Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.28 seconds)
Savitaben Amarshibhai Kanani (Patel) vs Shree Nehrunagar Co Op Housing Society ... on 18 April, 2017 cites

Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 11 September, 2009

[d] Zenit   Mataplast   Pvt.   Ltd.   v.   State   of  Maharashtra   reported   in   2009(10)   SCC   388,  wherein,   Mr.Rao,   learned   advocate   for  Respondent   Nos.2   and   3   has   relied   upon  observations   in   paragraphs   30,   31,   and   38  which read as under: ­ "30. Interim order is passed on the  basis   of   prima   facie   findings,  which are tentative. Such order is  passed   as   a   temporary   arrangement  to preserve the status quo till the  matter   is   decided   finally,   to  ensure   that   the   matter   does   not  become either infructuous or a fait  accompli before the final hearing.  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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 122 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M. Gurudas & Ors vs Rasaranjan & Ors on 13 September, 2006

In   such   a   fact  situation, interim relief should be  granted (vide M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs.  Rasaranjan & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3275;  and Shridevi & Anr. vs. Muralidhar  & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 721. Grant of  temporary   injunction,   is   governed  by   three   basic   principles,   i.e.  prima   facie   case;   balance   of  convenience;   and   irreparable  injury,   which   are   required   to   be  considered in a proper perspective  in the facts and circumstances of a  particular case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 114 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shridevi & Anr vs Muralidhar & Anr on 12 October, 2007

In   such   a   fact  situation, interim relief should be  granted (vide M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs.  Rasaranjan & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3275;  and Shridevi & Anr. vs. Muralidhar  & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 721. Grant of  temporary   injunction,   is   governed  by   three   basic   principles,   i.e.  prima   facie   case;   balance   of  convenience;   and   irreparable  injury,   which   are   required   to   be  considered in a proper perspective  in the facts and circumstances of a  particular case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

[e] Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai reported  in 2003(6) SCC 675, wherein, Mr.Rao, learned  advocate   for   Respondent   Nos.2   and   3   has  relied upon observations in paragraphs 26 and  27 of such judgment and submitted that this  Court   should   not   exercise   its   supervisory  jurisdiction   under   Article   227   against   the  impugned   order   when   two   Courts'   below   have  considered   the   fact   and   when   there   are  concurrent   findings.   However,   if   we   peruse  the entire judgment, it becomes clear that in  paragraphs 26 and 27, though Hon'ble Supreme  Court has discussed some issues, ultimately a  conclusion   in   nut   shell   is   endorsed   in  paragraph 38. Though Mr.Rao, learned advocate  for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has read out some  Page 18 of 32 HC-NIC Page 20 of 34 Created On Wed Apr 19 01:30:55 IST 2017 20 of 34 C/SCA/5980/2017 ORDER sub   paragraphs   of   paragraph   38   submitting  that it restricts the right of the Court to  exercise   its   powers   under   Article   227,   on  overall reading of the judgment, it is very  much   clear  that  in­fact  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court has nowhere stated that High Court has  no   power   or   jurisdiction   at   all   in   such  matters   and   if   we   consider   the   fact   of   the  case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though  there were concurrent findings by two Courts'  below,   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   held  that the High Court has failed in refusing to  entertain   the   petition   filed   by   the  Appellants   holding   it   as   non­maintainable  and,   thereby,   allowed   the   appeal   setting  aside   the   order   by   the   High   Court   and,  thereafter   the   petition   was   ordered   to   be  restored on the file of the High Court to be  dealt   with   by   an   appropriate   bench  consistently   with   the   Rules   of   the   High  Court. Therefore, when Hon'ble Supreme Court  has   discussed   the   issue   regarding  jurisdiction of the High Court under Article  227,   certainly   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has  dealt with the submissions of both the sides  pertaining to the issue that whether or not  High Court can exercise the jurisdiction and  after   discussing   issue   on   both   the   sides,  even   in   cited   case,   when   Hon'ble   Supreme  Page 19 of 32 HC-NIC Page 21 of 34 Created On Wed Apr 19 01:30:55 IST 2017 21 of 34 C/SCA/5980/2017 ORDER Court has confirmed that High Court has erred  in   not   exercising   the   jurisdiction   under  Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it  cannot   be   said   that   this   Judgment   is  restraining the powers of the High Court in  entertaining   such   petition.   Therefore,   this  judgment would not be helpful at this stage  to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Sri. Prabhakar vs Joint Director Sericulture Department on 7 September, 2015

14. So far as the aspect of delay is concerned,  learned   advocate   Mr.B.T.   Rao   appearing   for  Respondent   Nos.2   and   3   is   relying   upon  following decisions: ­ [a] Prabhakar   v.   Joint   Director   Sericulture  Department   reported   in   2015(15)   SCC   1,  wherein,   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   observed  that right not exercised for long time is not  existent and even when there is no limitation  period prescribed by any statute relating to  certain proceeding in such cases, Courts can  apply   doctrine   of   latches   /   delay   /  Page 12 of 32 HC-NIC Page 14 of 34 Created On Wed Apr 19 01:30:55 IST 2017 14 of 34 C/SCA/5980/2017 ORDER acquiescence   and   non   suit   litigants   who  approached   the   Court   belatedly   without   any  justifiable   explanation   for   bringing   the  action   after   unreasonable   delay.   Such  observation   is   based   upon   the   doctrine   of  delay and latches relating to application of  maxim   of   equity   `delay   defeats   equities.'  Though there cannot be any issue as to such  observation,   such   judgment   needs   to   be  scrutinized   and   relied   upon   and   applied   it  its  proper  perspective,  inasmuch   as,  in the  given   case   an   order   of   termination   was  challenged   after   a   period   of   more   than   14  years   by   a   labourer   under   the   Industrial  Disputes   Act.  Whereas,  in  the  present  case,  there   is   no   such   inordinate   delay   and,  therefore,   only   because   of   some   such  observations in one case, there cannot be a  strait   jacket   formula   in   all   the   cases   to  confirm that because of some delay, no relief  can   be   granted   at   all.   It   is   settled   legal  position that procedural law including delay  should   not   come   in   way   of   rendering   of  justice.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 439 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 Next