https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346912 A strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury justified continuation of status quo and ex parte interim protection over the pipeline pending decision of the temporary injunction application. The Court relied on contemporaneous documentary material, including the memorandum of understanding, invoices and bank entries, and noted the absence of reliable proof of ownership in favour of the contesting respondent. It accepted that removal of the pipeline would cause serious prejudice to the applicant's uninterrupted discharge of treated effluents and found no better equitable claim to disturb the existing arrangement. Interim protection was therefore maintained under Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 CPC, while the trial court was left to decide the injunction application independently and expeditiously. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Aug 2017 07:01:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346912 A strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury justified continuation of status quo and ex parte interim protection over the pipeline pending decision of the temporary injunction application. The Court relied on contemporaneous documentary material, including the memorandum of understanding, invoices and bank entries, and noted the absence of reliable proof of ownership in favour of the contesting respondent. It accepted that removal of the pipeline would cause serious prejudice to the applicant's uninterrupted discharge of treated effluents and found no better equitable claim to disturb the existing arrangement. Interim protection was therefore maintained under Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 CPC, while the trial court was left to decide the injunction application independently and expeditiously. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346912