Wing Cdr. (Retd.) Narender Singh Dhaka vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 April, 2023
Further, in Anwar Elahi v. Vinod Misra and Anr. 1955
IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ 341 wherein
it was held that;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.75 seconds)Documents citing
Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. on 1 November, 1995
Smt. Saroj Jasuja vs M/S Signature Infracon Pvt. Ltd on 24 May, 2013
In Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995
IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ
341 it was held that ' Balance of convenience means
that comparative mischief or inconvenience which is
likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be
greater than that which is likely to arise from granting
it. In applying this principle, the Court has to weigh the
amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be done
to the applicant if the injunction is refused and compare
it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side
if the injunction is granted.'
In the present case if the temporary injunction is
not granted the plaintiveherein is likely to face
S.No:175/13, Saroj Jasuja Vs. M/s Signature Infracon Pvt. Ltd.
Suit No:52/12 vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 11 December, 2012
In Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995
IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ 341
it was held that ' Balance of convenience means that
comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to
issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than
that which is likely to arise from granting it. In applying
this principle, the Court has to weigh the amount of
substantial mischief that is likely to be done to the
applicant if the injunction is refused and compare it with
that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the
injunction is granted.'
Sh. Madan Lal Rrora vs Sh. Vindu Arora on 4 June, 2013
In Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995
Suit No:277/2013, Sh. Madan Lal Rrora Vs. Sh. Vindu Arora
12
IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ
341 it was held that ' Balance of convenience means
that comparative mischief or inconvenience which is
likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be
greater than that which is likely to arise from granting
it. In applying this principle, the Court has to weigh the
amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be done
to the applicant if the injunction is refused and compare
it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side
if the injunction is granted.'
In the present case if the temporary injunction is
not granted the plaintiveherein is not likely to face
mischief or inconvenience. On the other hand if an
injunction (against the ingress etc.) is granted the
defendant might face undue inconvenience inasmuch
that all the possibilities of a patchup between the
parties might be jeopardized and a big communication
gap might develop.
Babu Lal vs M/S Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd on 31 October, 2012
In Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995
IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ 341
it was held that ' Balance of convenience means that
comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to
issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than
that which is likely to arise from granting it. In applying
this principle, the Court has to weigh the amount of
substantial mischief that is likely to be done to the
applicant if the injunction is refused and compare it with
that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the
injunction is granted.'
Kadiyala Usha Ranin vs The Diety Of Sri Seetharamananjeya ... on 1 September, 2025
With respect
to prayer made in I.A.No.1 of 2025, learned counsel has tried to take aid
of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Anwar Elahi v.
Vinod Misra2 to buttress the point that as already substantive amounts
have been spent and 90% construction is complete, permission be
granted for completing the balance construction in order to safeguard
1
1995 (1) ALT 670 = AIR 1995 A.P. 154
2
1995 (60) DLT 752 = 1995 (4) AD (Del)576 = 1995 (35) DRJ 341
13
CGR, J.
Kadiyala Usha Rani vs $ 1. The Diety Of Sri Seetharamanjeya ... on 1 September, 2025
With respect
to prayer made in I.A.No.1 of 2025, learned counsel has tried to take aid
of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Anwar Elahi v.
Vinod Misra2 to buttress the point that as already substantive amounts
have been spent and 90% construction is complete, permission be
granted for completing the balance construction in order to safeguard
1
1995 (1) ALT 670 = AIR 1995 A.P. 154
2
1995 (60) DLT 752 = 1995 (4) AD (Del)576 = 1995 (35) DRJ 341
13
CGR, J.
Kadiyala Usha Rani vs The Diety Of Sri Seetharamananjeya ... on 1 September, 2025
With respect
to prayer made in I.A.No.1 of 2025, learned counsel has tried to take aid
of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Anwar Elahi v.
Vinod Misra^ to buttress the point that as already substantive amounts
have been spent and 90% construction is complete, permission be
granted for completing the balance construction in order to safeguard
' 1995 (I) ALT 670 = AIR 1995 A.P. 154
M/S Satya Developers Private Limited vs Rajesh Kalra on 29 September, 2021
v. Anwar Elahi v. Vinod Misra and Anr. 1995 (35) DRJ 341.
vi. Bikash Chandra Deb v. Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd - 1995 SCC
Online CAL 208: (2005) 1 CHN 582.
Sh. Leela Ram vs Sh. Salek Ram on 9 September, 2022
In Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra and Anr. 60 (1995)
DLT 752, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has discussed the
meaning of the term 'balance of convenience'. It has been
held: