Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAJENDRA BABU, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Azma Tolla - Appellant
Versus
Furnionics & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7604/2000.)
Decided on : 02-01-2001
Order : Injunction - Civil Procedure Code - The court allowed the appeal against the trial court's rejection of the application for temporary injunction, but the Supreme Court found that the trial court's order was not capricious or arbitrary to be interfered with by the High Court in an appeal arising from such an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of the matter within the time fixed by the High Court and continued the interim order pending disposal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for injunction was filed, and an application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeal, leading to the proceeding before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the trial court's order was not capricious or arbitrary to be interfered with by the High Court in an appeal arising from such an interlocutory order. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the matter within the time fixed by the High Court and continued the interim order pending disposal of the suit.
Issues: Interference with trial court's order, grant of temporary injunction, appeal from interlocutory order
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's order was not capricious or arbitrary to be interfered with by the High Court in an appeal arising from such an interlocutory order.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Supreme Court directing the trial court to dispose of the matter within the time fixed by the High Court and continuing the interim order pending disposal of the suit.
ORDER :
S. Rajendra Babu, J.
Leave granted.
2. In a suit for injunction an application was made under Order 39 Rules 1 and2 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents. However, the trial Court rejected the same. On appeal being made to the High Court the same was allowed. Hence this proceeding before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. Normally, we would not have interfered with such an order. However, in this case we find that the order made by the trial Court is not capricious or arbitrary to be interfered with by the High Court in an appeal arising from such an interlocutory order. Therefore, it would be appropriate to continue with the interim order granted by this Court on 10.5.2000 pending disposal of the suit and we direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time as fixed by the High Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
