Appeal against rejection of writ petition challenging injunction granted to Karta. Court held no interference warranted as prevailing orders were correctly based on Karta's management rights.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
06012015lpano.12.2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2014 in Writ Petition No. 717 of 2012
Subhash s/o Santosh Charpe and others vs. Santosh s/o Pandurang Charpe and another.
Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.
Mr. Y.R.Sonkusare, Advocate for the
appellants.
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI & MRS. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 6.1.2015
This appeal challenges the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.2.2012, thereby rejecting the writ petition filed by the present appellants, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the learned trial court thereby allowing the application of the defendant for grant of injunction and of the appellate court thereby dismissing the appeal of the present appellants.
submits that the learned trial court on earlier occasion having
06012015lpano.12.2014 2
rejected the application of the respondents/ defendants and the same being upheld by the learned appellate Court as well as by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the second application itself was not tenable.
06012015lpano.12.2014 3
said application is allowed and the appeal challenging there by filed by the present appellants was dismissed. The writ petition, challenging the said concurrent orders, has been dismissed by the order impugned herein.
06012015lpano.12.2014 4
appellants should also be protected. In that view of the matter, we find that no case is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
patle
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the concurrent orders allowing an injunction granted to the Karta should be allowed.
Whether the plaintiff's lack of dispute regarding the defendant's status as Karta affects the maintainability of the injunction application.
Whether the appellate and trial court orders deserve interference in light of the Apex Court decision on Karta's rights.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Kumar and another vs. Ram Parkash and othersReferred¶19
AIR 1988 Supreme Court, 576 · Who else cites this
Subhash s/o Santosh Charpe and others
Santosh s/o Pandurang Charpe and another
B.R.GAVAI
MRS. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
