Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal on 16 November, 1961
In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that while granting a temporary injunction, the courts are not cribbed, cabined and confined by the scope and ambit of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. In fact, the subordinate courts have inherent powers to issue temporary injunctions in the interest of justice in the circumstances, which are not covered by Order 39 of the Code. Thus, the paramount consideration is the interest of justice, the present case is certainly a case where in the interest of justice the learned trial court should have traveled beyond Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.
Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), ... vs Baldev Dass on 15 October, 2004
17. Moreover, in a catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the dispute is with regard to an immovable property, then the property needs to be preserved and ordinarily, a status-quo should be maintained between the parties. Ref. to Maharwal Khewaji Trust Regd. Faridkot v. Baddev Dass .
Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Narcotics Control Bureau vs Dilip Pralhad Namade on 18 March, 2004
14. The learned trial Court seems to be influenced by the fact that the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Dilip Pralhad Namade , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that, "Furthermore, disposal of SLP against a judgment of the High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirmed by such dismissal. The order passed in any SLP at threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or constitute a binding precedent. This Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding the petition for special leave to appeal and that too when the SLP was being dismissed. What is impugned before this Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it. If the order impugned before this Court cannot be reversed or modified at the SLP stage obviously that order cannot also be affirmed at the SLP stage."
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003
The same view was reiterated in the case of Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar and Ors. , when the Apex Court held that "This Court in catena of decisions has held that the dismissal of special leave petition by a non-speaking order which does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against." Thus, it is, indeed, a settled principle of law that in case an SLP is dismissed in limine, it does not necessarily mean or imply that the judgment passed by the High Court is upheld. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the Order dated 10.3.2003 clearly reveals that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not gone into the merits of the case, but had dismissed the SLP in limine. Order dated 10.3.2003 is, in fact, a non-speaking order. Hence, the learned trial court fell into an error when it formed an impression that the dismissal of the appellant's SLP by the Apex Court meant that the judgment passed by this Court was necessarily confirmed.