Single Judge rejected Notice of Motion seeking stay on interim injunction. Held that grant at this stage would amount to final order in appeal, which is not permissible in facts involved.
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.
nma842
1
ssp
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.842 OF 2016
APPEAL NO.474 OF 2015
Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b E.K.Sasidharan for the Applicant
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
P.D.NAIK,JJ.
DATE : APRIL 22, 2016
P.C.
1Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant. Prayer is for grant of stay
to operation of the order of interim
injunction granted by the learned
Single Judge of this Court after
hearing the applicant. Grant of stay
or any modification of the impugned
order at this stage will virtually
amount to passing a final order in
Appeal which in the facts of the case
cannot be made. Hence, no case is made
out for passing such a drastic interim
order in Appeal. Notice of Motion is
accordingly rejected.
(P.D.NAIK,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a stay on the interim injunction order should be granted in the appeal stage.
Whether passing a final order through a drastic interim stay is justified in the given facts.
Applicant
Respondent
A.S. OKA
P.D. NAIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court