Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Lachman Singh vs Gian Kaur Etc on 20 February, 2015 cites

Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that admittedly he is in possession of the property in question and therefore the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in vacating the injunction order. It is submitted that in the counter claim also the defendants have sought the relief that the goods left by the plaintiff in the plot in dispute should be picked up and also prayed for mesne profits. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. and another (2004) 1 SCC 769 and Prithi Pal Singh and another Vs. Amrik Singh and others (2013) 9 SCC 576 and judgment of this Court in Hukam Singh Vs. Tara Singh 1992(2) PLR 331 to argue in support of the proposition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1261 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Hukam Singh (Deceased) Now Rep. By His L. ... vs Shri Tara Singh And Ors. on 24 April, 1991

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that admittedly he is in possession of the property in question and therefore the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in vacating the injunction order. It is submitted that in the counter claim also the defendants have sought the relief that the goods left by the plaintiff in the plot in dispute should be picked up and also prayed for mesne profits. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. and another (2004) 1 SCC 769 and Prithi Pal Singh and another Vs. Amrik Singh and others (2013) 9 SCC 576 and judgment of this Court in Hukam Singh Vs. Tara Singh 1992(2) PLR 331 to argue in support of the proposition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Charanji Lal And Ors. vs Financial Commissioner Haryana, ... on 27 April, 1978

A Full Bench of this Court in Chiranji Lal and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 1978 AIR (Punjab) 326 discussed the issue of suppression of material facts in writ jurisdiction and the attempt to over reach the Court with malafide and calculated suppression of material facts to secure interim relief. The Full Bench went on to hold that the Court would not even go into the merits of the case and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The said principle can be equally applied to the PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2015.02.26 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.8729 of 2014 -4- grant of injunction which is again a discretionary relief.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors on 4 August, 1995

Similarly in M/s Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Coca Cola Company and others (1995) 5 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that injunction was a purely equitable relief and the conduct of the party seeking injunction is to be free from any blame. The Courts would not grant injunction in each and every case. Consideration of conduct of the plaintiff is thus an important element. The relevant observations read as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 439 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1