TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court issues interim injunction until final disposal of Suit. Applications allowed and closed.</h1> The Court granted an order of interim injunction afresh till the disposal of the Suit. The Application in O.A. No. 548 of 2008 was allowed, and ... - Issues Involved:1. Interim injunction restraining respondents from creating any encumbrance over the properties.2. Applications to vacate the ex parte order of interim injunction.3. Allegations of suppression of caveat petition.4. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court.5. Readiness and willingness to perform the contract.Summary:1. Interim Injunction:Original Application No. 548 of 2008 was filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from creating any encumbrance over the Plaint A and B schedule properties pending disposal of the Suit.2. Applications to Vacate Ex Parte Order:Applications No. 3633 and 3837 of 2008 were filed by defendants 1 to 4 and defendants 5 to 10 respectively, seeking to vacate the ex parte order of interim injunction granted to the applicant/plaintiff on 30.04.2008.3. Allegations of Suppression of Caveat Petition:Respondents contended that the applicant suppressed the pendency of Caveat Petition No. 891 of 2008 and obtained an order of injunction against them. The Court noted that the applicant made an endorsement on the Judge's summons stating 'No caveat served on the petitioner. No caveat also entered in the caveat register.' The Court emphasized the mandatory duty under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure for the caveator to serve notice of the caveat on the adversary and for the Court to serve notice of the Application on the caveator.4. Territorial Jurisdiction:Respondents argued that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the property was located outside its jurisdiction. The Court held that the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale simpliciter, without seeking recovery of possession, cannot be termed as a suit for immovable property. Therefore, the plea of respondents that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction was rejected.5. Readiness and Willingness to Perform the Contract:The applicant contended that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, evidenced by the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- as advance and obtaining a Pay Order for Rs. 42,80,000/-. The Court found that the applicant had shown prima facie readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract before the expiry of the agreement. The Pay Order, telegram, and notice issued by the applicant supported his claim. The Court concluded that if the respondents were not restrained, the applicant's valuable rights would be thwarted, causing much hardship and multiplicity of proceedings.Conclusion:The Court granted an order of interim injunction afresh till the disposal of the Suit. The Application in O.A. No. 548 of 2008 was allowed, and Applications in A. Nos. 3633 and 3837 of 2008 were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
