<?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>1974 (4) TMI 114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277558</link>
    <description>Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act bars an injunction restraining proceedings before a court not subordinate to the court granting relief, and the bar applies equally to interim injunctions. The Bombay High Court held that the Small Causes Court could not restrain a dispute pending before the Officer on Special Duty under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, as that proceeding was treated as a court proceeding for this purpose. The existence of parallel proceedings and the possibility that the Section 91 dispute might be decided earlier did not justify the restraint. The injunction was therefore unsustainable and the revision succeeded, with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:50:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (4) TMI 114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277558</link>
      <description>Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act bars an injunction restraining proceedings before a court not subordinate to the court granting relief, and the bar applies equally to interim injunctions. The Bombay High Court held that the Small Causes Court could not restrain a dispute pending before the Officer on Special Duty under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, as that proceeding was treated as a court proceeding for this purpose. The existence of parallel proceedings and the possibility that the Section 91 dispute might be decided earlier did not justify the restraint. The injunction was therefore unsustainable and the revision succeeded, with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>