Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.74 seconds)
Kudla Rampage vs Sri Harshendra Kumar D on 1 August, 2025 cites

Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

18. There is yet another dimension to the issues arising in the present appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to hand over possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. It is, indeed, a rare power, the governing principles whereof would hardly require a reiteration inasmuch as the same which had been evolved by this Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden [(1990) 2 SCC 117] has come to be firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 492 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Champsey Bhimji And Co. vs The Jamna Flour Mills Co., Ltd. on 26 June, 1914

In M. Kandaswami Chetty v. P. Subramania Chetty [ILR (1918) 41 Mad 208: 1917 MWN 501: 41 IC 384] , a Division Bench of Madras High Court held that courts in India have the power by virtue of Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue temporary injunctions in a mandatory form and differed from Beaman J.'s view accepting the view in Champsey Bhimji & Co. v. Jamna Flour Mills Co. [(1914) 16 Bom LR 566: 28 IC 121] In Israil v. Shamser Rahman [ILR (1914) 41 Cal 436: 18 CWN 176] , it was held that the High Court was competent to issue an interim injunction in a mandatory form. It was further held in this case that in granting an interim injunction what the court had to determine was whether there was a fair and substantial question to be decided as to what the rights of the parties were and whether the nature and difficulty of the questions was such that it was proper that the injunction should be granted until the time for deciding them should arrive. It was further held that the court should consider as to where the balance of convenience lies and whether it is desirable that the status quo should be maintained.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Israil vs Shamser Rahman on 27 August, 1913

In M. Kandaswami Chetty v. P. Subramania Chetty [ILR (1918) 41 Mad 208: 1917 MWN 501: 41 IC 384] , a Division Bench of Madras High Court held that courts in India have the power by virtue of Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue temporary injunctions in a mandatory form and differed from Beaman J.'s view accepting the view in Champsey Bhimji & Co. v. Jamna Flour Mills Co. [(1914) 16 Bom LR 566: 28 IC 121] In Israil v. Shamser Rahman [ILR (1914) 41 Cal 436: 18 CWN 176] , it was held that the High Court was competent to issue an interim injunction in a mandatory form. It was further held in this case that in granting an interim injunction what the court had to determine was whether there was a fair and substantial question to be decided as to what the rights of the parties were and whether the nature and difficulty of the questions was such that it was proper that the injunction should be granted until the time for deciding them should arrive. It was further held that the court should consider as to where the balance of convenience lies and whether it is desirable that the status quo should be maintained.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next