Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs Egyptian Electricity Transmission ... on 17 December, 2018
cites
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000
7. The Supreme Court in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S.Chellappan
and Others (supra) held as follows:-
Agi Logistics Inc & Anr. vs Sher Jang Bahadur & Anr. on 16 September, 2009
9. Similarly, this court in AGI Logistics Inc & Anr. vs. Sher Jang
Bahadur & Anr.(supra) held as follows:-
Nat Organic Chemicals Industries vs B.L. Industries on 14 January, 1988
15. Reference in this context may be had to the judgment of this court in
Nat Organic Chemicals Industries vs. B.L.Industries (supra). This court
while dealing with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC held as follows:-
Himalaya Drug Co. vs Sbl Limited on 3 June, 2010
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has pointed out tht
immediately after the injunction order was passed by this court on
03.10.2017 they had by courier on 10.10.2017 in compliance of the
provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC dispatched the complete paperbook to
defendant No.3. The paper book was received on 15.10.2017. Reliance is
placed on a legal opinion filed by defendant No.3 dated 18.10.2017 which
notes that the counsel were approached on 15.10.2017 for its opinion. This
document it is pleaded shows that on 15.10.2017 courier has been delivered
to the defendant No.3. He also relies upon judgments of the Division Bench
in Himalaya Drug Company vs. SBL Limited, 194 (2012)DLT 536 and
judgments of this court in Nat Organic Chemicals Industries vs.
B.L.Industries, (1988) 34 DLT 232 and Ashwani Pan Products Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Krishna Traders, 2012 (128) DRJ 592 to plead that unless grave
prejudice is shown by the applicant/defendant No.3 there can be no reason to
vacate the interim order.
M/S Ashwani Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Krishna Traders on 2 March, 2012
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has pointed out tht
immediately after the injunction order was passed by this court on
03.10.2017 they had by courier on 10.10.2017 in compliance of the
provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC dispatched the complete paperbook to
defendant No.3. The paper book was received on 15.10.2017. Reliance is
placed on a legal opinion filed by defendant No.3 dated 18.10.2017 which
notes that the counsel were approached on 15.10.2017 for its opinion. This
document it is pleaded shows that on 15.10.2017 courier has been delivered
to the defendant No.3. He also relies upon judgments of the Division Bench
in Himalaya Drug Company vs. SBL Limited, 194 (2012)DLT 536 and
judgments of this court in Nat Organic Chemicals Industries vs.
B.L.Industries, (1988) 34 DLT 232 and Ashwani Pan Products Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Krishna Traders, 2012 (128) DRJ 592 to plead that unless grave
prejudice is shown by the applicant/defendant No.3 there can be no reason to
vacate the interim order.
1