2019 (9) TMI 1647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is discretionary and the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of court of first instance except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. This aspect has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Limited & others Vs Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & another reported in (2012) 4 SCC 689. Para 19 & 20 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- "19. We have considered the respective submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The scope of the appellate Court's power to interfere ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion." 20. In Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani (2010) 2 SCC 142, the 3-Judge Bench considered a somewhat similar question in the context of the refusal of the trial Court and the High Court to pass an order of temporary injunction, referred to the judgments in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd (supra), N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. (1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed: "The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that once the court of first instance exer cises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of disc....