Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 22 of 22 (0.27 seconds)

Dhaneshwar Nath Tewari vs Ghanshyam Dhar Misra on 7 December, 1939

Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar (6), Firm Bichchha Ram v. Firm Baldeo Sahai (7),Bhagat Singh v. jagbir Sawhney (8) and Chinese Tannery owners' Association v. Makhan Lal (9). We are of opinion that the latter view is correct and that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure. There is no such expression in s. 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by O. XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Subramanian And Ors. vs Seetarama Aiyar on 5 April, 1948

Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interin injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interin injunction:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3