2023:PHHC:077413

1

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

2

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

3

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

4

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

5

11.

“18. In the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kama

and Anr. [(1981) 4 SCC 8], a three Judge Bench of this Court had

opined that Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a Letters Patent appeal as well.

In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.

[(1990) 2 SCC 117] grant of mandatory injunction at the interim

stage has been left to the sound judicial discretion of the

Court. Metro Marins and Anr. v. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. and

Ors. [(2004) 7 SCC 478] also follows the principles laid down in

the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra). But these two

authorities dealt with the question of grant of interim injunction in

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the ac