Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Mrs. Sukerma Rani Kapoor vs Om Prakash Kapoor And Ors. on 18 January, 2002 cites

Baluev Raj vs Tub Delhi Development Authority And ... on 22 May, 1970

20. There is no dispute about the general proposition of law namely, such a mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage should not normally be granted which has the effect of granting the final relief. That is what is the law laid down in catena of cases including the judgment relied upon by the defendants and referred to above. However, it is not an absolute principle of law. There is no such mandate by any law that in all circumstances such a relief at an interlocutory stage had to be refused. Of course, normally such a relief is not to be granted. However in exceptional circumstances mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage, particularly to restore the status quo ante, can be granted by the Courts. This is what is propounded by the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

M/S. Taraknath & Anr vs Sushil Chandra Dey By Lrs.& Ors on 8 April, 1996

12. Even if it may be treated that there was some family arrangement, the family arrangement was to the effect that the plaintiff would be owner of the property and would receive the rent thereof as is clear from the long course of dealing. Therefore, the manner in which the parties acted over a period of time is the reflection of the arrangement of a family settlement which the parties had arrived at. One may lawfully refer to the case of Taraknath and another versus Sushil Chandra Dey by lrs. and others and the following observation made by the Apex Court in this regard:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next