Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Section 17 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
10th & 11th February 2021
KABIR CHOWDHRY V SAPNA BHAVNANI & ORS
1-IAL5420-2020 in comipl5415-2020-J.docx
guidelines that govern such cases culled from Warden. Paragraphs 16
and 17 of Warden v Warden say this:
Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015
Samir Narain Bhojwani vs M/S Aurora Properties And Investments on 21 August, 2018
In Samir Bhojwani v Aurora Properties & Investments Samir
Bhojwani,1 the Supreme Court considered precisely this -- what must
a Court do when asked to make a mandatory order at an interlocutory
stage. First, there is no question of 'moulding relief'. Where a
mandatory order or injunction sought, such a moulding can only be
done at the final hearing of the suit. Second, as a matter of settled law,
a mandatory order can be granted at the interlocutory stage only to
restore the parties to a status quo ante and not to establish a new order
of things; that is to say, a new factual scenario. The order cannot
create a factual situation at odds with the one that existed at -- and
this is important -- the date of institution of the suit.