S.RAVINDRA BHAT
Provogue (India) LTD – Appellant
Versus
Naveen Kholi – Respondent
S. Ravindra Bhar, J.
LA. No. 525/2008 (Exemption C. Fee)
Learned Counsel states that the balance Court fee would be paid during the course of the day. Let the application disposed in terms of the statement.
LA. No. 524/2008 (Org. Documents)
Allowed, subjected to the petitioner filing the originals within six weeks.
LA. No. 523/2008 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
1. Issue notice Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the defendant-respondent. Counsel states that he would not be filing a separate reply to the application and has instructions to oppose it today. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the application was heard finally.
2. The plaintiff-applicant seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, representatives etc. from interfering and obstructing its uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the its business from premises being G-7, Janak Palace, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as suit premises). In this application, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in similar terms is claimed.
3. The plaintiff avers that some time in October-November, 2005 it was on the lookout for premises for running a store from J
Vipin Mehra v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (6) AD 109 : 2003 (70) DRJ 677
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Srinam Narain AIR 2002 SC 2598
Indian Oil Corporation v. Amritsar Gas Service 1991 (1) SCC 533
Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. Hotel Imperial and Ors. 127 (2006) DLT 43 : 2006 (88) DRJ 545
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.