Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.12 seconds)
Beena Kannan vs K.J. Mathew on 18 March, 2010 cites

Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 11 September, 2009

(Vide Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2009(10) SCC 388). Such order is passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided and the intention is to ensure that the subject matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. Thus the object of the interim order should be to protect the complainant against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 122 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke And Ors. vs Puna Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 24 January, 1995

In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Others v. Pune WP(C) No.7693/2010 -7- Municipal Corporation and Another (1995 (3) SCC 33), the Apex Court has held that while exercising the power, the Court should also adopt the procedure of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the Court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the plaint, he could adequately compensate the defendant for the loss ensued due to the order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, and that even otherwise, the Court while exercising its equity jurisdiction has such jurisdiction and power to grant adequate compensation to mitigate the damages caused to the defendant. It was further held that this procedure would act as a check on the abuse of the process of Court and adequately compensate the damage or injuries suffered by the defendant by act of Court at the behest of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 163 - Full Document

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

8. An interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are tentative. Grant of interim orders is governed by the principles; prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, which are required to be considered in a proper perspective in the facts and circumstances of each case. The phrases, 'prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss' are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in WP(C) No.7693/2010 -6- given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. (Vide Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992(1) SCC 719). Interim orders should not be granted by Court or a Forum without considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party at whose instance it is passed or, in case he loses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 516 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003

In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others (2003(8) SCC 648), the Apex Court held that the principle, no one shall suffer by an act of the Court is not a rule confined to an erroneous act of the Court; "the act of Court" embraces within its sweep all such acts as to which the Court may form an opinion in any legal proceedings that the Court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law. It was held that the factor attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of the Court being wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the Court; the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the Court to pass an order held at the end unsustainable, has resulted in one party getting an advantage which it would not have otherwise earned or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered, but for the order of the Court and the act of such party. It was held that in such cases the quantum of restitution may take into consideration not only what the party excluded would have made, but also what the party under obligation has or might reasonably have made, and that there is nothing wrong in the parties demanding being placed in the same WP(C) No.7693/2010 -9- position in which they would have been, had the Court not intervened by its interim order when at the end of the proceedings the Court pronounces its judicial verdict which does not match with and countenance its own interim verdict. It was held that the injury, if any, caused by the act of the court shall be undone and the gain which the party would have earned, unless it was interdicted by the order of the Court, would be restored to or conferred on the party by suitably commanding the party liable to do so, and that any opinion to the contrary would lead to unjust, if not disastrous, consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 377 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009

13. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments should apply to cases considered by Forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also. As already seen, by virtue of Exts.P5 & P6, the petitioner is prevented from realising the parking fee. At the end of the trial, if the complaint is rejected, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the loss that has been caused at the instance of the complainant, the respondent herein. No safeguard to protect the interest of the petitioner has been provided either by the CDRF or by the State Commission. Unless safeguards are provided, it will be difficult, if not, impossible, to compensate the petitioner and in any case, the petitioner should not WP(C) No.7693/2010 -11- be made to run from pillar to post to recoup her losses. Neither the CDRF nor the State Commission has adverted to the specific case of the petitioner that the complaint was filed without any bonafides and that the respondent is an employee in a toddy shop and that the vehicle mentioned in the complaint does not belong to him. Therefore, even if this order is to be passed, the absence of such a safeguard is an added reason for this Court to set aside Exts.P5 & P6.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 466 - Full Document
1