The Single Judge of the Supreme Court held that there was no reason to vacate the interim injunction preventing alienation of properties. The order was made absolute and the application was allowed.
Interim injunction order restraining respondents from alienating properties was made absolute.
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.
1
O.A.No.640 of 2016 in C.S.No.519 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.,
This Application has been filed seeking an order of temporary
injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the
properties.
extended until further orders on 07.09.2016. Thus, it could be seen that the interim order has been in force for almost 3 years. Therefore, I do not
see any good reason to vacate or alter the same.
Application stands allowed.
25.07.2019
dsa
2
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.,
dsa
O.A.No.640 of 2016
in
C.S.No.519 of 2016
25.07.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim injunction order granting stay on alienation of properties should be made absolute.
Applicant
Respondents
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
