Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.67 seconds)A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000
12. The mandatory nature of the requirement of the provision has been
emphasized by the Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.
Chellappan AIR 2000 SC 3032 and this Court in Himalaya Drug v. SBL
Ltd. 1996 III AD (Delhi) 853. There is a logic behind insisting that a
Plaintiff who obtain an ex parte ad interim injunction order should, at the
earliest point in time, deliver to the party against whom such injunction
has been granted, all the documents on the basis of which such injunction
was granted. This is to enable the opposite party to know what the case
CS(OS) No.1314/2009 Page 6 of 12
against it is and to approach the court at the earliest point in time to seek,
if necessary, a variation of the interim order.
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993
In this context following observations of the Supreme Court in Shiv
Kumar Chadha Vs. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161 are relevant:-
Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare And Ors on 4 March, 1975
253. This Court has also expressed the same view in
respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of
Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare AIR
1975 SC 915."
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1