Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.47 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993
95. As observed in Shiva Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and others ((1993) 3 SCC 161), power to grant injunction is an
extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts
have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without
notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed.
That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the
court shall, before grant to the opposite party, except where it appears
that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By
the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to
the said rule saying that, ?where it is proposed to grant an injunction
without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, the court
shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the
injunction would be defeated by delay....?
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994
In the decision, second cited supra, in paragraph No.6, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice P. Sathasivam, as he then was, has made reference to Morgan Stanley
Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das (1994 (1) SCC 225) and Shiv Kumar Chadha v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993 (3) SCC 161), cited supra, and
therefore, they need not again be reiterated herein.
Section 224 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000
46. With reference to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1, Order 43 Rule
1 and Section 104 C.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel in order to support his contention
has made reference to the decision in A Venkatasubbiah vs. S. Chellappan
and others (AIR 2000 SC 3032).
Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the
decision in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and another
(2003(2) CTC 122).
The Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan ... vs Ajit Prasad Tarway on 5 November, 1971
71. While advancing the argument, the decision in Managing Director,
Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway (AIR
1973 SC 76) was quoted.
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
"23. The history of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court, and how the jurisdiction has culminated into its present shape under
Article 227 of the Constitution, was traced in Waryam Singh & Anr. Vs.
Amarnath & Anr. (1954) SCR 565. The jurisdiction can be traced back to
Section 15 of High Courts Act 1861 which gave a power of judicial
superintendence to the High Court apart from and independently of the
provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High
Court. Section 107 of the Government of India Act 1915 and then Section 224
of the Government of India Act 1935, were similarly worded and reproduced the
predecessor provision. However, sub-section (2) was added in Section 224
which confined the jurisdiction of the High Court to such judgments of the
inferior courts which were not otherwise subject to appeal or revision. That
restriction has not been carried forward in Article 227 of the Constitution.
In that sense Article 227 of the Constitution has width and vigour
unprecedented."