Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)

Ravuru Punnamma vs Lakkaraju Venkata Subba Rao on 6 March, 1952

The aspect of relief of mandatory injunction of demolition of structure and the principle of stand by had been explained in the light of the facts and circumstances and the aspect of delay, waiver and acquiescence also had been advanced by placing reliance on Gopalakrishna v. Narasimham, AIR 1958 AP 586, Ravuru Punnamma v. Lakkaraju Venkata Subba Rao, , Ulagappan Ambalam v. Chidambaram Chetty, ILR 29 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

S.S.V. Krishnan Pillai And Ors. vs Kilasathammal on 31 March, 1927

It is no doubt true that Kerr in his Treatise on the Law and Practice of Injunctions had stated that the Court will not as a rule interfere by way of mandatory injunction without taking into consideration the comparative convenience and inconvenience which the granting or withholding the injunction would cause to the parties. It is no doubt true that the relief of mandatory injunction by and large is discretionary and to substantiate the contention that in such a case normally the possibility of payment of compensation in lieu of grant of granting of mandatory injunction may have to be considered. Strong reliance was placed on Krishnan Pillai v. Kilasathammal, AIR 1928 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next