Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
The questions whether, if the respondent no.1 had
violated the condition stipulated in the agreement by
changing the structure of the firm without taking prior
permission from the appellant, still the latter was bound to
give to the former an opportunity for rectifying the defect;
and whether passing the order revoking the agreement
without affording such opportunity will render the
revocation order invalid, are matters which are to be
considered when the suit is taken up for hearing. These
are not matters to be considered in detail for considering
the prayer for interlocutory order of injunction. Regarding
the question of status quo on the date of the order of
injunction there was serious dispute whether the appellant
had taken over possession of the property after notice of
revocation of the agreement was served on the manager of
respondent no.1 and had made over possession of the suit
property to respondent no.2 for the purpose of running the
petrol pump. The High Court has tried to get over this
question by recording a finding that there were some
materials on record to show that the respondent no.1 was
transacting business of sale of petroleum products on the
date of filing of the suit. This finding has been arrived at
by the High Court without considering the reasons given
by the Trial Court which had recorded a finding to the
contrary in its order. The High Court has not at all
discussed the considerations which weighed and the
reasons which persuaded the Trial Court in rejecting the
prayer for interim mandatory injunction as prayed for by
respondent no.1. Most importantly, the High Court has
not considered the question whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, if the prayer for interim
injunction is refused the plaintiff/petitioner will suffer
irreparable loss which cannot be adequately compensated
by damages. As has been held by this Court in Dorab
Cawasji Warden case (supra), ordinarily the relief to be
granted to a plaintiff in such a matter is awarding of
damages and interim injunction of a mandatory nature is
not to be granted.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Amritsar Gas Service And Ors on 19 November, 1990
In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs.
Amritsar Gas Service & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 533, a bench of
three learned Judges of this Court considered the
appropriate relief to be granted in a case arising from
revocation of the distributorship agreement for sale of LPG
by the Indian Oil Corporation under different clauses of
the agreement. In that connection, this Court made the
following observations :-
Section 52 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
1