TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether taking delivery in execution of a decree after service of an interim stay order amounted to disobedience of an injunction punishable under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The order served was only an informal interim stay and did not clearly frame a temporary injunction in the manner contemplated by the Code. Order XXXIX, Rule 1 is directed to preventing waste, damage, alienation, or wrongful sale of property, and the mere act of taking possession in execution of a decree does not fall within that scope. Even assuming that the Court had some wider power to grant injunctions, the order actually made in the case did not justify treating the petitioner's act of taking delivery as breach of an injunction. The finding of continued demolition after service of the order was not accepted by the courts below, and the conviction-like order rested only on the taking of delivery after service.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not guilty of disobedience of the injunction, and the order punishing him was set aside.
Final Conclusion: A mere taking of delivery in execution, after service of an unclear interim stay order, was held insufficient to constitute punishable breach of injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: An act of taking possession in execution of a decree does not, by itself, amount to disobedience of an injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the order clearly prohibits that conduct within the scope of the rule.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
