https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306566 Interim injunction to restrain implementation of an earlier decree was refused because the plaintiffs failed to plead or prove fraud with specific particulars or supporting material. The decree had already been passed on merits and affirmed in appeal, so its binding effect could not be displaced by bare allegations. The record also showed that the Club and its members were aware of the litigation and had taken steps in relation to it, which weakened the claim that the decree was obtained behind their back. As no prima facie case was established and the balance of convenience was not in the plaintiffs' favour, the application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:03:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306566 Interim injunction to restrain implementation of an earlier decree was refused because the plaintiffs failed to plead or prove fraud with specific particulars or supporting material. The decree had already been passed on merits and affirmed in appeal, so its binding effect could not be displaced by bare allegations. The record also showed that the Club and its members were aware of the litigation and had taken steps in relation to it, which weakened the claim that the decree was obtained behind their back. As no prima facie case was established and the balance of convenience was not in the plaintiffs' favour, the application was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306566