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>Appellate Court Overturns Injunction in Section 138 Case: Reminder of Legal Principles</h1> <h3>Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Purbanchal Erade Centre, Guwahati</h3> The appellate court set aside an interim ex parte injunction order in a suit under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The lower court's ... - Issues:Interim ex parte order of injunction in a suit under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Applicability of Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting injunction; Jurisdiction of Civil Court in granting temporary relief in criminal matters.Analysis:The appeal challenges an interim ex parte order of injunction granted in a suit under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent issued cheques to the appellant, which were dishonored, leading to a demand for payment under Section 138. The respondent sought an injunction to restrain the appellant from proceeding under Section 138. The appellate court admitted the appeal despite general restrictions, citing the lower court's lack of understanding of legal principles as a reason.The impugned order restrained the appellant from initiating proceedings under Section 138, treating it as a civil matter, not recognizing its criminal nature. The lower court's oversight of relevant laws like Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, led to the erroneous injunction.The dispute between the parties regarding the transaction's nature allows either party to seek civil remedies. However, the criminal court should not be restrained from examining a complaint under Section 138. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act prohibits injunctions in certain cases, including criminal proceedings, which the lower court failed to consider.The respondent argued that temporary relief can be granted even if a final relief is barred by law. Still, the court held that if a statutory bar exists for final relief, temporary relief cannot be granted. Citing precedents, the court determined that the injunction sought falls under Section 41(b) and (d) of the Specific Relief Act, barring such injunctions in this case.The lower court's error in granting the interim injunction was highlighted, emphasizing the need for proper legal consideration before issuing such orders. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs, concluding that the criminal court's jurisdiction should not be restricted by a civil court in matters like these.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
