Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 107 (6.20 seconds)
Documents citing Sujit Pal vs Prabir Kumar Sun And Ors. on 2 September, 1985

Abul Hossain vs Netai Nandi @ Netish Nandi & Ors on 23 May, 2025

In Sujit Pal [Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, 1985 SCC OnLine Cal 146 : AIR 1986 Cal 220 : (1985-86) 90 CWN 342] a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Resham Devi vs Gupta Prasad Agrawal on 22 July, 2024

19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah & Ors. [A.I.R.1975 Madras 270] and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun [A.I.R.1986 Calcutta 220]. In Century Flour Mill Limited, it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong-doing. The inherent power of the Court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognize that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Jha - Full Document

Baroda Rayon Employees Ekta Union ... vs Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd & 8 on 8 May, 2015

19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah, and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, In Century Flour Mills Limited, it was Page 653 of 674 C/SCA/15599/2008 JUDGMENT held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong-doing. The inherent power of the Court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognize that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.
Gujarat High Court Cites 162 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Vidya Charan Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association And ... on 3 January, 1991

The narration of Korren Injunction above, the law as stated in Bhagat Singh v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, (AIR 1941 Cal 670) (supra) and the statement of law in Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, (supra) lend support to the view that any action under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure of contempt can be postponed and the Court may issue a temporary mandatory injunction and order for restoration of status quo ante.
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Yadav vs Sakuli Bai on 30 November, 2023

14. In AIR 1975 Madras 270 (FB), the Full Bench of the High Court held that Order 39 of CPC should not be considered as placing any limit on the scope of inherent power under Section 151, which are wide and not subject to any limitation. Whenever there is any violation of an order or injunction against party, or something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court to put the clock back to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power of the Court will not only be available in such cases, but it is 11 bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. The same view was taken in Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Calcutta 220 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 Allahabad 482.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Vidya Charan Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association And ... on 3 January, 1991

The narration of Korr on Injunction above, the law as stated in Bhagat Singh v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, (AIR 1941 Cal 670) (supra) and the statement of law in Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, (supra) lend support to the view that any action under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure of contempt can be postponed and the Court may issue a temporary mandatory injunction and order for restoration of status quo ante.
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Sudheer Kumar vs Balram on 8 August, 2023

14. In AIR 1975 Madras 270 (FB), the Full Bench of the High Court held that Order 39 of CPC should not be considered as placing any limit on the scope of inherent power under Section 151, which are wide and not subject to any limitation. Whenever there is any violation of an order or injunction against party, or something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court to put the clock back to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power of the Court will not only be available in such cases, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. The same view was taken in Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Calcutta 220 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 Allahabad 482.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

Sumat Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2025

14. In AIR 1975 Madras 270 (FB), the Full Bench of the High Court held that Order 39 of CPC should not be considered as placing any limit on the scope of inherent power under Section 151, which are wide and not subject to any limitation. Whenever there is any violation of an order or injunction against party, or something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court to put the clock back to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power of the Court will not only be available in such cases, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. The same view was taken in Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Calcutta 220 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 Allahabad 482.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basanta vs Ghanshyam Since Dead Through Lrs ... on 8 December, 2025

14. In AIR 1975 Madras 270 (FB), the Full Bench of the High Court held that Order 39 of CPC should not be considered as placing any limit on the scope of inherent power under Section 151, which are wide and not subject to any limitation. Whenever there is any violation of an order or injunction against party, or something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court to put the clock back to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power of the Court will not only be available in such cases, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. The same view was taken in Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Calcutta 220 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 Allahabad 482.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next