This judgment addresses whether salary payment admission supports an injunction counter-claim. The Court held salary payment alone does not satisfy Order 12 Rule 6 CPC requirements for injunction, dismissing the revision.
The civil revision application was dismissed with no costs awarded.
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.
6-cra374-2023.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2023
VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESHJADHAVDate: 2023.09.2518:02:07 +0530
Chandrashekhar Sitaram Joglekar & Anr. … Applicants
V/s.
Jayashree Vijaykumar Joglekar … Respondent
Mr. Sandeep Jalan for the applicants.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2023
P.C.:
1
6-cra374-2023.doc
counter claim filed by the applicants.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acceptance of payment of salary constitutes an unequivocal admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC entitling the defendants to an injunction in a counter claim.
Whether the Trial Court erred in not granting an injunction despite the admission of salary payment by the plaintiffs.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandrashekhar Sitaram Joglekar & Anr.
Jayashree Vijaykumar Joglekar
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
