Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.24 seconds)
Ajanta Limited And Anr. vs M/S. Ajanta Transistor Clock ... on 13 May, 2014 cites

Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction Company(P) Ltd. & ... on 6 May, 1996

6. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that since the respondents are not complying the terms and conditions of the MOU as well as the order dated 17 th May, 2012 passed by this Court in OMP No.431/2012, which was passed with the consent of the parties, therefore, this Court has to pass some interim order for implementation of the terms and conditions of the MOU as well as the order passed by this Court as this Court is empowered to pass such orders for the compliance. He referred the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 622, paras 17 & 19, which read as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 540 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Mohammad Idris And Anr vs Rustam Jahangir Babuji And Others on 27 August, 1984

In Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji, (1985) 1 SCR 598, this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its Orders. The petitioners therein had given an undertaking to the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of contempt and imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge made appropriate directions to remedy the breach of undertaking. It was contended before this Court that the learned Judge was not justified in giving the aforesaid directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. The argument was rejected holding that "the Single CCP(O) Nos.114/2012, 22/2013, 76/2013 & 15/2013 Page 4 of 7 Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach (of undertaking)".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 58 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Sujit Pal vs Prabir Kumar Sun And Ors. on 2 September, 1985

270 and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR1986 Cal. 220. In Century Flour Mills Limited, it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong-doing. The inherent power of the Court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognize that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order."
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 71 - M M Dutt - Full Document
1