Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
22. The respondent in-person had categorically submitted before the court
that because of the concrete wall constructed around his house by the
appellants/defendants he could not enter into his building and he and his
family are living in a rented house and his valuable possessions and his
vehicles got damaged as for more than one year the same could not be
moved out. These submissions of the respondent in person could not be
controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendants. These
uncontroverted submissions and the materials placed on record, to the
considered opinion of this court, furnished the highest degree of satisfaction
as required to grant mandatory injunction, in view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra).
Section 37 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
Even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the learned trial court
had not recorded the higher degree of satisfaction yet, it appears that the
learned trial court had exercised its discretion in granting the relief as sought
for, and in view of limited scope of appellate court to interfere with the same,
as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products
(P) Ltd (supra) and also in Wander Limited and Another (supra),
this court is of the view that in absence of arbitrariness, being shown in
exercising such discretion by the learned trial court, no interference in the
same is warranted.
1