Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Managing Director U.P. State Bridge ... vs Sri Neeraj Upadhyaya S/O Sri Vijendra ... on 25 May, 2007
cites
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Sri Sriman Narayan & Anr on 9 July, 2002
9. Therefore, the prime question before us is whether the question of maintainability of the suit will come first or the order of injunction. Suit is maintainable if any right exists. Therefore, the Court has to ascertain the prima facie case on the basis of the suit. Out of all relevant guidelines, one of the major guideline is that the plaintiff should have a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case which is normally required for a prohibitory injunction apart from the question of irreparable loss and balance of convenience. However, grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case as per the ratio of (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sriman Narayan and Anr.). If the suit is not maintainable prima facie, interlocutory application in the nature of ultimate relief in the suit can not be held to be sustainable at all. In further, balance of convenience can not be said to be one way traffic. Moreover, this is not the case where even for the sake of argument suit succeeds but can not be compensated with money. The entire basis of passing the order impugned is preposterous.
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
In (Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.) it appears that on account of transfer of immovable properly i.e. dwelling house as per Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 an order of injunction was passed on the pretext that the dwelling house was belonging to an undivided family. Undivided family would certainly mean in the context undivided qua the dwelling house so that the family which owns the house has not divided it by metes and bounds. Therefore, the above decision of the Supreme Court can not be equated with the present one under any stretch of imagination.
M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors on 4 August, 1995
In (Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Coca Cola Co. and Ors.) the question arose in connection with the contract. But situation of passing of order of injunction arose out of an existing contract when the Court visualised that refusal of an interim order will ultimately affect industry and the workers will remain idle and become unemployed.
Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004
15. The ratio of (Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) has no manner of application in the present suit and interlocutory application in connection thereto. The judgment was delivered at a stage of fait accompli in connection with an election when the provision of quorum lost its significance.
M/S Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M/S Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd on 15 December, 2005
16. From [Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd.] we find that interim direction ordinarily would precede finding of a prima facie case. When existence of a prima facie case is established, the Court shall consider the other relevant factors, namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injuries.
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 6 March, 1990
3. It is well settled by now that the highest tenderer can not claim any right to get a tender as a matter of course, therefore, he can not compel a governmental authority to give so. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances, it is not feasible for a governmental authority to accept such tender, which will ultimately cause loss of public revenue, if engaged, not only for the quoted price but also on account of payment of agents' commission. The only ground, which could have been taken by the respondent, is that whether ground of refusal is backed by any cogent reason or not because in a case of contract or no contract the governmental authority will have to act fairly, reasonably and without any discrimination. This principle is well settled in many judgments particularly in (Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors.) and thereafter upto the date.
Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 5 May, 2006
In Seema Arshad Zaheer (supra) it was held that for grant of a temporary injunction the plaintiff is to establish (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff's right by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff's right is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs Hindustan Lever Ltd on 18 August, 1999
In [Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Level Ltd. ] we find certain rule for grant or refusal for order of injunction as follows:
M. Gurudas & Ors vs Rasaranjan & Ors on 13 September, 2006
18. We get from (M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan) that while considering an application for injunction, the Court would pass an order thereupon having regard to (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable injury. A finding on prima facie case would be a finding of fact. However, while arriving at such a finding of fact, the Court not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out but also other factors requisite for grant of injunction exist.