TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court dismisses appeal challenging jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC; denies ad interim injunction.</h1> <h3>MAHADEO SAVLARAM SHELKE Versus PUNA MUNICIPAL CORPN.</h3> The High Court, exercising power under Article 227, dismissed the appeal challenging its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. It held that the bar under ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 and Section 115 CPC.2. Grant of ad interim injunction and the principles governing it.3. Legal right of appellants to remain in possession after eviction orders.Summary:Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 and Section 115 CPC:The appellants contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to exercise revisional power u/s 115 CPC since the Joint Judge had already exercised appellate power. However, the High Court exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, not under Article 226 or Section 115 CPC. The bar u/s 115(2) CPC applies to revisional power where an appeal is provided, but does not bar revisional power u/s 115(1) against an appellate order.Grant of ad interim injunction and the principles governing it:The appellants sought an ad interim injunction to prevent dispossession. The court emphasized that an injunction is discretionary and should be granted only if a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are established. The court referred to precedents like *Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi* and *Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh*, highlighting that injunctions should not protect unlawful possession and must consider public interest. The court concluded that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience, and their possession was unlawful after the eviction order became final.Legal right of appellants to remain in possession after eviction orders:The appellants had no legal right to remain in possession after the eviction order was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation did not confer any right or title to the appellants to seek an injunction. The court reiterated that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession. The public purpose of removing traffic congestion justified the acquisition and possession by the Corporation.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the trial court was directed to assess and decree damages against the appellants if the suit is ultimately dismissed. The court emphasized the need to consider public interest and the consequences of delaying public projects due to injunctions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
