Showing posts from February, 2015

No Exparte interim Injunction order can be given till disposal of main O.P./SUIT with out hearing the parties - order is liable to be set aside as it is gross miscarriage of justice -2015 A.P.[2013]MSKLAWREPORTS

It cannot therefore be doubted that the Principal District Judge, Ongole, had the power to grant interim relief pending the OP. However, such interim relief could be made absolute so as to be continued till the final disposal of the OP only after hearing all the parties concerned. In the present case, though the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole, captioned the order as an ad-interim injunction, he directed that it should continue till the disposal and final result of the main SROP. The hearing date given thereafter merely indicated that the SROP was to be heard on that date. The interim relief granted was declared to be of a final and enduring nature till the conclusion of the OP. Though it is contended on behalf of the first respondent that this was merely a mistake in the order, this Court is not impressed. The words used in the order undeniably indicate its final nature though it was stated to be an ad-interim injunction. In any event, such lapses are not expected of the Pri…

the binding nature of the temporary injunction Order granted by the lower Court on the LRs. of the party, who suffered the Order as also the interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2(A) of Code of Civil Procedure.- 2015 A.P.[2003] MSKLAWREPORTS

The Appellants in A.S. No. 2301 of 1987 filed an application in C.M.P. No. 13578 of 1999 for injunction restraining Sharfuddin, Defendant No. 1 in the suit from alienating the 'B' schedule property. However, the Court granted Orders of status quo and the status quo Orders were made absolute on 15.10.1987. While so, C.C. No. 1412 of 1997 was filed by the Appellants alleging contempt of the Orders dated: 15.5.1997 on the ground that on 11.4.1997 the respondent No. 6 and on 30.5.1997, the respondent No. 7 alienated 'B' schedule property by executing registered sale deeds. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were also bound by the status quo Orders passed by the Court against their father Sharfuddin. The petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that they are the LRs. of Sharfuddin that the property in question was already gifted to them by their father in 1981 and they sold the same to third parties in 1997.  However, this Court observed that no …

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) - Respondents 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 11 and 12 herein (petitioners in I.A.) filed the above I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC to reject the O.P. as it does not contain cause of action and that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to file the O.P. as admittedly she was not a party to the firm originally constituted on 19-04-1988.= the pleadings are not complete and some of the respondents have not been served, the same cannot be a ground to wait for service of the respondents especially when no adverse order is passed against the respondents. Though several respondents have been impleaded as parties, they are not at all necessary parties for deciding the application under Section 9 of the Act. As the O.P. filed by the petitioner herein under Section 9 of the Act is without jurisdiction, non service of some of the respondents does not in any manner affect the impugned order.= For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that filing of O.P.1949 of 2013 by the petitioner herein for the relief sought for is duly misconceived and is not maintainable. Though rejection of O.P. does not come within the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and from the admitted documents available on record and the allegations in the O.P. do not fulfill the requirements under Section 9 of the Act. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly allowed I.A.No.2437 of 22013 in O.P.No.1949 of 2013 and the said order needs no interference by this Court.





M/s Reliance Builders, Hyderabad And others   .Respondents  

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Mr.M.V.Durga Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi for R1.
                               Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy,
                               For R2 to 8 and 13
                               Mr.KVR Chowdary,
                               For R9 to R12
                               Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy,
                               For R15

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1.(1987) 1 SCC 288
2.(2007) 7 SCC 125
3.AIR 2000 CaL.207
4.2010 (1) ALD 453 (DB)
5.2011 LAW SUIT (MAD) 2685  
6.AIR 1984 AP 10
7.(2010) 13 SCC 88
8. (2010) 2 SCC 273
9.(2005) 8 SCC 618
10.(2007) 6 SCC 798
11.AIR 2006 SC 2422
12.(2002) 4 SCC 105
13.(2002) 5 SCC 510
14.AIR 1975 SC 1297
15.(2013) 9 SCC 374
16.AIR 1954 SC 215