannot possibly be said that an order cannot be passed under either of the Rules and, therefore, held that no appeal would lie.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S Satnam Filling Station vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 1 December, 2021

In case of M/s Model Press (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation & another, AIR 1978 Delhi 44 and so also in the case of H. Bevis (supra), it is held that for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, delay caused by the issue of notice must be such as would defeat the object of injunction, e.g. where the building is going to be demolished or the status of land would be irrevocably changed. It is further held that court should have some intimation of the eminent threat which would be defeated by the service of notice in case of ex parte injunction is not granted. Ex parte injunction should not be issued as a matter of routine.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Yara International Asa vs Sasra Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd on 21 March, 2022

3. The learned counsel added that he has taken out an application for appointing a Commissioner and seizing the packing material used by the defendants with and without the content that carries the trade mark of the plaintiff. These applications are not even numbered till date. He however made a fair statement that though the trial Court has ordered notice to the defendants, the notice is only being taken. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in Messrs.H.Bevis and Company Vs. Ram Behari & others [1953 1 ALL 351] and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc., Vs. B.Vijaya Sai and others [2022 Livelaw (SC) 65].
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 3 Next