Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Manu Seoram Dadlani And 3 Ors. vs Shyam G. Shroff And 33 Ors. on 12 February, 2026 cites

The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd vs Pothan Joseph on 27 April, 1960

42 A perusal of the findings of the Learned Single Judge in paragraphs 79 and 80 shows that the Learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion, which is not arbitrary or capriciously or perverse. As stated earlier, relying upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wander Limited (supra), the Appellate Court will not re-assess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the learned Single Judge, if the one reached by the Learned Single Judge is reasonably possible. We would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion by the Learned Single Judge solely on the ground that, if we had considered the material at the trial stage, we would have come to a contrary conclusion. Since discretion has been exercised by the Learned Single Judge reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the Appellate Court could have taken a different view, would not justify interference with the Trial Court's exercise of discretion. For these reasons, we were unable to accept the arguments of the Appellant regarding the new Trustees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 319 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

"6:- We have noted this at the forefront for two reasons. First, we believe the principle enunciated in these two cases constrains to a considerable extent, although perhaps not entirely, the extent of our ability to interfere with an impugned order such as this one. Should we find that the impugned order is a plausible view, one that is not arbitrary, capricious or, in the legal understanding of the term, 'perverse', then in appeal we should not - indeed cannot - interfere. In those circumstances, we cannot substitute an alternative view or order for that of the learned Single Judge. The second aspect affects the Plaintiff in appeal before us, represented by Mr. Seervai. Before the learned Single Judge, he would undoubtedly have had to show that all three well-established ingredients or components for ad- interim relief were met a strong prima facie case, that the Page 22 of 38 FEBRUARY 12, 2026 S.R.JOSHI ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2026 22:03:28 ::: app-92-2023.doc balance of convenience favours the Plaintiff, and demonstrating irretrievable prejudice if relief was denied. Once that discretion was exercised at the ad-interim stage by the learned single Judge, in appeal, the burden on Mr. Seervai is much heavier following the Wander v. Antox principle. For Mr. Seervai must now show that, despite that long-understanding principle of law, we must exercise our discretion and must grant the ad-interim relief refused by the learned Single Judge. This requires Mr. Seervai to now make out an overwhelming prima facie case. It is not enough for him to merely demonstrate that a view and conclusion different from that of the learned Single Judge is possible, but to show that the relief he seeks is the only possible view, that the impugned order is not even remotely plausible, and therefore the learned single Judge fell into error. As we shall presently see, and for the reasons that follow, despite a day-long hearing, we are not persuaded at the end of all this that the Plaintiff has succeeded in discharging this obligation."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document
1