SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Cal) 355

PATHERYA, RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
Shanti Dey @ Santi Dey – Appellant
Versus
Suvodeep Saha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Mr. Anindya Halder.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed from the order dated 16th August, 2016. By the said order the application filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act filed by the appellant was dismissed and the interim order passed was vacated. The application filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was filed in April, 2014 and since the interim order was passed it was continued. It is only by virtue of the order dated 16th August, 2016 that this interim measure and the order of injunction passed was vacated. Section 11 of the 1996 Act was filed on 24th March, 2016 and is pending.

2. The only reason for vacating the order of temporary injunction by the Court below is that in case the injunction is granted or continued commercial transaction will be seriously hampered and the project will be interrupted which will escalate the project cost. Another reason for having passing the order dated 16th August, 2016, as the court below relied on the balance of convenience and inconvenience and according to the Court below the appellant would be adequately compensated by an order of damage or loss and this can be measured by money. This reason cannot be sustained prima facie at the moment as the partnership f























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top