Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.45 seconds)
Vishal vs Kataria on 27 January, 2010 cites

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

6.3 The question of interim relief when it to be granted has examined by the Honourable Apex Court in case of M. Gurudas Vs. Rasaranjan, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4773. While considering interim relief application, the Court has to consider finding on prima facie case which would finding fact. However, while arriving at such finding of fact, Court not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out but would consider question in regard to balance of convenience of parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by plaintiffs if prayer for injunction is to be refused. Court has to consider the conduct of defendants was undisputedly relevant. The relevant Paras viz. Nos. 19 to 22 and 37 from aforesaid decision are quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 114 - S B Sinha - Full Document

United Commercial Bank vs Bank Of India And Others on 26 March, 1981

22. While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and not only on a mere triable issue. [See Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others , (1990) 2 SCC 117, Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Prahlad Singh and Others (1992) 1 SCC 719, United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and Others (1981) 2 SCC 766, Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Co. and Others (1995) 5 SCC 545, Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others (1999) 5 SCC 222 and Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd (supra)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 288 - A P Sen - Full Document

Bina Murlidhar Hemdev And Ors vs Kanhaiyalal Lakram Hemdev And Ors on 14 May, 1999

22. While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and not only on a mere triable issue. [See Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others , (1990) 2 SCC 117, Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Prahlad Singh and Others (1992) 1 SCC 719, United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and Others (1981) 2 SCC 766, Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Co. and Others (1995) 5 SCC 545, Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others (1999) 5 SCC 222 and Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd (supra)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 38 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next