Advocates appeared:
S.P. Roychowdhury, Jyotsna (Roy) Mukherjee for the petitioner
Sudhis Dasgupta, Ganesh Shrivastava for the opposite party No.3

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. Scope of Appellate Review: An appellate court reviewing an appeal against an ad interim injunction is limited to assessing whether the trial court was justified in granting the order based on the materials available at that time. The appellate court does not typically consider new evidence unless specific procedural conditions are met (!) (!) .

2. Use of New Material: An appellate court cannot rely on new documents or evidence produced after the trial court’s decision unless the formalities under applicable procedural rules are followed. Specifically, the formalities required under relevant rules must be observed for new evidence to be considered (!) (!) .

3. Good Faith in Filing Temporary Injunction: The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must act in good faith. The consideration of documents suggesting bad faith or collusion may influence the court’s decision, but such documents must be properly introduced and considered within the procedural framework (!) (!) .

4. Procedural Remedies for Adverse Orders: A person aggrieved by an ad interim order of temporary injunction has multiple remedies, including filing objections, applying under specific procedural rules for variation, or appealing to a higher court. However, these remedies require adherence to procedural formalities and the scope of review is limited (!) (!) .

5. Limitations on Appellate Power: The appellate court's power to take into account subsequent events or documents is constrained. It is primarily tasked with assessing whether the trial court's decision was justified based on the materials before it at the time of the original order (!) (!) .

6. Final Decision on the Case: The court found that the first appellate court acted illegally and irregularly by considering new materials and by not limiting its review to the justification of the original order. Consequently, the order of the first appellate court was set aside, and the trial court’s original order granting an ad interim status quo was reinstated (!) (!) .

7. Procedural Directions: The court directed the opposite parties to file written objections and/or applications under relevant procedural rules within specified timeframes. The trial court was instructed to dispose of the application for temporary injunction promptly, independently of this order (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight the procedural limitations and principles governing appeals against temporary injunctions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural formalities and the restricted scope of appellate review in such matters.