Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Karnataka vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 25 April, 2000
In a recent judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors. , the Apex Court (in para 45) clearly held that an injunction under Order 39 CPC being a discretionary relief may not be granted even if all the three ingredients for the grant thereof are established. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of this discretionary relief to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
Section 3 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Bharat Co-Operative Group Housing ... vs B.L. Gupta Construction (P) Ltd. And ... on 25 August, 1993
5. In the replication, the plaintiff has reiterated that the defendant No. 2 is raising constructions without sanction and is totally silent regarding his status or right to raise the impugned constructions. It is also pointed out that the roof top on which such towers are permitted to b(c) raised does not mean the open area in front of the plaintiff's office on the same floor level. It is also pleaded that in view of Delhi Apartment ownership Act, 1986, the roof of the building forms a part of a common area in which all the apartment owners have a proportionate share and as such the builder/promoter of the building, defendant No. l, has no right to enter into any agreement with defendant No. 2. Reliance is placed on a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Sagar Appartments Flat owners Society v. Sequoria Construction, (P) Ltd. reported in 1993 RLR Page 446. It is asserted that defendant No. 1 has no right to enter into any kind of arrangement with any outsider for the use of the said roof/open space.
1