Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.26 seconds)
Mr. Barun Kumar Nahar vs Parul Nahar & Anr. on 5 February, 2013 cites

Kavita Chaudhri vs Eveneet Singh And Anr. on 20 December, 2010

28. I have also had occasion to deal with some-what similar situation in the case of Kavita Chaudhari v. Eveneet Singh and Anr., reported in 2012 (130) DRJ 83, wherein the civil suit was filed by the mother-in-law seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against her son and daughter- in-law and in violation of the interim order passed by the court, the daughter- in-law failed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the mother- in-law, thereby necessitating the Decree Holder i.e mother-in-law to file an execution petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 30 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

21. Ld. counsel for defendant No.1 heavily placed reliance on the preposition that grant of interim mandatory injunction in favour of the CS(OS) No. 2795/2011 Page 14 of 32 plaintiff would result in granting final relief to the plaintiff and secondly that the grant of interim mandatory injunction can be granted only to restore the status quo ante. To support his argument counsel for defendant No.1 placed reliance on the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors. (supra). Counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance on the same case to counter the argument of counsel for defendant No. 1. The Apex Court in this case observed that the relief of interlocutory and mandatory injunction is generally granted to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. The following paras from the said judgment would further amplify the legal position.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 492 - L M Sharma - Full Document

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

While accepting that it is not possible to say that in no circumstances will the Courts in India have any jurisdiction to issue an ad interim injunction of a mandatory character, in Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art. Pictures Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1956 Cal 428, a Division Bench was of the view that if the mandatory injunction is granted at all on an interlocutory application it is granted only to restore the status quo and not granted to establish a new state of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

Champsey Bhimji And Co. vs The Jamna Flour Mills Co., Ltd. on 26 June, 1914

In M. Kandaswami Chetty v. F. Subramania Chetty , a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that CS(OS) No. 2795/2011 Page 15 of 32 court's in India have the power by virtue of Order 39 Rule 2 of the CPC to issue temporary injunction in a mandatory form and differed from Beaman's view accepting the view in Champsey Bhimji & Co. v. Jamna Flour Mills Co. (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Israil vs Shamser Rahman on 27 August, 1913

In Israil v. Shamser Rahman, it was held that the High Court was competent to issue an interim injunction in a mandatory form. It was further held in this case that in granting an interim injunction what the Court had to determine was whether there was a fair and substantial question to be decided as to what the rights of the parties were and whether the nature and difficulty of the questions was such that it was proper that the injunction should be granted until the time for deciding them should arrive. It was further held that the Court should consider as to where the balance of convenience lie and whether it is desirable that the status quo should be maintained.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next