//
archives

Interim order

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Writ Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Disability compensation – was refused while he was in Gaya – As per interim order compensation was paid at Patna – at final hearing Patna High court dismissed the Writ – Apex court held that Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation.in our considered opinion, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above, at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief, the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner- appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.=CIVIL APPEAL NO.7414 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19549 of 2013) Nawal Kishore Sharma ….Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Others …Respondent(s) = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41814

   Writ Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction –  Disability compensation – was refused while he was in Gaya – As per interim order compensation was paid at Patna – at final hearing Patna High court dismissed the Writ – Apex court held that Prima facie, therefore, considering all the  facts  together, a part or fraction of cause of action … Continue reading

Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High Court staying operation of order of Single Judge and directing the money deposited by plaintiff and appellant with developer to the credit of one of the suits and to be invested in FD – Held: Division Bench of High Court while deciding the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power and jurisdiction in commenting on the conduct of the appellant stating that she approached the court on the basis of false and fabricated documents – When the main suits are pending, particularly, the appellant is a stranger in the pending suits, such observation is not warranted and, as such, is deleted – The developer having deposited the money as directed by High Court, it safeguards the interests of plaintiff – Trial Court directed to decide the suits on merit – Administration of justice – Strictures. = Vasanti Bhat …. Appellant(s) Versus Premlata A Agarwal & Anr. Etc. …. Respondent(s) = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx

INTERIM ORDERS: Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High … Continue reading

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2-Interim Injunction-Contractual transaction-Money advanced to second party and third party secured the loan by hypothecation and charge-Notice by lender to the securing party seeking repayment of the amount-Suit by securing party against the lender for mandatory injunction and application for interim injunction-Claim of lender before Debt Recovery Tribunal-Interim injunction granted and execution of any order by Tribunal restrained-Held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below could not exercise its discretion to grant any interim injunction-Injunction against enforcement of orders of Tribunal also not correct-Such injunctions against the Tribunal having jurisdiction to pass such orders cannot normally be granted unless it is a case of fraud or the existence of some such vitiating factor is established or prima facie made out. Appellant-defendant No. 1 issued a notice to respondent No. 1 – plaintiff and defendant No. 2, seeking repayment of the amounts advanced by it to defendant No. 2, the repayment of which was secured by hypothecation and charge created by the plaintiff. Pursuant thereto respondent No. 1 – plaintiff filed a suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with certain capacitor banks systems allegedly supplied by the plaintiff and installed at various substations of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh. Plaintiff also filed application for interim injunction. Trial Court granted interim injunction. In the meanwhile appellant filed its claim for recovery of the amounts due, before Debts Recovery Tribunal. It also filed application for vacating the interim order and the same was vacated by Single Judge of High Court. Plaintiff’s appeal thereagainst was allowed by Division Bench of High Court on the ground that since the suit was filed earlier to the claim before Debt Recovery Tribunal, the court was competent to entertain the suit and granted interim injunction. It permitted the proceedings before the Tribunal, but restrained the execution of any order that might be passed by the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. Citation: 2006(8 )Suppl.SCR698 ,2007(1 )SCC106 ,2006(11 )SCALE585 ,2006(10 )JT366 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the court is prima facie satisfied that this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion by the court to grant any interim injunction as sought for by the plaintiff. Division Bench has not properly adverted to or considered the question whether in the nature of the pleadings in the case and the nature of the relief claimed in the suit, an order of injunction as the one granted by it should be granted. The Division Bench did not ask itself the question whether it was open to it on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, to issue an order of injunction restraining one of the contracting parties from enforcing as against the other contracting party, the obligations arising out of that contract. The Division Bench also did not ask itself the question whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of what it called an interim mandatory injunction – though it appears to this court to be a case of prohibitory injunction – and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of an interim order of injunction. [702-B-F] 2. Division Bench has clearly acted illegally in purporting to pass an interim order of injunction restraining the enforcement of any order that may be passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is a special forum created by a special enactment for the purpose of enforcement of special types of claims arising in favour of financial institutions. Thus, competent proceedings are instituted before such a Tribunal by a financial institution seeking to enforce its claimed rights. Whatever defences the plaintiff herein may have against the claims of the first defendant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, have to be put forward by the plaintiff before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The mere fact that the plaintiff chose to rush to the Civil Court on receipt of a notice from the first defendant in an attempt to thwart the enforcement of the obligations it has allegedly incurred, does not justify the grant of an interim order of injunction restraining the enforcement of the rights arising out of an alleged hypothecation and a charge created by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. That apart, to grant an injunction restraining the enforcement of orders passed by the Tribunal having jurisdiction to pass such orders cannot normally be granted unless it is a case of fraud or the existence of some such vitiating factor is established or prima facie made out. Even then, the order of injunction as now granted could be granted only in exceptional cases. [702-F-H; 703-A-C] 3. It is open to the plaintiff to put forward all its contentions before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and if it is thought appropriate, to get the suit filed by it transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to be tried as a cross suit or counter claim against the claim of the first defendant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. [703-E-F] State Bank of India v. M/s Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and Anr., (2006) 10 SCALE 150, referred to. K.K. Mani for the Appellant. L. Nageshwar Rao, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Nandakumar K.P. Venugopal, and E. Venukumar, K.J. John & Co. for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4728 of 2006 PETITIONER: Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd RESPONDENT: Marshal’s Power & Telecom (I) Ltd.& Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/11/2006 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2962 … Continue reading

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 39, Rule 2A-Scope of-Disobedience or breach of injunc-tion-Trial court ordered the person guilty to be detained in civil prison-High Court setting aside the order accepting the contention that court cannot detain such person without ordering his property to be attached- Interpretation of Statutes : Word `and’-Held sometimes by force of context is read as `or’ : Principle of Noscitur a Sociis, applied. Maxwell on `Interpretation of Statutes’, referred to. Words and Phrases : Expression `and may also’ occuring in Order 39, Rule 2A, C.P.C.-Meaning of. Held, it is open to the court to attach the property of disobeying party and at the same time court can order him to be detained in civil prison also if the court deems it necessary-Both the steps can be resorted to or one of them alone need be chosen-However, High Court was right that in view of the respondent sub-sequently removing the obstruction and tendering unconditional apology, it is not necessary to put him in prison. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR (1964) SC 1099, relied on. Ottapiurakkal Thazath Suppi & Ors. V. Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunhi Koya, AIR (1917) Mad. 448; Nawal Kishore Singh & Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Singh & Ors., AIR (1976) Pat. 56 and Kapildeo Upadhyay v. Raghunath Pandey, AIR (1978) Pat. 212, referred to. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR (1964) SC 1099, relied on. Black’s Law Dictionary and Strand’s Judicial Dictionary, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11992 of 1998.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 PETITIONER: SAMEE KHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: BINDU KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/1998 BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R Two neighbours are engaged in a long drawn fight in civil court on a small issue. The fight started at the … Continue reading

infringement of registered trade mark WALKER/MORNING WALKER We have already pointed out that from the documents marked as Annexures B, C, D and E annexed to the injunction application, the plaintiff/appellant has made out a strong prima facie case of violation of infringement of their trademark and, thus, it is a fit case for grant of adinterim injunction. We, consequently, set aside that part of the order impugned by which His Lordship refused to grant any ad-interim order and pass an order of ad-interim injunction in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this application till the disposal of the application for injunction, which is pending before the learned single Judge.

APOT No. 273 of 2011 G.A.1883 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side SPACEAGE MULTIPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Appellant Versus TVSN MARKETING & ORS. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.Basu, Mr. P.Sinha and Mr. Atish Ghosh, Advocates For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Abid Hussain with … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,167 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com