Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Mahan Energen Limited [Formerly Known ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 24 January, 2023 cites

Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991

15. This Tribunal must also satisfy itself that non-interference would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief ie the Appellant, and they need protection from the consequences of the apprehended injury. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh: AIR 1993 SC 276; Mahadeo SavlaramShelke and Ors. Vs. Puna Municipal Corporation and Ors.: MANU/SC/0673/1995). This Tribunal would refuse to grant interlocutory relief if the injury suffered by the Appellant, on account of refusal to grant interim relief, is not irreparable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 516 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors vs The Puna Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 23 January, 1995

15. This Tribunal must also satisfy itself that non-interference would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief ie the Appellant, and they need protection from the consequences of the apprehended injury. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh: AIR 1993 SC 276; Mahadeo SavlaramShelke and Ors. Vs. Puna Municipal Corporation and Ors.: MANU/SC/0673/1995). This Tribunal would refuse to grant interlocutory relief if the injury suffered by the Appellant, on account of refusal to grant interim relief, is not irreparable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private ... vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 13 April, 2021

5. Reliance is placed by Mr. Sanjay Sen, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, on the judgement of the Supreme Court, in "Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited: 2021 SCC Online SC 313" to submit that, since the claims of CTUIL/EPTCL do not find place in the approved Resolution Plan, they stand automatically extinguished with the approval of the Resolution Plan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 360 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs Maruti Corp.& Ors on 6 April, 2009

10. Proof of prima facie case is the sine quo non for the grant of interlocutory relief. However, as the appeal before this Tribunal is an appeal both on facts and law, and is more in the nature of a first appeal, we shall proceed on the premise, for the limited purpose of this interlocutory application, that the Appellant has made out a prima facie case. With the first condition of a prima facie case being made out as the sine quo non, at least two conditions should be satisfied by the Appellant conjunctively, and mere proof of fulfilment of one of the three conditions would not entitle them to the grant of interlocutory relief. (Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan V/s Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and others - AIR 1975 AP 187; Gone Rajamma vs Chennamaneni Mohan Rao: 2010 (3) ALD 175 - dated 3rd March, 2010; Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corpn. [(2009) 11 SCC 229]; Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Ltd. v/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 70 - A Kabir - Full Document

M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors on 8 May, 2012

10. Proof of prima facie case is the sine quo non for the grant of interlocutory relief. However, as the appeal before this Tribunal is an appeal both on facts and law, and is more in the nature of a first appeal, we shall proceed on the premise, for the limited purpose of this interlocutory application, that the Appellant has made out a prima facie case. With the first condition of a prima facie case being made out as the sine quo non, at least two conditions should be satisfied by the Appellant conjunctively, and mere proof of fulfilment of one of the three conditions would not entitle them to the grant of interlocutory relief. (Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan V/s Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and others - AIR 1975 AP 187; Gone Rajamma vs Chennamaneni Mohan Rao: 2010 (3) ALD 175 - dated 3rd March, 2010; Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corpn. [(2009) 11 SCC 229]; Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Ltd. v/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 97 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1