TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the court had restitutionary jurisdiction to require security for the value of goods sold under an interim injunction after dismissal of the suit, and whether such relief could be granted outside the strict terms of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The suit had been dismissed as barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but the controversy before the Court was confined to the consequences of the interlocutory order under which the appellants had been enabled to sell the respondent's goods and retain the proceeds. The Court held that Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not exhaustive of the law of restitution and that the jurisdiction to restore parties to the position they would have occupied but for the erroneous order is inherent in every court. Where an interim order has disturbed the status quo and converted goods into money, the court may require security or other appropriate restorative relief to prevent injustice and abuse of process. The fact that the earlier appeal against the interim order had been withdrawn did not defeat the power to grant such restorative relief after dismissal of the suit.
Conclusion: The High Court was right in directing the appellants to furnish security for the value of the goods sold, and the restitutionary direction was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the restorative order was a proper exercise of the court's power to undo, as far as possible, the prejudice caused by its own interim process.
Ratio Decidendi: Restitution is an inherent power of the court, supplementing Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may be invoked to restore the status quo ante or secure equivalent relief when a party has benefited from an interim order that is later displaced.
TaxTMI 
