https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108308 Where occupation of hospital chambers arose from the defendants' former roles as directors and doctors, and permission to use the premises had been withdrawn, the company could seek a prohibitory injunction without first suing for possession. The defendants' continued occupation was not treated as settled or adverse possession, but as possession attributable to the company, so a terminated occupant could not claim an independent right to remain or interfere with the owner's business. Interim restraint was also justified because continued interference would disrupt hospital operations, cause irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the company's control over the premises. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:30:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108308 Where occupation of hospital chambers arose from the defendants' former roles as directors and doctors, and permission to use the premises had been withdrawn, the company could seek a prohibitory injunction without first suing for possession. The defendants' continued occupation was not treated as settled or adverse possession, but as possession attributable to the company, so a terminated occupant could not claim an independent right to remain or interfere with the owner's business. Interim restraint was also justified because continued interference would disrupt hospital operations, cause irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the company's control over the premises. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108308