Skip to main content

Liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him

Madras High Court has observed that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him. Division Bench comprising of Justices V.Ramasubramanian and N.Kirubakaran made this observation in S.Ramesh vs. M/s.Cethar Ltd. The writ petition seeking police protection, filed by Management of a company was allowed, by a final order by single bench subject to the condition that the total amount of around Rs.80, 00,000/-, available partly with the Indian Bank and available partly with the Advocate commissioner shall be disbursed to the 130 permanent employees of the company with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Union. The Single Judge also held that the workers have no right to take the law into their hands and obstruct the goods being taken out, thereby infringing the rights of third party customers.  The police was also directed to give protection to the management to remove the materials. Aggrieved by the said order, the Trade Union preferred Appeal.

 Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/a-person-who-enjoyed-the-benefit-of-an-interim-order-is-liable-to-compensate-the-other-party-when-the-main-case-is-decided-against-him-madras-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more