<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (3) TMI 805 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275710</link>
    <description>Temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is an equitable and discretionary remedy, and appellate interference is justified only when the trial court&#039;s discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles. Grant of interim relief depends on a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. On the stated materials, possession of the suit land remained with the respondent, the revenue entries were not clear enough to warrant interim protection, and the trial court had applied the accepted tests correctly. The refusal of temporary injunction was therefore upheld and no interference was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:21:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 805 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275710</link>
      <description>Temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is an equitable and discretionary remedy, and appellate interference is justified only when the trial court&#039;s discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles. Grant of interim relief depends on a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. On the stated materials, possession of the suit land remained with the respondent, the revenue entries were not clear enough to warrant interim protection, and the trial court had applied the accepted tests correctly. The refusal of temporary injunction was therefore upheld and no interference was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>