Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Vijay Srivastava vs Mirahul Enterprises And Ors. on 21 August, 1987 cites

Nandan Pictures Ltd. vs Art Pictures Ltd. And Ors. on 22 March, 1956

(28) The decision in Nandan Pictures' case (supra) came up before a Division Bench of the same Court in case Indian Cable Company Limited v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, and it was observed as under. "COMING back to consider the observations of Chakrabarti, C. J. in the act of Nandan Pictures, it has been observed by me hereinbefore that those observations should be read only in the context. I find that Chakrabarti, C. J. himself recognised the power of a court to grant interim orders in mandatory form though in exceptional cases and the learned Chief Justice was careful enough to obseerve; "Injunctions' are form of equitable relief and they have to be adjusted maid of equity and justice, to the facts of each particular case. No courts, therefore, ought to lay down absolute proposition when such are not necessary and' forge letters for itself'. Read in that context it appears clear to me that the later observations of the learned Chief Justice which has been relied on in this case by Mr. Chakrabarti, learned counsel for the respondent must be read merely as illustrative and should not be read as laying down any absolute proposition that in no case a court can grant an interlocutory order directing restoration of status quo ante. When the learned Chief Justice was speaking of "a new state of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted" he was not really excluding the state of things which should have in law existed on such a date but for the wrongful act of the defendant of altering such a state of things"
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

The University Of Bihar And Anr. vs Rajendra Singh on 14 October, 1977

(30) In the University of Bihar's case (supra) the decision in Nandan Pictures was followed and limited interpretation was given loathe observations of the Division Bench and as such, in my view, this case can also not be said to be an authority for the proposition that no mandatory injunction can be grant- ed by the court on an interlocutory application in any circumstance.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Indian Cable Company Limited vs Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty on 28 February, 1985

(28) The decision in Nandan Pictures' case (supra) came up before a Division Bench of the same Court in case Indian Cable Company Limited v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, and it was observed as under. "COMING back to consider the observations of Chakrabarti, C. J. in the act of Nandan Pictures, it has been observed by me hereinbefore that those observations should be read only in the context. I find that Chakrabarti, C. J. himself recognised the power of a court to grant interim orders in mandatory form though in exceptional cases and the learned Chief Justice was careful enough to obseerve; "Injunctions' are form of equitable relief and they have to be adjusted maid of equity and justice, to the facts of each particular case. No courts, therefore, ought to lay down absolute proposition when such are not necessary and' forge letters for itself'. Read in that context it appears clear to me that the later observations of the learned Chief Justice which has been relied on in this case by Mr. Chakrabarti, learned counsel for the respondent must be read merely as illustrative and should not be read as laying down any absolute proposition that in no case a court can grant an interlocutory order directing restoration of status quo ante. When the learned Chief Justice was speaking of "a new state of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted" he was not really excluding the state of things which should have in law existed on such a date but for the wrongful act of the defendant of altering such a state of things"
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 54 - Full Document
1