Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in vacating the temporary injunction granted against action under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and whether interference was warranted in the absence of a prima facie case for protecting allegedly unauthorized structures.
Analysis: A temporary injunction is granted only when the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lies in its favour, and refusal would cause irreparable injury. Where the materials show that the structures are unauthorized, no sanctioned plan exists, and the plaintiffs fail to establish that the structures were in existence prior to the relevant datum line or were otherwise lawfully put up, an injunction would have the effect of preserving illegality. Appellate interference is justified where the trial court's exercise of discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or based on no relevant material. On the documents and findings recorded, the High Court was right in holding that no prima facie case was made out and that the temporary injunction ought not to have been granted.
Conclusion: The High Court's order vacating the temporary injunction was ; the challenge to it failed and the injunction could not be sustained.