Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Code of Civil Procedure: Chanakya National Law University, Nyaya Nagar, Patna

    Uploaded by

    Radhika Prasad
    32 views4 pages
    The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order granting an injunction. It found that the trial court did not adequately examine the detailed counter-affidavits and evidence provided by both parties to determine if a prima facie case existed. It remanded the case back to the trial court to rehear the injunction application and dispose of it based on the merits and in light of the observations by the appellate court.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CPC RD 2139

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order granting an injunction. It found that the trial court did not adequately examine the detailed counter-affidavits and evidence provided by both parties to determine if a prima facie case existed. It remanded the case back to the trial court to rehear the injunction application and dispose of it based on the merits and in light of the observations by the appellate court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views4 pages

    Code of Civil Procedure: Chanakya National Law University, Nyaya Nagar, Patna

    Uploaded by

    Radhika Prasad
    The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order granting an injunction. It found that the trial court did not adequately examine the detailed counter-affidavits and evidence provided by both parties to determine if a prima facie case existed. It remanded the case back to the trial court to rehear the injunction application and dispose of it based on the merits and in light of the observations by the appellate court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

    M/S Uttra Drytech Engineering Private Limited Vs M/S Niraj


    Pertrochemicals Ltd.
    AIR 1994 Andra Pradesh 33

    CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,


    Nyaya Nagar, Patna

    Submitted by- Radhika Prasad Supervised By –


    Roll no. – 2139 Dr. Meeta Mohini
    BA LLB (3rd ) YEAR
    2019-2024
    INTRODUCTION
    This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order of the Second Additional Judge, City
    Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Judge allowed the said application filed by the plaintiff
    thereby making the interim injunction granted on 24-9-1991 absolute, restraining the
    defendant from disposing of or alienating the petition schedule properties including the
    furniture, fittings, machinery, etc., till the disposal of the suit.

    FACTS: Original Suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 70
    lakhs with future interest thereon for the loss sustained by it for breach of contract by the
    defendant. Application for injunction was filed in the said suit, which was allowed as stated
    above. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred this appeal.

    The main contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge having held that all the three
    requirements under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of injunction
    are not satisfied, erred in granting injunction in exercise of inherent powers conferred under
    S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is further contended for the appellant that there is no
    basis for the allegation of the respondent that it could not be possible to recover the suit
    amount in the event of its success in the suit; that the properties shown in the petition
    schedule are not subject matter of the suit; that in the main suit there is no relief sought for
    injunction against the appellant preventing him from alienating the properties; and therefore,
    the petition for injunction is untenable. The learned counsel further con- tended that in spite
    of a detailed counter filed and the relevant material produced, the Court below failed to
    examine the matter in detail for arriving at the conclusion that prima facie case is made out.

    It is a settled proposition of Law that where there is specific provision for grant of the relief
    sought, Courts need not resort to exercise inherent powers vested under Section 151 of the
    Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court also laid down the Law stating that the Court shall
    exercise inherent jurisdiction only when they consider it absolutely necessary for the ends of
    justice. The Supreme Court also held that the said discretion has to be applied in cases with
    extreme caution and only in very rare cases.

    That apart, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of about Rs. 70 Lakhs. It is
    represented that the defendant also had earlier filed another suit in Bombay High Court for
    recovery of about Rs. 48 Lakhs towards the expenses incurred by it due to the delayed
    retirement of documents and also demurrage charges for about three months. A specific plea
    is taken to the said effect by the defendant in its counter-affidavit stating that the present suit
    filed is a counter-blast to the one filed by the defendant in Bombay Court. All of the above
    arguments were contended by the appellant in his appeal.

    The appellate court , which is the High Court said , in a given case, it is the bounden duty of
    the Court to examine in detail with reference to the specific material on record to find out
    whether prima facie case is made out or not; in whose favour does the balance of convenience
    lie; and whether the petitioner suffers any irreparable loss if injunction is refused. In the
    present case, as many as twenty six documents for the petitioner and the same number of
    documents for the respondents were exhibited before the trial Court. But, the Court below
    without examining the matter in detail, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff merely
    saying that prima facie case is made out apart from stating that the two other requirements are
    also fulfilled. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the court allowed the appeal and set aside
    the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh hearing and disposal in
    accordance with Law.

    JUDGMENT: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order and
    remanded the matter back for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with Law, It directed
    the case to be transferred to the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad.
    It said that the said Court will dispose of the application afresh on its own merits and in the
    light of the observations made above and after hearing both the parties, within a period of two
    months from the date of receipt of this order.

    PROVISIONS:

    Section 151 – Saving of inherent powers of court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to
    limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be
    necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

    Order 39 Rule 1 – Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted - Where in any
    Suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—

    (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by
    any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

    (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view
    to defrauding his creditors,
    (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the
    plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,

    the court may by Order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other
    Order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale,
    removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing
    injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court thinks fit,
    until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

    CHAPTERIZATION:

    1) INTRODUCTION ( INCLUDING FACTS)


    2) PRINCIPLE AND SCOPE OF SECTION 151 & ORDER 39 RULE 1
    3) RELEVANT CASE LAWS
    4) ANALYSIS OF JUDMENT
    5) CONCLUSION

    You might also like