Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Palm Print Textiles (India) Ltd. And ... vs British Millerain Co. Ltd. on 13 May, 2002
6. A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court would indicate that the said decision was rendered in the light of the facts which are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The said case decided by the Division Bench was concerned with an ex parte ad interim injunction and dealt with the issue as to whether such ad interim injunction should be issued considering the seriousness and dispute about existence of a basic contract. Therefore, the said decision cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Atul Kumar Singh (Capt.) vs Ms. Jalveen Rosha on 26 February, 1999
Atul Kumar Singh v. Ms. Jalveen Rosha . The aforesaid decision was also rendered on similar facts where suit was filed after institution of the criminal case against plaintiff under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said decision it was specifically held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that injunction sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted in view of the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. In the said case also the dishonoured cheques were the foundation of the criminal case instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff. In the light of the said facts it was held by the learned Single Judge that in a suit for declaration the court may determine the position as it stood on the date of the plaint. In the said case also the position was that the cheques were already used by the defendant much prior to the institution of the suit. Facts are almost identical and similar and, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs Purbanchal Erade Centre, Guwahati on 24 September, 1991
In our considered opinion, no restraint order could have been passed by the learned Single Judge staying the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as that would amount to an order passed in violation of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 12.We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is dismissed.
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1