Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Nabekishore Sahu And Anr. vs East India Arms Co. on 21 January, 1998 cites

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke And Ors. vs Puna Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 24 January, 1995

13. Before parting with, another question of" considerable importance that arises for consideration is whether a defendant to a suit against whom an order of interlocutory o interim injunction has been obtained can be compensated if ultimately the plaintiff's suit is dismissed on merit. It is common experience that now a days a suit for injunction simpliciter takes long years to reach its finality in the Court of first instance. In such a suit or any other suit if the plaintiff obtains an order of interim injunction in respect of the property in question and the same remains valid and effective till conclusion of the trial, the defendant who is ultimately found by the Court to be the owner of the property is prohibited or restrained from doing certain acts or dealing with the property in any manner he chooses. Take for example, adefendant desirous of owning a house on the suit land collects material and just before taking up the work he is prohibited by the process of the Court to come over the land and put up a new construction. Had he proceeded with the construction, the expenditure to be incurred would have been less than what he would incur after the suit is finally decided. Though utlimately the Court finds title to the suit property with him, but because of the order of interim injunction, he could not use the some and take up construction of the house. Therefore, while dismissing the plaintiff s suit, it would be within the competence of the court to award damages against him, for obtaining the order of interim injunction. This view of mine gets support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahadeo Salvaram Shelke, (1995 AIR SCW 1439) (supra), where the Court observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 163 - Full Document

Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989

The above view has been reiterated in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097. This is based on the theory of acquiescence, inasmuch as where the defendant acquiescedin the plaintiff's possession, in that case, the plaintiff is entitled to get an injunction to protect his possession from invasion by the defendant. Acquiescence in the wrongful conduct of another by which one's rights are invaded may often operate, upon principles of and in analogy to estoppel, to preclude the injured party from obtaining many distinctively equitable remedies to which otherwise he is entitled. This form of quasi estoppel does not cut off the party's title, nor his remedy at law; it simply bars his right toequitable relief and leaves him to his legal action alone. (See N.D. Basu's Law of Injunction, 1965 Edition page 94). Kerr on Injunctions, Sixth Edition, at page 19, says :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 265 - Full Document

Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991

8. The principle is well settled that in granting or withholding an injunction the courts exercise a judicial discretion and weigh the amount of substantial mischief done or threatened to the plaintiff and compare it with that which the injunction if granted would inflict upon the defendant. The word 'discretion' means judicial discretion exercised according to something like a settled rule and in such a way as to prevent the defendant doing a wrongful act. It is a sound and reasonable discretion to be reasonably exercised having regard to all circumstances of a particular case. The power which the Court possesses of granting injunction, whether interlocutory or perpetual, should be very cautiously exercised and only upon clear and satisfactory grounds, otherwise it may work great injustice to the person against whom it is sought for. Injunction being an equitable relief the person seeking injunction must come with clean hands. The well known maxim that applies in such matter is, "He who seeks equity must do equity, he who comes into equity must come with clean hands, equity acts the vigilant, not (he indolent." The court grants such equitable relief where it is satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff, including on the question of maintainability of the suit and balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. The phrases "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss", in the words of the Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276, are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The Court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. The apex Court further observed (Para 5 of AIR) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 516 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993

10. Defendant No. 3, on the other hand, asserts that it acquired the suit land by way of lease for a term of 90 years from the State of Orissa in 1964 and stacked the materials for construction of a shop-cum-residential building and the plaintiffs being the road side hawkers on their own volition were watching the materials. In course of time, with the permission of defendant No. 3 they raised temporary shed on the suit land in 1973-74 to transact the business on the condition that they will remove and vacate the suit land as and when required, but later on when asked, they did not vacate. In the premises, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 3 that though initially the plaintiffs' possession was permissive, but later on they turned to be trespassers by not vacating the suit land as agreed upon. Therefore, they being trespassers in respect of the suit land, court should be slow to exercise discretion and grant injunction in their favour. Law on this aspect is well settled that no injunction can be granted against the true owners at the instance of a trespasser or person in unlawful possession. I may in this context refer to a decision in Shiv Kumar Chadha 1993 (3) SCC 161 (supra) where it is observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 482 - N P Singh - Full Document

K.V. Narayan vs S. Sharana Gowda And Anr. on 30 August, 1985

Similar view has been expressed by several High Courts that injunction cannot be granted in favour of a person who is a trespasser against the true owner (See K.V. Narayan v. S. Sharana Gowda, AIR 1986 Kant 77; Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Penniah Mudaliar, AIR l962 Mad 149; Smt. Bishni Devi v. Bahadur Singh, AIR 1980 All 209; Padmanabhan v. Thomas, AIR 1989 Kerala 188, and Biswabeni Private Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta, AIR 1964 Cal 235).
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Alagi Alamelu Achi vs Ponniah Mudaliar on 10 February, 1961

Similar view has been expressed by several High Courts that injunction cannot be granted in favour of a person who is a trespasser against the true owner (See K.V. Narayan v. S. Sharana Gowda, AIR 1986 Kant 77; Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Penniah Mudaliar, AIR l962 Mad 149; Smt. Bishni Devi v. Bahadur Singh, AIR 1980 All 209; Padmanabhan v. Thomas, AIR 1989 Kerala 188, and Biswabeni Private Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta, AIR 1964 Cal 235).
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Smt. Bishni Devi vs Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 9 January, 1980

Similar view has been expressed by several High Courts that injunction cannot be granted in favour of a person who is a trespasser against the true owner (See K.V. Narayan v. S. Sharana Gowda, AIR 1986 Kant 77; Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Penniah Mudaliar, AIR l962 Mad 149; Smt. Bishni Devi v. Bahadur Singh, AIR 1980 All 209; Padmanabhan v. Thomas, AIR 1989 Kerala 188, and Biswabeni Private Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta, AIR 1964 Cal 235).
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Padmanabhan vs Thomas And Anr. on 25 November, 1988

Similar view has been expressed by several High Courts that injunction cannot be granted in favour of a person who is a trespasser against the true owner (See K.V. Narayan v. S. Sharana Gowda, AIR 1986 Kant 77; Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Penniah Mudaliar, AIR l962 Mad 149; Smt. Bishni Devi v. Bahadur Singh, AIR 1980 All 209; Padmanabhan v. Thomas, AIR 1989 Kerala 188, and Biswabeni Private Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta, AIR 1964 Cal 235).
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967

11. The question, however, may be different, as in the present case, whether a person who admittedly has no title but for his long and uninterrupted possession can approach the Equity Court to protect his possession till final adjudication of the 'lis'. It is no doubt true that an owner has every right to enter upon his property and restrain the trespasser from perpetuating his illegal occupation. It is not necessary for him to take recourse to a legal proceeding in order to vindicate his rights of ownership and possession in respect of his property of which another person without having any right or title enters into possession. He can throw out a trespasser while he is in act of or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossesses the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law. It is well settled that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. (See Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 202 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next