This appeal challenged a trial court order refusing an ex parte ad interim injunction. The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the injunction application pending before it expeditiously after respondents filed their oppositions.
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.
06.09.2023
Court : 04
Item : 11
Matter : FMA
Status : DO
Bench ID : 266048
Transcriber : NANDY
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 19 of 2021 with CAN 1 (1706) of 2020
Vedant Fashions Private Limited
Vs.
Kishorkumar Jain & Anr.
Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Sayani De, Advocate
……for the Appellant
Ms. Baishali Ghosal, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
……for the Respondents
2
from date. Reply if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should grant stays or injunctions when no opposition has been filed.
How the High Court should direct the trial court to dispose of pending applications expeditiously.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vedant Fashions Private Limited
Kishorkumar Jain
Harish Tandon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
