This appeal challenging an order confirming an interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The court held the Single Judge's finding of a prima facie case was correct and dismissed the appeal, dismissing the caveat as well.
The appeal and the caveat were dismissed; the interim injunction remained in force pending trial.
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.
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 109/2018, CAV.No.606/2018 & CM No.26584/2018
% Date of decision : 9th July, 2018
M K SUBBA ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Sabharwal, Adv.
versus KARAN LUTHRA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Ms. Sahiba Pantel and Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
CAV.No.606/2018
The caveator has been represented and heard.
The caveat stands discharged.
CM No.26584/2018
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
FAO(OS)No.109/2018 Page 1 of 3
FAO(OS) 109/2018
FAO(OS)No.109/2018 Page 2 of 3
plaintiff/respondent herein had made out a prima facie case entitling him to confirmation of the ad interim ex parte injunction cannot be faulted with.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 09, 2018
aj
FAO(OS)No.109/2018 Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the confirmation of the ex parte injunction order was legally sustainable given the prima facie case established.
Whether the Single Judge erred in rejecting the application for vacating the injunction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M K Subba
Karan Luthra
Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal
C. Hari Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
