Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Shri S. D. Lotlikar, J
Jose Floriano Cristovam Pinto (Dr.) and Another v. Dr. Michelle N. Pinto Souza and Another
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge arose against an injunction regarding the family settlement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents distinguished precedents on family settlement's validity. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. courts favor settlements to maintain family unity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. no challenge to family arrangements if benefits were accepted. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. temporary injunctions require proof of irreparable harm. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 6. delay in litigation undermines claims for injunction. (Para 24 , 26) |
1. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties.
2. Admit.
3. Shri A. Ramani, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. This is an appeal at the instance of the appellants / original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 challenging the order dated 3.6.2016 passed by the Ad hoc Senior Civil Judge, Panaji by which she had secured the respondents / original plaintiffs by an order of injunction restraining them from alienating, creating any third party rights and / or in any manner interfering with any of the properties left behind by late Shri Alvaro Jose Teofilo Pinto, to the exclusion of the applicants, on the basis of the said Deed of Family Settlement and Relinquishment dated
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
