https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287872 Omission to record reasons when granting an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was treated as directory in substance, so it did not by itself invalidate the order where the record otherwise supported ex parte relief. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not bar an injunction restraining pendente lite transfer, because lis pendens does not oust the court's power to preserve the property by interim restraint where warranted. On the materials then before the court, and accepting the application's allegations in the absence of a show-cause response, ad interim injunction was justified. The challenge to the restraint therefore failed. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 20:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287872 Omission to record reasons when granting an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was treated as directory in substance, so it did not by itself invalidate the order where the record otherwise supported ex parte relief. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not bar an injunction restraining pendente lite transfer, because lis pendens does not oust the court's power to preserve the property by interim restraint where warranted. On the materials then before the court, and accepting the application's allegations in the absence of a show-cause response, ad interim injunction was justified. The challenge to the restraint therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287872