Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.94 seconds)
Dr. Pashupati Nath Priyadarshi vs The Union Of India on 17 January, 2024 cites

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

In such a fact situation, interim relief should be granted (vide M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan [(2006) 8 SCC 367 : AIR 2006 SC 3275] and Shridevi v. Muralidhar [(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

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs Hindustan Lever Ltd on 18 August, 1999

In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1999) 7 SCC 1] this Court observed that Laddie, J. in Series 5 Software [(1996) 1 All ER 853 (Ch D)] had been able to resolve the issue without any departure from the true perspective of the judgment in American Cyanamid [(1975) 1 All ER 504 : 1975 AC 396 : (1975) 2 WLR 316 (HL)] . In that case, however, this
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 208 - Full Document

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997

adjudicate the issue then the same will amount to usurp the power of the learned tribunal which is the Court of first instance so far as the case of employees/officers of the Central Government or concerned recruitment as per the stipulation made under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Act, 1985 is concerned as also in view of the judgment rendered in the case of L Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others as reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261. Therefore, we are not delving upon the issue on merit as has been pointed out by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners as referred hereinabove, rather we are going into the propriety of the said order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 2564 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Anand Prasad Agarwalla vs Tarkeshwar Prasad And Ors on 9 May, 2001

"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 (vide Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad [(2001) 5 SCC 568] , and State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha [(2009) 5 SCC 694 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 109] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

State Of Assam vs Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha on 17 March, 2009

"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 (vide Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad [(2001) 5 SCC 568] , and State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha [(2009) 5 SCC 694 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 109] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 152 - Full Document
1   2 Next