Showing : 51-60 of 90 Results

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39-- Suit for mandatory injunction - Defendant constructed the wall by encroaching the land owned by plaintiff - Encroachment has to be removed and cannot be compensated by way of damages...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39, 40, 41(h)-- Suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant to discharge obligation of payment of assessed contract value arising out of contract bond with interest - Held, appropriate remedy is to file suit for recovery of money due under the contract - Suit, held, not maintainable...........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 91, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39-- Suit for mandatory injunction - Construction of roof on public street - Obvious consequence thereof would be that flow of natural light and air to the adjoining premises would be diminished - Suit filed by neighbour for mandatory injunction as construction has caused special damage to him, is..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 13-- Construction of roof on a public street - Suit for mandatory injunction by neighbour - Plea that jurisdiction of civil court is barred u/s 13 of Punjab Act - Held, suit for mandatory injunction in respect of construction raised by defendant which caused special damage to plaintiff is within the..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 3, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39-- Plaint completely lacking description of suit properties so as to identify the same - Suit for mandatory injunction to remove construction alleged to have been made by defendant - However, plaint does not contain the breadth and length of the alleged construction or survey numbers, in which..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, 39-- Suit for declaration that sale deed is illegal and void ab initio and for mandatory injunction directing defendant to remove construction made therein - The relief available to plaintiff was of declaration and possession - Held, suit for declaration and mandatory injunction is not maintainable...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39-- Security amount and advance instalment - Recovery of - Suit for recovery and not suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2009
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39-- Mandatory injunction - For payment of Gratuity, provident fund and other service benefits - Provident Fund already paid to defendant No.5 before filing of suit - Held, a suit for recovery instead of mandatory injunction should have been filed - So far other service benefits are concerned plaintiff..........
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2009
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Injunction - Ordinarily if the suit property is in possession with a person for a sufficiently long time then injunction should not disturb that possession - However, a person in possession can resist the entire world but not the true owner, even if the true owner is not in actual possession of..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39-- Mandatory injunction - Licence - Refusal to vacate on termination of licence - Suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable - It is not necessary for the licenser to file a regular suit for possession by paying Court fee on the market value of the property...........

Showing : 51-60 of 90 Results