Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Nari Chinnabba Chetty vs E. Chengalroya Chetty And Ors. on 26 August, 1949 cites

Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited vs Ruttanji Ramji on 20 December, 1937

148, relied largely on the illustration given in Sub-rule (5) overlooking the fact that only one illustration was given, and that too to cover a case of mandatory injunction, and that there is nothing said in the sub-rule about its non-applicability to prohibitory injunctions, and that the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, Limited v. Ratanji Ramji (1938) 1 M.L.J. 640 : L.R. 65 I.A. 66 : I.L.R. (1938) 2 Cal. 72 (P.C.), has clearly held that the illustration cannot have the effect of modifying the language of the section which alone forms the enactment. I cannot agree with the contention.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 256 - Full Document

Angad And Ors. vs Madho Ram And Ors. on 31 March, 1938

8. Then Mr. Jagadisa Iyer requested that I should at least convert the petition, into a suit, as is allowed under the ruling in Angad v. Madho Ram I.L.R. (1938) All. 673 and said that he would pay the necessary court-fee. In the circumstances of this case, I see no-reason to grant this prayer. The obstructions are still existing on the path, and will give these appellants a cause of action for a suit for a mandatory injunction to remove them even without my converting this old application into a suit. Wherever the circumstances do not require such extraordinary translations of applications into suits, those things will not be done, and the parties will be left to pursue their ordinary independent remedies.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sachi Prasad Mukherjee vs Amarnath Roy Chowdhuri on 5 March, 1918

7. No doubt Richardson, J., in Sachi Prasad Mukherjee v. Amarnath Roy Chowdhuri (1918) I.L.R. 46 Cal. 103., held that Sub-rules (1) and (5) would clearly apply to injunctions both prohibitory and mandatory, and that the act required to be done mentioned in Sub-clause (5) means " the Act which has to be done to enforce the injunctions." But even his brother on the Bench, Beachcroft, J., did not agree with that proposition, and said that he expressed no opinion as to whether Sub-rule (5) would apply to prohibitory injunctions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1