<?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>1999 (3) TMI 682 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470723</link>
    <description>Revenue-record entries carry a rebuttable presumption under the Land Revenue Code. That presumption was displaced where the claimant admitted entering possession through parties holding leasehold rights, failed to establish any independent right or explain the basis of possession, and withheld the material lease deed. Interim injunction, as an equitable discretionary remedy, requires lawful possession founded on an identifiable right and full disclosure of material facts. Suppression of the lease and prior admission defeated entitlement to protection, while the appellate interference with the trial court&#039;s reasoned refusal lacked justification. The trial court&#039;s refusal of interim injunctive relief was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 19:01:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=915567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 682 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470723</link>
      <description>Revenue-record entries carry a rebuttable presumption under the Land Revenue Code. That presumption was displaced where the claimant admitted entering possession through parties holding leasehold rights, failed to establish any independent right or explain the basis of possession, and withheld the material lease deed. Interim injunction, as an equitable discretionary remedy, requires lawful possession founded on an identifiable right and full disclosure of material facts. Suppression of the lease and prior admission defeated entitlement to protection, while the appellate interference with the trial court&#039;s reasoned refusal lacked justification. The trial court&#039;s refusal of interim injunctive relief was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>