Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.88 seconds)Section 10 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 94 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Padam Sen And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 September, 1960
The principle of the case is destructive of
the submission of the appellants. Section 75
empowers the Court to issue a commission for
purposes specified therein: even though it is not
so expressly stated that there is no power to
appoint a commissioner for other purposes, a
prohibition to that effect is, in the view of the
Court in Padam Sen's case, implicit in s. 76. By
parity of reasoning, if the power to issue
injunctions may be exercised, if it is prescribed
by rules in the Orders in Schedule I, it must he
deemed to be not exercisable in any other manner
or for purposes other than those set out in O. 39
rr. 1 and 2.
Firm Bichchha Ram Babu Ram vs Firm Baldeo Sahai Suraj Mal on 19 December, 1939
Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar (6), Firm
Bichchha Ram v. Firm Baldeo Sahai (7),Bhagat Singh
v. jagbir Sawhney (8) and Chinese Tannery owners'
Association v. Makhan Lal (9). We are of opinion
that the latter view is correct and that the
Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue
temporary injunctions in circumstances which are
not covered by the provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of
Civil Procedure. There is no such expression in s.
94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a
temporary injunction in circumstances not covered
by O. XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code.
Chinese Tannery Owners' Association ... vs Makhan Lal And Ors. on 11 December, 1951
Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar (6), Firm
Bichchha Ram v. Firm Baldeo Sahai (7),Bhagat Singh
v. jagbir Sawhney (8) and Chinese Tannery owners'
Association v. Makhan Lal (9). We are of opinion
that the latter view is correct and that the
Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue
temporary injunctions in circumstances which are
not covered by the provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of
Civil Procedure. There is no such expression in s.
94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a
temporary injunction in circumstances not covered
by O. XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code.
T.A. Menon vs K.P. Parvathi Ammal on 5 October, 1949
There have been case in the past, though few,
in which the Court took no notice of such
injunction orders to the party in a suit before
them. They are: Menon v. Parvathi Ammal(1),
Harbhagat Kaur v. Kirpal Singh (2) and Shiv Charan
Lal v. Phool Chand (3). In the last case, the Agra
Court issued an injunction against the plaintiff
of a suit at Delhi restraining him from proceeding
with that suit. The Delhi Court, holding that the
order of the Agra Court did not bind it, decided
to proceed with the suit. This action was
supported by the High Court. Kapur J., observed at
page 248:
Ram Bahadur Thakur And Co. vs Devidayal (Sales) Ltd. on 12 August, 1953
The suit at Indore which had been instituted
later, could be stayed in view of s. 10 of the
Code. The provisions of that section are clear,
definite and mandatory. A Court in which a
subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from
proceeding with the trial of that suit in certain
specified circumstances. When there is a special
provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for
dealing with the contingencies of two such suits
being instituted, recourse to the inherent powers
under s. 151 is not justified. The provisions of
s. 10 do not become inapplicable on a Court
holding that the previously instituted suit is a
vexatious suit or has been instituted in violation
of the terms of the contract. It does not appear
correct to say, as has been said in Ram Bahadur v.
Devidayal Ltd. (1) that the Legislature did not
contemplate the provisions of s. 10 to apply when
the previously instituted suit be held to be
instituted in those circumstances. The provisions
of s. 35A indicate that the Legislature was aware
of false or vexatious claims or defences
471
being made, in suits, and accordingly provided for
compensatory cost. The Legislature could have
therefore provided for the non-application of the
provisions of s. 10 in those circumstances, but it
did not. Further, s. 22 of the Code provides for
the transfer of a suit to another Court when a
suit which could be instituted in any one of two
or more Courts is instituted in one of such
Courts. In view of the provisions of this section,
it was open to the respondent to apply for the
transfer of the suit at Asansol to the Indore
Court and, if the suit had been transferred to the
Indore Court, the two suits could have been tried
together. It is clear, therefore, that the
Legislature had contemplated the contingency of
two suits with respect to similar reliefs being
instituted and of the institution of a suit in one
Court when it could also be instituted in another
Court and it be preferable, for certain reasons,
that the suit be tried in that other Court.
Maqbul Ahmad vs Onkar Pratap Narain Singh on 7 February, 1935
The Code of Civil Procedure is undoubtedly
not exhaustive: it does not lay down rules for
guidance in respect of all situations nor does it
seek to provide rules for decision of all
conceivable cases which may arise. The civil
courts are authorised to pass such orders(as may
be necessary for the ends of justice, or to
prevent abuse of the process of court, but where
an express provision is made to meet a particular
situation the Code must be observed, an departure
therefrom is not permissible. As observed in L. R.
62 I. A. 80 (Maqbul Ahmed v. Onkar Pratab) "It is
impossible to hold that in a matter which is
governed by an Act, which in some limited respects
gives the court a statutory discretion, there can
be implied in
473
court, outside the limits of the Act a general
discretion to dispense with the provisions of the
Act." Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make
order ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed
by s. 151 of the Code, but that jurisdiction
cannot be exercised so as to nullify the
provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals
Expressly with a particular matter, the provision
should normally be regarded as exhaustive.