Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (3.05 seconds)
Sheoraj vs M/S Acoord Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 11 February, 2011 cites

Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009

In Narendra Kant (supra) the High Court had in a Misc. Appeal observed that in case injunction was granted, it would be the defendants who will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It was observed that defendant no. 10 (the transferee from respondent-defendant no. 1 and 2) had acquired a right to the suit property. He was therefore allowed to carry out construction activities over the disputed land but was restrained from alienating or transferring the property in question or from creating any third party rights during the pendency of the civil suit. The trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously, and to dispose of the same within six months. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the order except by directing that the co-sharers to the suit property shall not create any third party right or encumber or transfer their respective suit property in any manner and all transactions undertaken in respect thereof shall be subject to the final decision in the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 102 - A Kabir - Full Document

Ayyaswami Gounder And Ors vs Munnuswamy Gounder And Ors on 25 September, 1984

In Ayyaswami Gounder vs. Munnuswami Gounder AIR 1984 SC 1789 the Supreme Court held that where an owner of land obstructs another co-owner from using the land even when the use causes no injury or detriment to him, an injunction can be granted against the obstructing owner. The only restriction could by law on the in user of land by a co-owner is that it should not be so used as to pre-judicially affect or put the other co-owner to a detriment. In paragraph 10, and 11, it was observed:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - R B Misra - Full Document

Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs Maruti Corp.& Ors on 6 April, 2009

In Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja (supra) the Supreme Court did not favour the grant of injunction, affecting rights of third parties. There were 280 transferees to whom some portion of land was already sold. It was held that if the owners of the property remain restrained from developing the same, it is they who will suffer severe prejudice, as they will be deprived of the benefit of the user of their land during the said period. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is against the grant of such an injunction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 70 - A Kabir - Full Document
1