Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Adani Exports Ltd. vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 6 September, 2000

Vaseem Saifi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 3 August, 2023

If these tests are satisfied then it is the duty of the Court to see whether the damages that the plaintiff is likely to suffer for the action of the defendants complained of can be compensated in money and if so whether there is a standard for ascertaining such compensation. If such compensation can be ascertained, then the interlocutory order of injunction should normally be refused. However, if the Court is of the view that such compensation cannot be ascertained then it is the duty of the Court to see the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the parties. Thus, plaintiff must also show a clear necessity for affording the protection to his alleged right which would otherwise be seriously injured/impaired. Again, a prima facie case implies the probability of the plaintiff obtaining a relief on the materials placed before the Court. Every piece of evidence produced by either party has to be taken into consideration in deciding the existence of a prima facie case to justify issuance of a temporary injunction. It is a well settled principle of law that in order to make out a prima facie case, necessary for granting an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff need not establish his title. It is enough if he can show that he has MCA No. 05/2023 Vaseem Saifi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 14 of 18 a fair question to raise as to the existence of right which he alleged and can satisfy the Court that the property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question is disposed of. Reliance is placed upon Adani Exports Ltd. v Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, (2000) 3 GLR 2759.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nasirhusen Aasifhusen Panwala vs Abdul Rashid Kapadiya on 16 February, 2023

Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Adani Export Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Organic" reported in 2000 (3) GLR page no-2759 case regarding establishing of prima facie case, it has been Page 5 of 63 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:56:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22354/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2023 undefined held in para-31 and 32 of its pronouncement that "it is well settled principles of law that the rule that before the issue of a temporary injunction, the Court must satisfy itself that the plaintiff has a prima facie case, does not mean that the Court should examine the merits of the case closely and come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has a case in which he is likely to succeed. This would amount to prejudging the case on its merits. All that the Court has to see is that on the face of it the person applying for an injunction has a case which needs consideration and which is not bound to fail by virtue of some apparent defects. (Para 31). In order to make out a prima facie case, necessary for granting an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff need not establish his title. It is enough if he can show that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of right which he alleged and can satisfy the Court that the property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question is disposed of. The Court must also, before disturbing any man's legal right stripping him off any of the rights with which law has clothed him, be satisfied that the probability is in favour of his case ultimately failing in the final issue of the suit (Para 32). It is also a well settled principles of law that what the Court has to determine in granting injunction is whether there is a bona fide contest between the parties and when there is a fair and substantial question to be decided as to the rights of the parties in the suit, it is not necessary for the purpose or is it right that the Court should further examine the question in dispute or Page 6 of 63 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:56:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22354/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2023 undefined anticipate the decision of the question in the suit itself. (Para 32.1)."
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Nanavati - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Balaram Cements Limited on 28 March, 2001

29. As discussed earlier, considering the materials produced by both the parties, prima facie, plaintiff has satisfied the Court that offer put by him under tender dated 7/8/1990 was revised and modified by him and revised offer was put by him under letter dated 21/11/1990, before defendant no.1 could accept the earlier offer made under the tender with old rates, and therefore, a binding concluded contract has not come into existence. When there is no concluded contract in between the parties and still the subject is under process of offer and acceptance, then the Bank guarantee which was to be given for the contract cannot be encashed by defendant no.1 only on the ground that a concluded contract has not come into existence. As observed in case of Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) in Para 32, " it is also well settled principle of law that in order to make out a prima facie case, necessary for granting an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff need not establish his title. It is enough if he can show that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of right which he alleged and can satisfy the Court that the property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question is disposed of. The Court must also, before disturbing any man's legal right stripping him off any of the rights with which law has clothed him, be satisfied that the probability is in favour of his case ultimately failing in the final issue of the suit. It is also observed in this cited case that the Court has to determine in granting injunction is whether there is a bona fide contest between the parties and when there is a fair and substantial question to be decided as to the rights of the parties in the suit, it is not necessary for the purpose nor is it right that the Court should further examine the question in dispute or anticipate the decision of the question in the suit itself.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Taraben D/O Nanubhai vs Shaileshbhai Rangilbhai on 26 February, 2013

18. He, therefore, submitted that in such a situation where respective claims would be considered on the basis of evidence at the trial and prima facie the trial court having examined the material has granted the injunction, the same may not be disturbed. He submitted that the approach, normally, is to maintain the status-quo to avoid further litigation. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 104. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Ibrahim Shah Mohamad and ors. v. Noor Ahmed Noor Mohamed and ors., reported in 1983(2) GLR 961, and the judgment in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2000(3) GLR 2759. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar, therefore, submitted that the present Appeal from Orders may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

Shiv Mandir Trust vs Gopi Chand Rathi Ors on 1 October, 2024

Thus, plaintiff must also show a clear necessity for affording the protection to his alleged right which would otherwise be seriously injured/impaired. Again, a prima facie case implies the probability of the plaintiff obtaining a relief on the materials placed before the Court. It is a well settled principle of law that in order to make out a prima facie case, necessary for granting an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff need not establish his title. Reliance is placed upon Adani Exports Ltd. v Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, (2000) 3 GLR 2759.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rasikbhai Naranbhai Patel vs Moladiya Bhurabhai Ghanabhai on 25 July, 2023

8.2 Mr.Patel further submits that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, balance of convenience is in their favour, and the panchnama, which was carried out in Civil proceedings initiated before the learned City Civil Court Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 896 of 2006 for the same disputed suit property, wherein it is completely mentioned in the report that the plaintiffs and their family are residing in the hut situated in disputed suit property, and it is sufficient to prove that the plaintiffs are having the settled possession over the disputed suit property since more than 12 years and the original defendant is having complete knowledge about the same. Mr.Patel further submits that the plaintiffs have stated the description of the constructed hut over the disputed suit property with all particular things in their plaint to prove their possession over the disputed suit property and accordingly a Court Commissioner was appointed and the Court Commission report was filed in the Page 20 of 33 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:48:51 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/98/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2023 undefined present suit and if the Court Commissioner's report is perused along with the plaint, then it becomes clear that the original plaintiffs and their family members are the having the settled possession over the suit land. Mr.Patel further submits that the plaintiffs have produced documents and evidence on record to prove their case and while considering the documents and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are successful in establishing that they have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour. 8.3 Mr.Patel further submits that the issues raised by the original plaintiffs in the plaint and injunction application are clearly fair triable issues and if there are fair triable issues and a bonofide contest between parties, and to prove the prima facie case, the plaintiffs need not to establish their right or title over the disputed suit property at this stage, but they should have a fair questions to be tried, and for satisfaction regarding prima facie case, it is not necessary for the court to examine merits of the case to Page 21 of 33 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:48:51 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/98/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2023 undefined ascertain, if the plaintiffs show fair questions, which can be raised in trial, and the learned trial court has rightly considered such settled proposition of law in its order. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is correct and legal. Mr.Patel has further submitted that as per the settled law which flow from various decisions of this Court in the case of Jyantibhai M. Patel Vs. Dilipbhai B. Patel reported in 2007 (1) GLR 79 and Adani Exports LTD Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited reported in 2000(3) GLR 2760 to prove the prima facie case, the plaintiff need not establish his right or title at this stage, but he should have a fair question to be tried and for satisfaction regarding prima facie case, it is not necessary for the court to examine merits of the case to ascertain if the plaintiffs show fair questions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next