SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Board Chaksu – Respondent
First, that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and that on the facts before the court there is a probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by him. Secondly, that the courts interference is necessary to protect him from the species of urgency which the court calls irreparable before his legal right can be established on trial, and
Thirdly, that the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it.
(2). The genesis of the controversy in the case on hand, relates to the order dated Feb. 23, 1996 whereby the temporary injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff petitioner was set aside.
(3). The background is this, the plaintiff petitioner (for short the company) instituted a civil suit for injunction in the trial court with the averments that the State Government looking to the importance and beneficial purposes for the public of Rajasthan, published a notification on April 21, 1994 exempting
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.