REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A C MUTHIAH Appellant

V/S

MADRAS REFINERIES LTD MADRAS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

IN READ 10. V. BROWN [REFERRED TO]
CHAND KOUR V. PARTAB SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJA SHATRUNJIT V. MD. AZMAT AZIMTHAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
DEENA @ DEEN DAYAL AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LOWA TANTI V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
THUNGABADRA INDUSTRIES LTD. V. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MMB CATHOLOLICOS V. M.P. ATHANSIUS [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI MATHURI PATEL AND ANOTHER V. ADDL. COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
DURLABHKUMAR V. THE DISTRICT JUDGE,INDORE AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE VS. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE [REFERRED TO]
SHIVDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
THUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GANGUBAI BABLYA CHAUDHARY VS. SITARAM BHALCHANDRA SUKHTANKAR [REFERRED TO]
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MEERA BHANJA VS. NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
KANUNGO AND CO VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX W BENGAL VS. CHAMPA KUMARI SINGHI [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTORMADRAS VS. M L MODI [REFERRED TO]
DAMOMAL KAUSOMAL RAISINGHANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KANNAPPAN VS. R T O [REFERRED TO]
BISHESHWAR PRATAP SAHI VS. PARATH NATH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE review applications are filed against the common judgment, dated 18-3-1997 , delivered in O. S. Appeal Nos. 171 to 174, 190 to 193 and 243 to 246 of 1996.

(2.) REVIEW C. M. P. No. 20 of 1997 is filed by Dr. A. C. Muthiah, who is the 2nd appellant in O. S. A. No. 243 of 1996. REVIEW C. M. P. Nos. 23 to 28 of 1997 are filed by Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation ltd. , rep. by its Director and Secretary Mr. A. Santhanakrishnan and SPIC petrochemicals Ltd. , rep. by its Company Secretary Mr. S. Natarajan, who are the appellants in O. S. A. Nos. 190 to 192 of 1996 and respondents 1 and 2 on o. S. A. Nos. 171 to 173 of 1996. These review applications are filed to review the common judgment, dated 18-3-1997 , delivered in O. S. A. Nos. 171 to 174, 190 to 193 and 243 to 246 of 1996.

(3.) THE Appellate Court, normally, will not interfere with the exercise of discretion in granting or refusing injunction by the trial court unless the discretion exercised by the trial court shown and proved to be of arbitrary, capricious and perverse or by ignoring the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interim injunction. THE Division Bench has not recorded a finding in its common judgment that the order of the learned single Judge is either perverse or vitiated by arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of injunction. This is also an error apparent on the face of the judgment.

Click here to view full judgment.

A C MUTHIAH Vs. MADRAS REFINERIES LTD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address