https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169210 The Supreme Court held that an order of injunction does not automatically revive upon the restoration of a suit, emphasizing the distinction between incidental and supplemental proceedings. The Court concluded that supplemental orders, like injunctions, require a fresh order for revival to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The judgment advised courts to explicitly address the status of interlocutory orders upon dismissal and restoration of suits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, highlighting the necessity of express judicial orders for the revival of supplemental proceedings. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2015 09:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169210 The Supreme Court held that an order of injunction does not automatically revive upon the restoration of a suit, emphasizing the distinction between incidental and supplemental proceedings. The Court concluded that supplemental orders, like injunctions, require a fresh order for revival to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The judgment advised courts to explicitly address the status of interlocutory orders upon dismissal and restoration of suits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, highlighting the necessity of express judicial orders for the revival of supplemental proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169210