Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Mirza Mohammed Yousuf Baig vs Deccan Enterprises on 12 February, 1996

Mr Bipin G Patel vs Sri J Motilal (Huf) on 2 December, 2021

21. This Court in para 14 of the judgment in Mirza Mohammed Yusuf Baig's case referred to supra held that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of equity the plaintiff shall disclose all the material facts which are within his knowledge. It was further held that it is well recognized principle that for granting equitable relief, the plaintiff must come to the Court with clean hands and he must disclose all the facts against him in order to get the discretionary relief of injunction.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri N Gopinath vs Smt Vanitha Nagaraj on 23 August, 2019

therefore, the invocation of suppresio veri by banking upon the decision of this court in the case of MIRZA MOHAMMED YOUSUF BAIG V. M/S. DECCAN ENTERPRISES, ILR 1996 KAR 1618 is not well founded for the purpose of non-suiting the petitioner; for the same reason, the Apex Court decision in the case of KISHORE SAMRITE VS STATE OF U.P. & ORS, (2013) 2 SCC 398, cannot be pressed into service;
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

Shri Mallappa Irappa Hattaraki vs Shri Krishna Dattu Desai on 22 August, 2022

13. I have perused the ratio laid down in the above referred decision of Hon'ble High Court along with the present case on hand. In this case also the trial Court after going through entire material on record found that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties. Therefore, there is no question of any irreparable -7- WP No. 103124 of 2022 loss being caused to the appellants. These material facts cannot be lost sight on a comprehensive analysis of the documents on records. So, without much discussion, I come to the conclusion that, the learned trial Judge by considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly rejected the I.A. filed by the plaintiff. Further, the learned trial Judge has considered the pleadings and documents placed by plaintiff and defendant in a proper perspective and rightly rejected the application. Viewing from any angle, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned trial Judge. The impugned order under appeal is justifiable and based on the sound reasoning and needs to be confirmed. Therefore, interference by this Court is not necessitated and the impugned order is very well sustainable in law. Grounds urged in the appeal memo are not sustainable. Such being the case, I am of the clear opinion that the impugned order cannot be held as capricious, perverse, illegal and erroneous. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative."
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1