Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (7.58 seconds)
Documents citing Kochira Krishnan vs Joseph Desouza on 12 April, 1985

Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade on 5 May, 2022

42. After referring to the aforementioned ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts, I have carefully, examined the finding recorded by the trial Court. It is 81 not in dispute that the respondent herein filed Original Suit No.226 of 2013 against the defendants, wherein petitioner herein has been arraigned as defendant No.6 in the suit, seeking relief of permanent injunction as set out in the plaint. Along with the plaint, plaintiff has filed IA.I under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court granted ad-interim injunction on 05th November, 2013, restraining the defendant/petitioner herein from making allegation against the plaintiff as set out in the application. In the meanwhile, the respondent herein filed application in IA.12 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, alleging violation of ad interim injunction order dated 05th November, 2013 as per Annexure-C. The petitioner entered appearance, filed counter statement to the said application. The trial Court framed points for consideration in the Civil Misc. Petition No.3 of 2015. Evidence was recorded. Power of Attorney holder of the respondent-B. Vardhamana was examined as PW1. He produced 19 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P20. Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioner-Ranjan Rao Yerboor was examined as RW1 and petitioner has examined another 82 Witness-Ramesh as RW2. The respondent herein has also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.8 of 2015 against the petitioner herein for continuance of disobedience of the order on IA.I. After conclusion of evidence, trial Court heard the learned counsel representing the parties and by order dated 28th August, 2017, allowed the petition and also sentenced the petitioner for civil imprisonment with cost. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein has filed MA.10 of 2017 and MA.11 of 2017 before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court by common order dated 07th February, 2018 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 28th August, 2017 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2015 and Civil Miscellaneous No.8 of 2015. Perusal of the paragraph 29 of the order dated 07th February, 2018 reveals that the First Appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court to provide an opportunity to both the sides for adducing further evidence and addressing arguments on merits. After remand, the trial Court, provided an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in the matter and by order dated 23rd March, 2018 allowed Civil.Misc. Petition No.3 of 2015 by awarding cost of Rs.3,000/-, so also, sentenced 83 imprisonment of the petitioner herein for three months in Civil prison. The trial Court has also awarded compensation Rs.4,93,000/- . The said order dated 23rd March, 2018 was challenged before the First Appellate Court in MA.8 of 2018. The First Appellate Court by order dated 08th November, 2019 remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Operative portion of the order reads as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Urban Improvement Trust And Ors. vs Barkat Khan on 12 November, 2002

In Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza, it has been held that violation of injunction or even undertaking given before the Court is punishable under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code. The punishment can be imposed even if the matter stood disposed of, for the reason that the Court is concerned only with the question whether there was a disobedience of the order of injunction or violation of an undertaking given before the Court and not with the ultimate decision in the matter.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Lakshmikutty Amma Retnamma vs P.N. Krishna Pillai And Ors. on 23 July, 1992

The same view finds acceptance in Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S. N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 48, in State of Bihar v. Usha Devi, AIR 1956 Pat 455 and in Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza, 1985 Ker LJ 453: (AIR 1986 Ker 63). Consensus of judicial opinion, without divergence, is that Section 151, CPC cannot only be invoked, but should also be invoked to effectuate an order validly made by a Court of competent jurisdiction. That is what the Courts below did, and no more, and that is what they are required to do. The judgment and decree do not call for interference.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Smt. Savitri Devi vs Civil Judge (Sd) And Ors. on 31 March, 2003

In Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza, AIR 1986 Ker 63, it has been held that violation of injunction or even undertaking given before the Court is punishable under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code. The punishment can be imposed even if the matter stood disposed of, for the reason that the Court is concerned only with the question whether there was a disobedience of the order of injunction or violation of an undertaking given before the Court and not with the ultimate decision in the matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt. Jagannathiya vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 May, 2006

In Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza , it has been held that violation of injunction or even undertaking given before the Court, is punishable under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. The punishment can be imposed even if the matter stood disposed of, for the reason that the Court is concerned only with the question whether there was a disobedience of the order of injunction or violation of an undertaking given before the Court, and not with the ultimate decision in the matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Geodis Overseas Private Ltd vs Pawan Kumar Ruia on 4 April, 2014

); (ii)2009(2)Supreme 587 (C.Elumalai and others v. A.G.L.Irudayaraj and another); (iii)AIR 2011 SC 3056 (Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others); (iv)(2012) 12 SCC 599 (Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India and others); (v)VIII (2012) SLT 650 (Hihar State Government Secondary school Teachers Association v. Bihar Education Service Association and othes Anup Mukherjee and others); (vi)AIR 1991 Madras 323 (Full Bench) (Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and another); (vii)(1998) 1 MLJ 731 (Thanislas and others v. G.Pankiraj); (viii)2004 Law Suit (Mad) 1340 (PVG Industries v. Premier Industries Drives (P) Limited; and (ix)AIR 1986 Ker 63 (Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza) (Kerala High Court) for the legal proposition that violation of undertaking given before the court and disobedience of order of injunction will give rise to remedy under the provision of CPC by invoking inherent jurisdiction. This court has no quarrel with the principles laid down in the judgments cited above. However, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

Paruthikkattuparambil Ayisha vs Unknown on 30 October, 2010

In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza (1985 KLT 1010), wherein the court held that any action by which the process of court is attempted to be thwarted has to be viewed seriously. If an order of injunction is violated, it has to be dealt with sternly and seriously, for, otherwise, it will undermine the very basis of the Rule of Law. It was held that there was no difference whether the violation pertained to an order or to an R.F.A No.35/2011 18 undertaking made before a court of law, which too will have as much effect as an interim injunction in such circumstances.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T B Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next