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

1972 Supreme(MP) 108

P.K.TARE, S.M.N.RAINA
SARAF AND SWARNKAR SAMITI – Appellant
Versus
MUNNAL LAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.R.Naokar, H.B.Mangal, H.G.MISHRA

RAINA, J.

( 1 ) THE non-petitioner No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioners 1 to 4 for permanent injunction and damages.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is Saraf and Swarankar Samiti, Morar, which is an unregistered body while petitioners 2 to 4 are its office-bearers. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a member of Saraf and Swarankar Samiti, Morar. The plaintiff (non-petitioner no. 1) is working as Saraf at Morar and carries on business of manufacture and sale of silver ornaments and other articles. He obtains goods on loan from other gold-smiths for his business and sells them to his customers. According to the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 (petitioners 2 to 4) are illegally bringing pressure on other members of Swarnkar Samiti so as to compel the plaintiff to stop his business and petitioners 1 to 4 (defendants 1 to 4) have passed a resolution against the plaintiff to the effect that all the members of the Samiti shall not transact business with the plaintiff. This has affected his business. He, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing other goldsmiths in dealing with the plaintiff in connection with his business and he als













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