Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (1.20 seconds)
Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Jyotish ... vs Additional District Judge - Vii, ... on 23 January, 2004
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 92 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr vs Ramji Tripathi & Anr on 21 August, 1974
Against the judgment of trial Court in Suit No. 3 of 1954 dated 20th October, 1962 first appeal was filed in this Court being First Appeal No. 385 of 1962 (Sri Swami Permanand Sarswati and Ors. v. Ramji Tripathi). This Court itself in the judgment while dismissing the first appeal observed:-
Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
In this context, we may quote the Constitution Bench decision in T.C. Basappa v. T.Nagappa and Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S.Advani as also a three Judge Bench decision in Dwarka Nath v. ITO which have held in no uncertain terms, as the law has always been, that a writ of certiorari is issued against the acts or proceedings of judicial or quasi-judicial body conferred with power to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and obliged to act judicially. We are therefore of the opinion that the writ of certiorari is directed against the Act, order or proceedings of the subordinate court, it can issue even if the lis is between two private parties."
Dwarka Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 29 March, 1965
In this context, we may quote the Constitution Bench decision in T.C. Basappa v. T.Nagappa and Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S.Advani as also a three Judge Bench decision in Dwarka Nath v. ITO which have held in no uncertain terms, as the law has always been, that a writ of certiorari is issued against the acts or proceedings of judicial or quasi-judicial body conferred with power to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and obliged to act judicially. We are therefore of the opinion that the writ of certiorari is directed against the Act, order or proceedings of the subordinate court, it can issue even if the lis is between two private parties."
M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors on 4 August, 1995
Reliance has been placed by counsel for the plaintiff-respondent upon M/s Gujarat Bottlings Case (supra) which judgment has already bet, noted in this judgment. The principles laid down for grant of an interlocutory injunction in the above judgment has already been extracted above. The apex Court also held in the said judgment that under Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and the Court will, apart from other consideration, also look to the conduct of the party. There can be no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down by the apex Court in the above case. The question as to whether the grant of ;oral injunction in favour of plaintiff respondent is within the four corners of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure has already been considered in earlier part of this judgment.
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need to the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own illegal for which he could not be adequately compensated. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine the balance of convenience lies. (See: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (supp) SCC 727 at Pp. 731-32). In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the Covert can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial."
Anand Prasad Agarwalla vs Tarkeshwar Prasad And Ors on 9 May, 2001
The trial Court proceeded to consider various filed in air in application under Section 6-C and proceeded for detail to consider various submissions regarding qualification, defendant for holding the office of Jagatguru Shankarachaya considering the application for temporary injunction trial Court was not required to proceed to consider case of the plaintiff as contained in various affidavits filed in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and records its finding regarding various aspects of the qualification. The judgment of the trial Court runs into 89 closely typed pages which elaborately considers various issues laised in the suit regarding eligibility of the defendant to hold office of Jagatguru Shankaracharya. The issues which have been examined and on which findings have been recorded by the trial Court in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure were questions which were required to be considered and decided after evidence of the parties in the suit itself. The Apex Court in 2001(5) S.C.C. 568; Anand Prasad Agarwal v. Tarkeshwar Prasad and Ors., while considering the scope of application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 held in paragraph 6: