Advocates Appeared:
AMITAVA GUHA, AMIYA MUKHERJI, NANI KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, S.K.KAPOOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Chakraborty:

Legal Principles Established * Courts possess the power to grant mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications in exceptional cases, particularly when a defendant is found to be "stealing a march" on the plaintiff to forestall legal proceedings (!) (!) . * There is no absolute bar in law preventing a court from granting an interlocutory relief that amounts to granting the main relief claimed in the suit, provided the circumstances are exceptional (!) . * A court should not hesitate to restore the status quo ante via a mandatory injunction even if the status quo at the date of filing the suit differs from the original state, especially when that change was caused by the defendant's wrongful act (!) (!) (!) . * A tenant who has been wrongfully dispossessed is entitled to restoration of possession even at the interlocutory stage (!) .

Facts of the Case * The plaintiff company, a monthly tenant, was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant landlady in a surreptitious manner on March 24, 1982, in breach of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (!) (!) . * The dispossession was effected after the defendant received rent in advance and allegedly in collusion with a police officer who took inventory and handed over possession to the defendant without proper inquiry or notice to the tenant (!) (!) . * The defendant filed a counter-suit and a caveat immediately after taking possession, attempting to legitimize her wrongful act (!) (!) . * The plaintiff was unaware of the dispossession until the defendant disclosed it in her affidavit-in-opposition to an earlier suit regarding access issues (!) (!) .

Issues Decided * Whether the present suit for recovery of possession was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the pendency of an earlier suit (!) (!) . * Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction for restoration of possession, which effectively grants the main relief of the suit (!) (!) .

Court's Findings and Decision * The suit was not barred under Order 2, Rule 2 because the cause of action in the present suit (dispossession on March 24, 1982) was totally different from the earlier suit (harassment regarding access before March 15, 1982) (!) . * The defendant's conduct was deemed mala fide and exceptional, as she wrongfully dispossessed the tenant to forestall legal proceedings, aided by an abuse of process by the police (!) (!) . * The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted an interim injunction directing the restoration of possession to the plaintiff (!) .