S.RAVINDRA BHAT
Vidyanidhi Dalmia – Appellant
Versus
Nilanjana Dalmia – Respondent
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. In this application, the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint, under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter "CPC") on various grounds, such as the plaint not disclosing a cause of action, the suit being barred and so on.
2. The plaintiff has, in the suit, seeks the following reliefs:
a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from entering into or attempting to enter into or approach within 100 metres of the plaintiffs residence at F-1, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and from speaking to or approaching the Plaintiffs staff in any manner whatsoever;
b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from speaking with or addressing any written communication to the personnel associated with the Plaintiffs companies including Directors on any issue not relating to the respective companies;
c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from talking, threatening, addressing communications to the personnel associated with the Plaintiffs companies including the Directors on any issues relating to day to day affairs and operation of the respective companies;
d) Pass a decree of per
Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. AIR 1940 PC 105
Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78
Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496
Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. v. City of Jabalpur Corporation (1977) 2 SCC 472
Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee
Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 681
Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75
Abdur Rahim v. Padma AIR 1982 Bom 341
Smt. Rohini Kumari v. Narendra Singh AIR 1972 SC 459
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.