Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Suryanarayana Paper And Boards Pvt. ... vs V. Padmakumar And Others on 21 April, 1995

Nlc India Limited vs M/Ssical Logistics Limited on 31 October, 2018

This decision was followed by the Madras High Court in Sri Suriyanayayana Paper and Boards Private Limited vs. Padmakumar (1995) 2 L.W 266. In that case, an exparte interim order was passed but without complying with the aforesaid requirements. The said order was set aside by the Madras High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

A. Chinnarajan vs N. S. Subbaiyah And Others on 18 February, 1998

24. Our High court also had occasion to consider a similar question which is reported in Sri Suryanrayana Paper and Boards Private Limited and others v. V. Padmakumar and others, wherein a similar view was taken by M. Srinivasan, J., as he then was. It may be stated that the order impugned in that case was also similarly worded. If this is the legal position regarding the grant of ad interim injunction, it cannot be doubted that the Court below has violated the aross. That itself is sufficient to set aside the Order. In that judgment also M. Srinivasan, J. (as he then was) has, after enunciating the principles, finally despised of the interim application in that revision. On the basis of the said precedent, and also on the basis of the arguments put forward by learned counsel for both parties, regarding the merits of the injunction application, I am bound to consider whether there is any case made out for the grant of injunction.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rev. Noble Gambeeran And Ors. vs Peter P. Ponnan For Himself And As ... on 9 November, 1998

In the decision reported in Sri Suryanarayana Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. Padmakumar and two Ors. , Srinivasan, J., as he then was, has held that an ad-interim injunction granted by a court which is not having jurisdiction, is null and void. In that case, the learned Judge said that, 'In those circumstances, the court at Udumalpet had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain the suit of the plaintiffs. The Court ought to have returned the suit for presentation in proper court even on the allegations contained in the plaint. In spite of the averments in paragraph 13 of the plaint, the District Munsif, Udumalpet chose to receive the plaint and granted an interim order, as prayed for by the plaintiffs. For the afore said reasons, both there orders of interim injunction are unsustainable and they have to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Reliance Industries Limited Rep. By ... vs M. Rajkumari on 23 April, 2001

He also referred to the decision reported in Suryanarayana Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd., v. V. Padmakumar, 1997 (88) Com. Cases 684 where this Court had held that the residence of a company in India is where its registered office is located and it is desirable that normally case should be filed where the registered office is situated. He submitted that third party's rights will suffer when the ex parte decree is not set aside and to advance the interest of justice the Court should accept the cause offered by the petitioner for the delay and order the application as prayed for.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - P Sridevan - Full Document

A. Chinnaraja vs N.S. Subbaiyah And Anr. on 18 February, 1998

24. Our High Court also had occasion to consider a similar question which is reported in Sri Suryanarayana Paper and Boards (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. V. Padmakumar and Ors. (1995)2 L. W. 266. wherein a similar view was taken by M. Srinivasan, J., as he then was. It may be stated that the Order impugned in that case was also similarly worded. If this is the legal position regarding the grant of ad interim injunction, it cannot be doubted that the Court below has violated the norms. That itself is sufficient to set aside the Order. In that judgment also, M. Srinivasan, J. (as he then was) has, after enunciating the principles, finally disposed of the interim application in that revision. On the basis of the said precedent, and also on the basis of the argument put forward by learned Counsel for both parties, regarding the merits of the injunction application, I am bound to consider whether there is any case made out for the grant of injunction.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Suguna Poultry Farm Limited, S.C.M. ... vs Arul Mariamman Textiles Limited, Rep. ... on 28 July, 2004

18. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, relying upon a decision in Sri Suryanarayana Paper & Boards Pvt. Ltd. & 5 Ors v. Padmakumar & 2 Ors would contend, that when the subordinate courts have passed an order, not having territorial jurisdiction, that should be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case involved in the above decision, a suit was filed before Udumalpet District Munsif Court, which had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as per the averments in the plaint and it appears, ad interim injunction was also granted. When the same was challenged, by the parties concerned, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court took the view, considering the averments in the plaint, that District Munsif, Udumalpet, chose to receive the plaint and granted ad interim orders without jurisdiction, which are unsustainable and have to be set aside, which ratio is squarely applicable to this case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

The Managing Director, Makkal Tholai ... vs Mrs. V. Muthulakshmi on 26 October, 2007

In Sri Suryanarayana Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. Padmakumar : 1992 (2) LW 266, Srinivasan, J.,(as he then was), following the two Supreme Court judgments in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartic Das 1994 SCC 225 and Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1993 (3)SCC 1611, held that interlocutory orders of this nature are wholly unsustainable and without jurisdiction and they have to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

The Managing Director vs Mrs.V.Muthulakshmi on 26 October, 2007

In Sri Suryanarayana Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. vs. Padmakumar, 1995 (II) CTC 323: 1992(2)LW 266, Srinivasan,J,(as he then was), following the two Supreme Court judgments in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartic Das, 1994 SCC 225 and Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (3)SCC 1611, held that interlocutory orders of this nature are wholly unsustainable and without jurisdiction and they have to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1   2 3 Next