Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.55 seconds)
Documents citing Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Aia Engineering Ltd. on 14 November, 2008

Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited vs Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr. on 25 May, 2021

12. Citing the judgement of the Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte Ltd1 and of a Division Bench of this Court in Magotteaux Industries Pvt Ltd v. A.I.A. Engineering Ltd2 in his support, Mr. Kaul emphasised the principle of comity of courts, which was necessarily required to be borne in mind while considering an application for anti-suit injunction. An anti-suit injunction, he submits, causes interference in the functioning of a Court of co-equal sovereign jurisdiction, and would be justified only if it was necessary in order to advance the ends of justice and prevent perpetuation of injustice. These delineating criteria, submits Mr. Kaul, do not stand satisfied in the present instance. Besides, he submits, the plaintiff has not demonstrated, in any manner, that the continuance of the Texas proceedings were oppressive or vexatious to the present proceedings pending before this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Ravinder Singh Mahindra vs Param Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2010

In the case of Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd., 155 (2008) DLT 73 (DB) referred by learned Senior counsel for the defendants, the Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with a similar point with regard to grant of an anti suit injunction. In that case the injunction was not granted because the cause of action in both the matters were different and occurred on different dates which was the relevant consideration of the grant of anti suit injunction. Paras 57 of the judgment read as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document

Mr Lalit Kumar Modi Through His ... vs The Board Of Control For Cricket In India ... on 24 September, 2013

11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. At the outset, I may observe that the plea taken by Dr.Singhvi that there is no appeal maintainable against the ex parte ad interim order does not convince me. F.A.O. Nos.370/2013 & 373/2013 Page 8 of 23 If such a proposition is accepted then it will do more harm than good. There is no dispute that the Division Bench of this court in the case of Magotteaus Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. AIA Engineering Ltd.; 155 (2008) DLT 73 has entertained an appeal against an ex parte ad interim order holding it to be maintainable against the order passed by the learned single judge sitting on the Original Side.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

The Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Mr Lalit Kumar Modi And Ors. on 24 September, 2013

11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. At the outset, I may observe that the plea taken by Dr.Singhvi that there is no appeal maintainable against the ex parte ad interim order does not convince me. F.A.O. Nos.370/2013 & 373/2013 Page 8 of 23 If such a proposition is accepted then it will do more harm than good. There is no dispute that the Division Bench of this court in the case of Magotteaus Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. AIA Engineering Ltd.; 155 (2008) DLT 73 has entertained an appeal against an ex parte ad interim order holding it to be maintainable against the order passed by the learned single judge sitting on the Original Side.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

Promila Gupta vs Shobha Sanwalka on 3 March, 2017

12.    Though   in   the   present   case,   no   ex­parte   ad   interim injunction order has been passed but I am of the view that ratio as laid down   in  Magotteaux   Industries   Pvt.   Ltd.   And   Ors.   (supra)  is applicable   in   facts   and   circumstances   of   present   case   as   though application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has not been decided by MCA No. 10/17  Promila Gupta Vs. Shobha Sanwalka    Page 9 of  16 Trial Court yet but relief as sought by appellant has been refused by Trial Court till next date of hearing before Trial Court vide impugned order and it can be said that Trial Court has taken decision which comes within definition of order as laid down in Section 2 (14) CPC. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but appears to have been done. Trial Court was well within its right to dispose of application of appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in either way but on one side, Trial Court refused relief as sought by appellant and on the other hand gave date of about two months for further arguments on the pending applications which in circumstances of present case appears to have prompted appellant to file present appeal.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next