Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.
Decided On : Aug-25-1993
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39 Rules 1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.K. Jhanji', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 2 => 'O.P. Goyal', (int) 3 => 'Cawasji Warden', (int) 4 => 'Coomi Sorab', (int) 5 => 'J.T.', (int) 6 => 'Cawasji Warden's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'firstly', (int) 3 => 'secondly', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'State', (int) 5 => 'Company', (int) 6 => 'Company', (int) 7 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 8 => 'Company', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Company', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 13 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 14 => 'Company', (int) 15 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 16 => 'Company', (int) 17 => 'Company', (int) 18 => 'Company', (int) 19 => 'Company', (int) 20 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 21 => 'Court' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Mall' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '4.3.1991', (int) 1 => '10.4.1991', (int) 2 => '4.3.1991', (int) 3 => '28.1.1991', (int) 4 => '15 days's', (int) 5 => 'March, 1991' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'Between two', (int) 1 => '4.9.1992', (int) 2 => '17.1.1991', (int) 3 => 'as many as 8', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '1990(1', (int) 9 => '199', (int) 10 => '8' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.C.', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '622973', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 115 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 2590 of 1992', 'appellant' => 'Indian Overseas Bank', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. ' 8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' O.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. and; S.S. Salar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' A.R. Takkar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1993-08-25', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.K. Jhanji, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Jhanji, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the first appellate Court, reversing the order of the trial Court, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the facts are that respondent-company was maintaining a current account with the petitioner-bank, in its branch office situated at The Mall, Ludhiana. Vide its letter dated 4.3.1991, the bank intimated to the company their intention to close the company's current account. Letter closing the account of the company was challenged by the company by filing a civil suit on 10.4.1991, wherein declaration was sought for declaring letter dated 4.3.1991, sent by the bank to the company, to be illegal, void, arbitrary, and as a consequential relief, the company prayed for a decree for mandatory, injunction, directing the bank for operation of the current account. Along with the suit, an application was made for grant of injunction in mandatory form for a direction to the bank to allow the company to operate on the current account during the pendency of the suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. According to the bank, relationship between the bank and company was purely of debtor and creditor, which relationship could be terminated at any time. Further, the case was that company was causing harassment to the officials of the bank. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. Repeated complaints were being made without any basis against the working of the bank and, there fore, the bank decided to close the account. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal by the company, order of the trial Court was set aside and as a consequence thereof, the bank was directed to allow the company to operate its current account. This order is now being impugned by the bank in the present revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At the time of motion, hearing, i.e. on 4.9.1992, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the bank, contended that relationship between the bank and the company is of debtor and creditor and as such, relationship, if terminated, cannot be specifically en forced by way of suit. He further contended that mandatory injunction cannot be granted for relief which was not existing at the time of filing of the suit. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In reply, learned counsel for the company, contended that the bank being an instrumentality of the State, is bound by the rules and regulations and cannot act arbitrarily. According to him, the plaintiff-Company has a legal right to continue operating its account with the bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. The Company itself has stated in the suit that the relations between the bank and the Company are not cordial. The first Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that' of course it is unfortunate that the relations between the parties have touched their nadir'. The bank had issued letters dated 17.1.1991 and 28.1.1991 advising the Company to close their account. Besides, issuing 15 days's notice to the Company for closing the account, the bank also issued a telegram to the Company in that regard. The amount which was lying deposited in the current account was also refunded by way of pay order which admittedly was not encashed by the Company. It has also come on record that civil and criminal litigation is going on between the bank and some sister concerns of the Company. According to the bank, as many as 8 suits and 4 criminal cases are pending and in one or two complaints, proceedings have been stayed by this Court. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. It is now well settled that interlocutory mandatory injunction has to be issued only where there are compelling circum stances and where the injury complained of is likely to cause extreme hardship to the party complaining of such injury. It is equally true that relief of injunction is essentially an equitable relief, grant or refusal of which ultimately rests in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. The matter with regard to grant or refusal of an inter-locutory mandatory injunction came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors., J.T. 1990(1) S.C. 199 wherein it was held as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining it. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally for a prohibitory injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company. Otherwise also, large number of civil and criminal cases are pending between the bank, the Company and its sister concern and it will affect the functioning of the bank if the Company is allowed to operate upon its current account. Thus, without going into the merits of other arguments, I am of the view that the Company should not be allowed to operate upon its current account which was closed by the bank in March, 1991 as no case is made out for issuance of injunction in mandatory form.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, order of the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1993)105PLR293', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'sub' => 'Company;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '622973' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39 Rules 1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.K. Jhanji', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 2 => 'O.P. Goyal', (int) 3 => 'Cawasji Warden', (int) 4 => 'Coomi Sorab', (int) 5 => 'J.T.', (int) 6 => 'Cawasji Warden's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'firstly', (int) 3 => 'secondly', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'State', (int) 5 => 'Company', (int) 6 => 'Company', (int) 7 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 8 => 'Company', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Company', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 13 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 14 => 'Company', (int) 15 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 16 => 'Company', (int) 17 => 'Company', (int) 18 => 'Company', (int) 19 => 'Company', (int) 20 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 21 => 'Court' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Mall' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '4.3.1991', (int) 1 => '10.4.1991', (int) 2 => '4.3.1991', (int) 3 => '28.1.1991', (int) 4 => '15 days's', (int) 5 => 'March, 1991' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'Between two', (int) 1 => '4.9.1992', (int) 2 => '17.1.1991', (int) 3 => 'as many as 8', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '1990(1', (int) 9 => '199', (int) 10 => '8' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.C.', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '622973', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 115 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 2590 of 1992', 'appellant' => 'Indian Overseas Bank', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. ' 8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' O.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. and; S.S. Salar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' A.R. Takkar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1993-08-25', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.K. Jhanji, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Jhanji, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the first appellate Court, reversing the order of the trial Court, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the facts are that respondent-company was maintaining a current account with the petitioner-bank, in its branch office situated at The Mall, Ludhiana. Vide its letter dated 4.3.1991, the bank intimated to the company their intention to close the company's current account. Letter closing the account of the company was challenged by the company by filing a civil suit on 10.4.1991, wherein declaration was sought for declaring letter dated 4.3.1991, sent by the bank to the company, to be illegal, void, arbitrary, and as a consequential relief, the company prayed for a decree for mandatory, injunction, directing the bank for operation of the current account. Along with the suit, an application was made for grant of injunction in mandatory form for a direction to the bank to allow the company to operate on the current account during the pendency of the suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. According to the bank, relationship between the bank and company was purely of debtor and creditor, which relationship could be terminated at any time. Further, the case was that company was causing harassment to the officials of the bank. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. Repeated complaints were being made without any basis against the working of the bank and, there fore, the bank decided to close the account. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal by the company, order of the trial Court was set aside and as a consequence thereof, the bank was directed to allow the company to operate its current account. This order is now being impugned by the bank in the present revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At the time of motion, hearing, i.e. on 4.9.1992, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the bank, contended that relationship between the bank and the company is of debtor and creditor and as such, relationship, if terminated, cannot be specifically en forced by way of suit. He further contended that mandatory injunction cannot be granted for relief which was not existing at the time of filing of the suit. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In reply, learned counsel for the company, contended that the bank being an instrumentality of the State, is bound by the rules and regulations and cannot act arbitrarily. According to him, the plaintiff-Company has a legal right to continue operating its account with the bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. The Company itself has stated in the suit that the relations between the bank and the Company are not cordial. The first Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that' of course it is unfortunate that the relations between the parties have touched their nadir'. The bank had issued letters dated 17.1.1991 and 28.1.1991 advising the Company to close their account. Besides, issuing 15 days's notice to the Company for closing the account, the bank also issued a telegram to the Company in that regard. The amount which was lying deposited in the current account was also refunded by way of pay order which admittedly was not encashed by the Company. It has also come on record that civil and criminal litigation is going on between the bank and some sister concerns of the Company. According to the bank, as many as 8 suits and 4 criminal cases are pending and in one or two complaints, proceedings have been stayed by this Court. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. It is now well settled that interlocutory mandatory injunction has to be issued only where there are compelling circum stances and where the injury complained of is likely to cause extreme hardship to the party complaining of such injury. It is equally true that relief of injunction is essentially an equitable relief, grant or refusal of which ultimately rests in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. The matter with regard to grant or refusal of an inter-locutory mandatory injunction came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors., J.T. 1990(1) S.C. 199 wherein it was held as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining it. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally for a prohibitory injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company. Otherwise also, large number of civil and criminal cases are pending between the bank, the Company and its sister concern and it will affect the functioning of the bank if the Company is allowed to operate upon its current account. Thus, without going into the merits of other arguments, I am of the view that the Company should not be allowed to operate upon its current account which was closed by the bank in March, 1991 as no case is made out for issuance of injunction in mandatory form.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, order of the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1993)105PLR293', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'sub' => 'Company;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '622973' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39 Rules 1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.K. Jhanji', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 2 => 'O.P. Goyal', (int) 3 => 'Cawasji Warden', (int) 4 => 'Coomi Sorab', (int) 5 => 'J.T.', (int) 6 => 'Cawasji Warden's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'firstly', (int) 3 => 'secondly', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'State', (int) 5 => 'Company', (int) 6 => 'Company', (int) 7 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 8 => 'Company', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Company', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 13 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 14 => 'Company', (int) 15 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 16 => 'Company', (int) 17 => 'Company', (int) 18 => 'Company', (int) 19 => 'Company', (int) 20 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 21 => 'Court' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Mall' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '4.3.1991', (int) 1 => '10.4.1991', (int) 2 => '4.3.1991', (int) 3 => '28.1.1991', (int) 4 => '15 days's', (int) 5 => 'March, 1991' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'Between two', (int) 1 => '4.9.1992', (int) 2 => '17.1.1991', (int) 3 => 'as many as 8', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '1990(1', (int) 9 => '199', (int) 10 => '8' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.C.', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '622973', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 115 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 2590 of 1992', 'appellant' => 'Indian Overseas Bank', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. ' 8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' O.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. and; S.S. Salar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' A.R. Takkar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1993-08-25', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.K. Jhanji, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Jhanji, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the first appellate Court, reversing the order of the trial Court, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the facts are that respondent-company was maintaining a current account with the petitioner-bank, in its branch office situated at The Mall, Ludhiana. Vide its letter dated 4.3.1991, the bank intimated to the company their intention to close the company's current account. Letter closing the account of the company was challenged by the company by filing a civil suit on 10.4.1991, wherein declaration was sought for declaring letter dated 4.3.1991, sent by the bank to the company, to be illegal, void, arbitrary, and as a consequential relief, the company prayed for a decree for mandatory, injunction, directing the bank for operation of the current account. Along with the suit, an application was made for grant of injunction in mandatory form for a direction to the bank to allow the company to operate on the current account during the pendency of the suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. According to the bank, relationship between the bank and company was purely of debtor and creditor, which relationship could be terminated at any time. Further, the case was that company was causing harassment to the officials of the bank. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. Repeated complaints were being made without any basis against the working of the bank and, there fore, the bank decided to close the account. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal by the company, order of the trial Court was set aside and as a consequence thereof, the bank was directed to allow the company to operate its current account. This order is now being impugned by the bank in the present revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At the time of motion, hearing, i.e. on 4.9.1992, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the bank, contended that relationship between the bank and the company is of debtor and creditor and as such, relationship, if terminated, cannot be specifically en forced by way of suit. He further contended that mandatory injunction cannot be granted for relief which was not existing at the time of filing of the suit. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In reply, learned counsel for the company, contended that the bank being an instrumentality of the State, is bound by the rules and regulations and cannot act arbitrarily. According to him, the plaintiff-Company has a legal right to continue operating its account with the bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. The Company itself has stated in the suit that the relations between the bank and the Company are not cordial. The first Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that' of course it is unfortunate that the relations between the parties have touched their nadir'. The bank had issued letters dated 17.1.1991 and 28.1.1991 advising the Company to close their account. Besides, issuing 15 days's notice to the Company for closing the account, the bank also issued a telegram to the Company in that regard. The amount which was lying deposited in the current account was also refunded by way of pay order which admittedly was not encashed by the Company. It has also come on record that civil and criminal litigation is going on between the bank and some sister concerns of the Company. According to the bank, as many as 8 suits and 4 criminal cases are pending and in one or two complaints, proceedings have been stayed by this Court. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. It is now well settled that interlocutory mandatory injunction has to be issued only where there are compelling circum stances and where the injury complained of is likely to cause extreme hardship to the party complaining of such injury. It is equally true that relief of injunction is essentially an equitable relief, grant or refusal of which ultimately rests in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. The matter with regard to grant or refusal of an inter-locutory mandatory injunction came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors., J.T. 1990(1) S.C. 199 wherein it was held as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining it. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally for a prohibitory injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company. Otherwise also, large number of civil and criminal cases are pending between the bank, the Company and its sister concern and it will affect the functioning of the bank if the Company is allowed to operate upon its current account. Thus, without going into the merits of other arguments, I am of the view that the Company should not be allowed to operate upon its current account which was closed by the bank in March, 1991 as no case is made out for issuance of injunction in mandatory form.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, order of the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1993)105PLR293', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'sub' => 'Company;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '622973' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39 Rules 1' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.K. Jhanji', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 2 => 'O.P. Goyal', (int) 3 => 'Cawasji Warden', (int) 4 => 'Coomi Sorab', (int) 5 => 'J.T.', (int) 6 => 'Cawasji Warden's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'firstly', (int) 3 => 'secondly', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'State', (int) 5 => 'Company', (int) 6 => 'Company', (int) 7 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 8 => 'Company', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Company', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 13 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 14 => 'Company', (int) 15 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 16 => 'Company', (int) 17 => 'Company', (int) 18 => 'Company', (int) 19 => 'Company', (int) 20 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 21 => 'Court' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Mall' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '4.3.1991', (int) 1 => '10.4.1991', (int) 2 => '4.3.1991', (int) 3 => '28.1.1991', (int) 4 => '15 days's', (int) 5 => 'March, 1991' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'Between two', (int) 1 => '4.9.1992', (int) 2 => '17.1.1991', (int) 3 => 'as many as 8', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => 'one', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '1990(1', (int) 9 => '199', (int) 10 => '8' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.C.', (int) 1 => 'Ludhiana' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '622973', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 115 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 2590 of 1992', 'appellant' => 'Indian Overseas Bank', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. ' 8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' O.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. and; S.S. Salar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' A.R. Takkar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1993-08-25', 'deposition' => 'Revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.K. Jhanji, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Jhanji, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the first appellate Court, reversing the order of the trial Court, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the facts are that respondent-company was maintaining a current account with the petitioner-bank, in its branch office situated at The Mall, Ludhiana. Vide its letter dated 4.3.1991, the bank intimated to the company their intention to close the company's current account. Letter closing the account of the company was challenged by the company by filing a civil suit on 10.4.1991, wherein declaration was sought for declaring letter dated 4.3.1991, sent by the bank to the company, to be illegal, void, arbitrary, and as a consequential relief, the company prayed for a decree for mandatory, injunction, directing the bank for operation of the current account. Along with the suit, an application was made for grant of injunction in mandatory form for a direction to the bank to allow the company to operate on the current account during the pendency of the suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. According to the bank, relationship between the bank and company was purely of debtor and creditor, which relationship could be terminated at any time. Further, the case was that company was causing harassment to the officials of the bank. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. Repeated complaints were being made without any basis against the working of the bank and, there fore, the bank decided to close the account. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal by the company, order of the trial Court was set aside and as a consequence thereof, the bank was directed to allow the company to operate its current account. This order is now being impugned by the bank in the present revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At the time of motion, hearing, i.e. on 4.9.1992, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the bank, contended that relationship between the bank and the company is of debtor and creditor and as such, relationship, if terminated, cannot be specifically en forced by way of suit. He further contended that mandatory injunction cannot be granted for relief which was not existing at the time of filing of the suit. He also contended that the company has failed to prove that it would suffer an irreparable loss if it is not allowed to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In reply, learned counsel for the company, contended that the bank being an instrumentality of the State, is bound by the rules and regulations and cannot act arbitrarily. According to him, the plaintiff-Company has a legal right to continue operating its account with the bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed on the short ground that there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant issuing of injunction in mandatory form. The Company itself has stated in the suit that the relations between the bank and the Company are not cordial. The first Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that' of course it is unfortunate that the relations between the parties have touched their nadir'. The bank had issued letters dated 17.1.1991 and 28.1.1991 advising the Company to close their account. Besides, issuing 15 days's notice to the Company for closing the account, the bank also issued a telegram to the Company in that regard. The amount which was lying deposited in the current account was also refunded by way of pay order which admittedly was not encashed by the Company. It has also come on record that civil and criminal litigation is going on between the bank and some sister concerns of the Company. According to the bank, as many as 8 suits and 4 criminal cases are pending and in one or two complaints, proceedings have been stayed by this Court. From his, one thing is patent that relations between the bank and the Company are not good. It is now well settled that interlocutory mandatory injunction has to be issued only where there are compelling circum stances and where the injury complained of is likely to cause extreme hardship to the party complaining of such injury. It is equally true that relief of injunction is essentially an equitable relief, grant or refusal of which ultimately rests in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. The matter with regard to grant or refusal of an inter-locutory mandatory injunction came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors., J.T. 1990(1) S.C. 199 wherein it was held as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining it. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally for a prohibitory injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. If the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden's case (supra), I find that the Company is not going to suffer irreparable loss or serious injury if it is not allowed to operate upon the bank account because firstly, the company has an account in another bank in the city of Ludhiana and secondly, counsel for the Company gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court that the Company would not insist upon the grant of certain facilities which were being enjoyed earlier by the Company. Otherwise also, large number of civil and criminal cases are pending between the bank, the Company and its sister concern and it will affect the functioning of the bank if the Company is allowed to operate upon its current account. Thus, without going into the merits of other arguments, I am of the view that the Company should not be allowed to operate upon its current account which was closed by the bank in March, 1991 as no case is made out for issuance of injunction in mandatory form.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, order of the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1993)105PLR293', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Mertinez Engineering Limited and anr.', 'sub' => 'Company;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '622973' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Order 39 Rules 1
PERSON: V.K. Jhanji, Ludhiana, O.P. Goyal, Cawasji Warden, Coomi Sorab, J.T., Cawasji Warden's
ORDINAL: first, first, firstly, secondly, first, first
ORG: Court, Court, Court, Court, State, Company, Company, Appellate Court, Company, Court, Company, Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Company, Appellate Court, Company, Company, Company, Company, Appellate Court, Court
LOC: Mall
DATE: 4.3.1991, 10.4.1991, 4.3.1991, 28.1.1991, 15 days's, March, 1991
CARDINAL: Between two, 4.9.1992, 17.1.1991, as many as 8, 4, one, two, one, 1990(1, 199, 8
GPE: S.C., Ludhiana