Or.39, rule 1&2 C.P.C - Interlocutory Application for interim injunction in a suit for bare injunction suit - The defence is that there is no property left by the plaintiff's husband for claiming injunction basing on alleged possession and on alleged documents - lower court made absolute the exparte interim injunction order - Appellant court reversed the order as there is cloud over the title of plaintiff and so the bare injunction with out declaration is not maintainable - Their lordships held that As the suit O.S. No.93 of 2011, pending for more than three years for trial and thereby keeping these facts in view and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if at all to invoke for appointment of a receiver or Commissioner to protect the subject matter of the lis if need be pending trial to consider on own merits as part of the conditions the trial Court can impose by virtue of the lower appellate Courts order setting aside the interim order granted by the trial Court and the terms that to be imposed are not final but for change from time to time for imposing any terms or conditions including by taking property if necessary as a cusdia legis and entrust to a Commissioner or Receiver if not to plaintiffs or the defendants being entrusted as party Receiver to deposit the income therefrom or the receiver to manage. .- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 9

Or.39, rule 1&2 C.P.C - Interlocutory Application for interim injunction in a suit for bare injunction suit - The defence is that there is no property left by the plaintiff's husband for claiming injunction basing on alleged possession and on alleged documents - lower court made absolute the exparte interim injunction order - Appellant court reversed the order as there is cloud over the title of plaintiff and so the bare injunction with out declaration is not maintainable - 
Their Lordships held that  Importantly in M.Gurudas V. Rasaranjan  it was held, while saying all the three conditions must be made out, at para Nos.9 and 10 observed on what is meant by prima facie case that it is a finding of fact of each case for that not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out; but also that there is a serious question to be tried and the claim is not frivolous or vexatious,
and further held that whether the suit for bare injunction maintainable or remedy is to seek for declaration being the efficacious relief to clear the cloud on title.  No doubt mere contention of the defendant is not suffice to non suit the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction but for from material on record shows if not even from plaint averments, from ultimate analysis any cloud on title to non suit the claim for bare injunction vide Saraswathi V. Dr.Jaganmohana Rao 
and further held that  As the suit O.S. No.93 of 2011, pending for more than three years for trial and thereby keeping these facts in view and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if at all to invoke for appointment of a receiver or Commissioner to protect the subject matter of the lis if need be pending trial to consider on own merits as part of the conditions the trial Court can impose by virtue of the lower appellate Courts order setting aside the interim order granted by the trial Court and the terms that to be imposed are not final but for change from time to time for imposing any terms or conditions including by taking property if necessary as a cusdia legis and entrust to a Commissioner or Receiver if not to plaintiffs or the defendants being entrusted as party Receiver to deposit the income therefrom or the receiver to manage.  Thus, besides need to pass such orders supra or not to consider, not at cost of postponing trial, but while proceeding with the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit atleast within three months from the date of receipt of
order by giving priority in disposal and by conducting day to day trial as contemplated by Order XVII C.P.C.  This direction is to subserve the ends of justice and in consonance with the
expression of this Court in Saraswathi supra besides earlier expression of Nawab Mir Barkat Alikhan supra and also other expressions including of the Apex Court subsequently and the quote from Halsburys laws of England referred supra thereto in this regard.  There shall be no order as to costs.- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 9

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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

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

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more