Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (2.71 seconds)
Shree. Samsthana vs U.F.M. Ananthraj on 24 August, 2020 cites

Iim Employees Association vs Indian Institute Of Management on 14 August, 1990

43. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upon this Court is not an appellate one but it is a combination to supervisory and equitable jurisdiction and to do justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. So also, the power of this Court, while exercising power under XLI Rule 1 CPC, interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is also noteworthy to follow the law enunciated by this Court, while examining the scope of an appeal filed under order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGOUDA v. SADASHIVAPPA BASAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in 1983(2) KLJ 298 and in the case of IIM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (supra). I am conscious of the proposition of law that the Appellate Court can interfere with an order of the trial Court, 65 only when it finds that the order passed is opposed to the well- settled principles in exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the factum of other two ingredients, viz.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Lalithakshi Annadanagouda vs Sadashivappa Basappa Patil And Anr. on 12 April, 1983

43. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upon this Court is not an appellate one but it is a combination to supervisory and equitable jurisdiction and to do justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. So also, the power of this Court, while exercising power under XLI Rule 1 CPC, interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is also noteworthy to follow the law enunciated by this Court, while examining the scope of an appeal filed under order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGOUDA v. SADASHIVAPPA BASAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in 1983(2) KLJ 298 and in the case of IIM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (supra). I am conscious of the proposition of law that the Appellate Court can interfere with an order of the trial Court, 65 only when it finds that the order passed is opposed to the well- settled principles in exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the factum of other two ingredients, viz.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Ajay Mohan & Ors vs H.N. Rai & Ors on 12 December, 2007

50. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am aware about my limitation to interfere with the impugned order and cautioned with the well settled principle of law that, neither the trial court nor the appellate court shall conduct a mini trial at the time of consideration of injunction application. Equally, it is true that the appellate Court cannot substitute its own discretion with the discretion exercised by the trial Court if it is legal and proper. However, upon following the law declared by the Hon'ble 74 Supreme Court in the case of AJAY MOHAN AND OTHERS v. H.N. RAI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 804, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiffs fail to establish that balance of convenience lay in their favour and they would suffer irreparable injury or hardships. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall be concluded, that, at present, the balance of convenience weighs in favour of the defendants in view of the discussions made above. It is needless to say that, if the impugned order is affirmed, the plaintiffs shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever in nature and on the other hand, pursuant to the notification issued by the Government dated 12.08.2008, the custody of the entire temple in question and managing the affairs of the temple was handed over to the defendant No.2 and as such, it would affect the day to day management of the temple in question. In addition to this, the court must weigh all the factors and situations while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC preferably, in the instant case, the consequence of issuance of temporary injunction would affect major portion of the society (devotees in this case). If the impugned order is allowed to be continued, irreparable loss 75 would be caused to defendants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next