Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.75 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003
9. Ld. Sr.Counsel Mr. Bhatt has placed reliance on one decision reported in the case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v/s Anil Panjwani, reported in 2003 AIR SCW 2590 in support of his submissions. After referring four different decisions, the Apex Court has held:-
Shreerang Developers And Ors. vs Himmatlal Jamnadas Maniar And Ors. on 10 April, 2003
15. This Court, while dealing with the case of Shrirang Developers & Others v/s Himmatlal Jamnalal Maniar, reported in 2003(2) GLH 680 has observed that the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. In the cited case, ld. Civil Judges had passed different orders. In one set of matters, the ld. Civil Judge had granted injunction and in other set of matters, the other ld. Civil Judge had not granted the injunction. In the present case, the very Court in the same suit viz. Civil Suit No. 81/2001 has passed the overlapping orders, if not contradictory in stricto senso. Now the balance is required to be struck at this interlocutory stage. The discretion exercised while dealing with application exh.30 in the lower Court, the ld. Judge has not either acted reasonably or in judicious manner. It is apparent that the Lower Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1