Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Astral Traders vs Haji Mohammad Shaban Dar And Ors. on 2 June, 1982

Akmal Ali And Ors. Etc. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 5 October, 1983

We agree partly with the opinion expressed in Astral Traders v. Haji Mohammed, AIR 1982 J & K 124 (FB) that every order of ad interim injunction; whether ex parte or otherwise is appealable. However we cannot subscribe to the view expressed therein that means should be adopted to restrict the right of appeal. When a right has been expressly conferred, in our opinion, no means should be adopted to restrict the same. It would amount to imposing conditions which are not warranted by the provisions of the law. In our opinion, in a country, where the Rule of Law prevails, the Courts are under the law. As such, the view that the Court should drive the party to the trial Court to obtain relief under Order 39, Rule 4, in our opinion, cannot be accepted as the correct proposition of law. However, these appeals are against discretionary orders and the appellate court would undoubtedly bear in mind, while entertaining and disposing of an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), that an alternative relief is available to the appellant in the trial Court itself. It has to be cautious in granting ex parte stay, as the same may cause irreparable loss to the other side. While granting such stay, the Court ought to bear in mind the nature of the order passed, and the likely effect of stay. But, if the order is bad, illegal or void, relief must be given to the aggrieved person; courts cannot shirk responsibilities only on the ground that the relief granted by the legislature would open a flood-gate for litigation entering into the appellate courts, including the High Court.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Rajendraprasad R. Singh vs The Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Bombay ... on 24 January, 2003

In Zilla Parishad Buduan v. Brahma Rishi Sharma the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Alstral Traders v. Haji Mohammed Shaban Dar Reported in AIR 1982 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 124 the Full Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in Akmal Ali and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 GAUHATI 86 the Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in Patel Jasmat Sangaji v. Gujrat Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1982 (2) Volume XXIII GUJARAT LAW REPORTER 104 the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court, in United Commercial Bank v. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd. the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, and in Airport Authority of India v. Paradise Hotel and Restaurant the Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court have all held that an appeal lies against ex parte order of injunction passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - D G Karnik - Full Document

Santosh Sharma Alias Santosh Kumari vs Ramesh Kumar Sharma And Others on 29 November, 2023

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgments of this Court rendered in the case of M/S Astral Traders vs. M/S Haji 5 Mohammad Shaban Dar and others, 1982 AIR (JK) 124, State Forest Corporation and others vs. Nazir Ahmad Baba and others, 2009(3) JKJ 111 and Chajju Ram vs. Milkhi Ram, 2003 (sup) JKJ 435, a judgment of Madras High Court rendered in the case of Muthu Jayanthi vs. C.L.Mahadevan 2014 (1) CTC 254, judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka 2000 AIR (Supreme Court) 3561 and M. Gurudas and others vs. Rasaranjan and others.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M K Kazmi - Full Document

Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd on 3 April, 2026

13.I am also conscious of the law laid-down by a Full Bench of this Court in M/S Astril Traders Vs. M/S, Haji Mohd Shaban Dar & Ors. SLJ 1982--404, to the effect, "that plaintiff or defendant seeking temporary injunction has to establish a prima -facie case, in his favour which merely means that he has to show that a serious question is to be tried at the hearing and there is material 20 which probablises the success of his case. Since interim injunction is by and large sought at the initial stage of the suit when the main issues in it are yet to be tried on taking evidence, the court has to be cautious in examining these issues and offering its comments on the merits of the case. At the stage they are not supposed to examine the merits of the case too closely or too minutely. Such a course always infers the danger of pre-judging or miss-judging the case and making observations that may prejudice the parties in the long run. It is supposed to take a merely general view of the case judging its apparent strength or weakness".
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd on 3 April, 2026

13.I am also conscious of the law laid-down by a Full Bench of this Court in M/S Astril Traders Vs. M/S, Haji Mohd Shaban Dar & Ors. SLJ 1982--404, to the effect, "that plaintiff or defendant seeking temporary injunction has to establish a prima -facie case, in his favour which merely means that he has to show that a serious question is to be tried at the hearing and there is material 20 which probablises the success of his case. Since interim injunction is by and large sought at the initial stage of the suit when the main issues in it are yet to be tried on taking evidence, the court has to be cautious in examining these issues and offering its comments on the merits of the case. At the stage they are not supposed to examine the merits of the case too closely or too minutely. Such a course always infers the danger of pre-judging or miss-judging the case and making observations that may prejudice the parties in the long run. It is supposed to take a merely general view of the case judging its apparent strength or weakness".
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sarfaraz Ahmad Bhat vs . State And Ors. on 22 April, 2019

7. Mr. Altaf Haqani, learned appearing counsel for respondent No. 3 further submits that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the interlocutory order. He further submits that in the event the appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order, the proper course for the appellant was to seek vacation, alteration or modification of the impugned order before the writ Court. Learned counsel in this regard referred to and relied upon the Judgment reported as AIR 1972 J&K 124 titled Astral Traders Vs. State and Ors.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Secretary To Government vs Basharat Saleem & Ors on 27 December, 2021

M/s Astral Trade V. M/S Haji Mohammad Shaban Dar & Ors.', held that the interlocutory orders which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned would tantamount to Judgments under Letters Patent. The learned Counsel, on merits, has contended that none of the rights of the Writ Petitioners stood violated with the appointment of a retired employee as Consultant which would have warranted them to approach the Writ Court and that the entire litigation is aimed at harassing the administration at the hands of the office bearers of the Association. It is averred that the decision has been taken by the Board as a matter of policy in order to ensure smooth running of the Institution.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

K.K. Puri And Ors. vs A.K. Puri And Ors. on 24 September, 1993

25. Before parting, I deem it appropriate to advert to the growing tendency of the litigants to by-pass the trial courts in matters where ex parte orders are subject to objections of other side and even valid only till next date and vacation whereof can be sought under Rule 4 of Order 39, CPC before the trial Court. It has been consistent policy and practice of this court not to entertain such appeals and not to interfere in such orders. A Full Bench of this Court has approved of this policy in Astral Traders v. Haji Mohd. Shaban Dar, 1982 Ker LJ 324 : (AIR 1982 J & K 124) after giving reasons in its support. This practice has almost hardened into a rule and it is in very rare cases that a departure is made where impugned orders appear manifestly perverse or where these suffer from any manifest lack of jurisdiction or where the bias of the trial Court is apparent on the face of record. There may be some other circumstances also which may warrant interference, but by and large, this policy is adhered to discourage litigating parties from rushing to this Court.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dina Nath vs Mohan Singh And Anr. on 6 January, 1984

5. It is well settled, in view of the Full Bench Judgment in Astral Traders v. Maji Mohammad Shaban Dar, Civil Revision No. 56 of 1977, reported in 1982 Kash LJ 324 : (AIR 1982 J & K 124), that an ex parte ad interim injunction is as such appealable as an order of temporary injunction passed after hearing both the parties. It is, therefore, open to an aggrieved party that instead of filing objections to the ex parte ad interim injunctions, challenge the said order in appeal under Order 43, Rule l(r), C. P. C. There is no room left for the argument that an appeal can lie only against an ad interim injunction if the same has been passed after hearing both the sides and not otherwise. Where the aggrieved party chooses to file an appeal against the ad interim injunction instead of filing objections before the trial Court and obtains an order, on merits, from the appellate Court, the order of the trial Court merges into the order of the appellate Court and to that extent and that extent alone, the trial Court ceases to have jurisdiction to deal with the ad interim application. However, if the party against whom the ad interim injunction has been issued chooses to file objections, then the aggrieved party still has right to file an appeal after the ad interim order is confirmed or varied by the trial Court after hearing both sides. It shall of course not be open to a party who without filing objections, files an appeal and obtains an adverse order on merits, from the appellate Court to re-agitate the matter before the trial Court in respect of the ad interim application, because the principle of merger would be fully applicable in that case. The position, however, would be different where the appeal is disposed of by the appellate Court, not on merits, but default of appearance because in that event there is no adjudication by the appellate Court on the merits of the order appealed against. The dismissal for default under those circumstances cannot be said to put a seal of finality on the merits of the case particularly where the order appealed against was subject to the objections of the order side. It is settled law that a Court has no power to dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant is not present in the Court either personally or through his counsel. The Court can either adjourn the appeal or dismiss it for default of appellant's appearance (see in this connection with advantage 1980 Kash LJ 433 : (AIR 1981 J & K 30). It, therefore, must follow that the dismissal of an appeal in default cannot be equated with the dismissal of the appeal on merits. It is only when there has been an adjudication on mertis by the appellate Court, that the principle of merger comes into play.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A S Anand - Full Document
1   2 Next