Dismissed

M/s. Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Srinivasa Towers Association

Telangana HC23 Mar 2011CMA/397/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed against the rejection of a temporary injunction application. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an injunction after the license period expired but permitted the appellant to remove the hoardings.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; the appellant is permitted to remove his hoardings without causing any detriment to the interest of the opposite party.

M/s. Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATE. 23-03-2011.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.397 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/.Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt.Ltd., Rep., by its Director, Syed Iqbal Mehdi

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

AND

¶10

M/.Srinivasa Towers Association, a regd.body Having its offie at 6-3-1187, Begumpet Rep., by its President, Mr.R.Bhaskara RAo

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶14

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.397 of 2008

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in I.A.No.646 of 2008 in O.S.No.632 of 2008 dated 22-05-2008 on the fie of Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘lower Court’) dismissing claim made therein.

¶17

2. The appellant is the petitioner in the Interlocutory Application and plaintiff in the suit whereas the respondent is the respondent in the Interlocutory Application and defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the interlocutory application hereafterwards.

¶18

3. The petitioner filed the interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction directing the respondent not to interfere with retention, maintenance, upkeep, display and illumination of its two advertisement hoardings on the schedule property, otherwise than under due process of law.

¶19

4. The respondent filed counter denying the material allegations made but admitting that the petitioner was permitted to use space belonging to it to put up advertisement hoardings, but after the expiry of license period on 16-032008, the petitioner got no right to enjoy the facility and hence the injunction should not be granted.

¶20

5. After hearing both sides, the lower Court framed the following points for consideration:

¶21

1) Whether the petitioner has got prima facie case to protect its possession?

¶22

2) Whether the petitioner will be put to serious loss or legal injury if the injunction is refused?

¶23

6. In support of the claim of the petitioner, Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked

¶24

and for the respondent no documents were marked.

¶25

7. Taking into consideration the material available and also relying upon some authorities, the lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any injunction when once the licence period was over. Hence aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. has been preferred.

¶26

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It was represented that in case the appeal is going to be dismissed, the petitioner may be permitted to take away his hoardings.

¶27

9. It is to be mainly examined as to whether the order of the lower Court rejecting the injunction is valid or not.

¶28

10. Having gone through the record including the order passed by the lower Court, I do not find any infirmity in the order and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, because there is no dispute that the hoardings are belonging to the petitioner, accordingly, permission can be given to the petitioner to take away his hoardings from the site without causing any detriment to the interest of the opposite party.

¶29

11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the petitioner is permitted to remove his hoardings without causing any detriment to the interest of the opposite party over the property. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶31

Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL

M/s. Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Srinivasa Towers Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Srinivasa Towers Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs v.Srinivas Reddy

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburu Durga Rao

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburupeda Narasimha Rao

Union of India Vs Smt. S. Chandravva

The Union of India Vs D. Veera Babu

Union of India Vs Smt. Jayalakshmi Bai