Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)
Taraben D/O Nanubhai vs Shaileshbhai Rangilbhai on 26 February, 2013 cites

H.G. Krishna Reddy And Co. vs M.M. Thimmaiah And Anr. on 24 January, 1983

36. The reliance placed by both the sides with regard to the approach of the appellate court while dealing with the discretionary orders passed by the court below also has to be considered in light of the broad guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court. Normally, the discretionary orders are not to be disturbed and it is well-accepted that the discretionary orders passed by the court below, unless are perverse or misdirected, do not call for any interference. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Wander Ltd. And anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 has observed, The appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

M/S Julien Educational Trust vs Sourendra Kumar Roy & Ors on 2 December, 2009

16. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. and anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727. He pointedly referred to the observations made in para 14. He submitted that it has been focused as to when interference is called for and merely because a different view is possible is by itself not sufficient. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar submitted that the parameters for grant of injunction are required to be considered as per O.39 R. 1-2. He referred to O.30 R.1-2 and submitted that in view of the background of the facts hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore the present Appeal from Orders may not be entertained. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Julien Educational Trust v. Sourendra Kumar Roy and ors., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 379.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010

Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar has also referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1654, and pointedly referred to the observations, The main provision in S. 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 198 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Adani Exports Ltd. vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 6 September, 2000

18. He, therefore, submitted that in such a situation where respective claims would be considered on the basis of evidence at the trial and prima facie the trial court having examined the material has granted the injunction, the same may not be disturbed. He submitted that the approach, normally, is to maintain the status-quo to avoid further litigation. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 104. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Ibrahim Shah Mohamad and ors. v. Noor Ahmed Noor Mohamed and ors., reported in 1983(2) GLR 961, and the judgment in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2000(3) GLR 2759. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar, therefore, submitted that the present Appeal from Orders may not be entertained.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Smt. Mayawanti vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi on 6 April, 1990

He emphasised the observations and submitted that there is uncertainty in the share of the sisters and their consent. Therefore, if there is no clarity, then, it would be merely an intention to enter into an agreement on fulfillment of such condition. Therefore, learned Sr. Counsel Shri Thakore submitted that the present Appeal from Order may be allowed. He ha also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 1, and referring to the observations in para 17 submitted that the approach of the court has been discussed for the purpose of grant of injunction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 159 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next