Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)
Shiv Mandir Trust vs Gopi Chand Rathi Ors on 1 October, 2024 cites

Shiv Mandir Trust vs Gopi Chand Rathi & Ors on 21 May, 2012

It is further stated that the defendant/respondent number 1 was only an ordinary member of the plaintiff/appellant society till about January 2007, when his membership was cancelled. It is further stated that the MCA No. 01/2017 Shri Shiv Mandir Trust Vs. Gopi Chand Rathi & Ors. Page No. 4 of 22 defendant/respondent number 1 in order to gain control over the society with the active connivance of certain other persons in or about the month of August 2004, alongwith his companions and henchmen tried to transgress upon the temple property by forcibly raising some construction work on the western gate of the temple. The executive members of the plaintiff/appellant society protested to the same, police was called and proceedings under section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated. It is further stated that during the period of October 2004 to mid 2009, defendant/respondent number 1 and his companions continued their attempts to grab the temple and its properties on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that previous executive committee of the plaintiff/appellant society had been elected for a period of three years as per the rules and by-laws of the plaintiff/appellant society and its terms was over in March 2007. Accordingly, in accordance with the rules and bye-laws a General Body Meeting was convened, on 01.04.2007, when the present executive committee was duly elected by the members of the plaintiff/appellant society. It is further stated that on or about 03.09.2009, while, the executive committee of the plaintiff society was on way to get the renovation/reconstruction work done, the defendant/respondent number 1 to 13, in connivance with each other and in conspiracy with some unknown associates/servants/henchmen, tried to disrupt the said work and even demolished a part of the shops and the toilet block as also the platform. A complaint was lodged by the plaintiff/appellant society, on 05.09.2009 through it's executive committee members with the local police.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - I Kaur - Full Document

Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991

10. The injunction is called temporary, for it endures only until the suit is disposed of or until the further orders of the Court. It is in the nature of preventive relief granted to a litigant quia timet, that is because plaintiff fears future possible injury. In the interlocutory proceedings, the Court can express only it's tentative view. Passing of interim order in favour of plaintiff is only for the limited purpose of securing the interest of the plaintiff and it will not be implied as being any finding on the merits of the matter nor shall it be construed that the order is passed because the Court has taken any view with regard to the merits. The present order thus has to be made in the light of these observations. Reliance is placed upon Hari Das Singh v. Commr, Agra Division, AIR 2000 All 279 and Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719. In view of the foregoing discussion it needs to be stressed that it is the plaintiff/appellant who is requesting the granting of relief in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to prima facie establish that it is entitled for such relief without going into the merits of the case in detail. At this stage, plaintiff/appellant basically has to establish that the triable strong prima facie case lies in it's favour alongwith the balance of convenience to prevent ir-remediable injury.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 516 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Shri Hamid Ahmed vs Shri Asad Mueed & Ors on 4 September, 2009

5. On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed upon a judgment reported in 162(2009) DLT 520 Hamid Ahmed Vs. Asad Mured as also another judgment reported in AIR 1971 Mysore 298 4. V. Ibrahim & Anr. V's. Mandepanda Cariappa to support a submission that where the dominant purpose of the suit is regarding the functioning of a charitable body which has actually deviated from its object of charity because of a conspiracy by some defendants, being a mis- management of the trust the suit is covered under Section 92 of the Code and leave of the court not having been sought and not having been granted the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - A Kumar - Full Document

Adani Exports Ltd. vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 6 September, 2000

Thus, plaintiff must also show a clear necessity for affording the protection to his alleged right which would otherwise be seriously injured/impaired. Again, a prima facie case implies the probability of the plaintiff obtaining a relief on the materials placed before the Court. It is a well settled principle of law that in order to make out a prima facie case, necessary for granting an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff need not establish his title. Reliance is placed upon Adani Exports Ltd. v Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, (2000) 3 GLR 2759.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next