Or.2 , Rule 2 of C.P.C -First suit for bare injunction as there was threat and second suit for specific performance as the defendant is going to sale to third party - No Or.2, rule 2 - No Relinquishment of right - No bar for filing a second suit with out permission as both are not one and same =2015 S.C.(10/2014) MSKLAWREPORTS 17

In the instant case, as  discussed  above,  suit  for  injunction  was filed since there was threat  given  from  the  side  of  the  defendant  to dispossess him from the suit property.  The plaintiff did  not  allege  that the defendant is threatening to alienate  or  transfer  the  property  to  a third party in order to frustrate the agreement. It is well settled that the ratio of any decision must  be  understood in the background of the facts of that case.  The following  words  of  Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedence have been locus classicus.  “Each case depends on its own facts and  a  close  similarity  between  one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail  may alter the entire aspect, in  deciding  such  cases,  one  should  avoid  the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching  the  colour  of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on  which  side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case  is  not  at all decisive.” -2015 S.C.(10/2014) MSKLAWREPORTS 17

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS