Sec.151 - Or.39, rule 1 &2 - interim injunction - implementation of orders - Inherent powers can be invoked for granting Police Aid = When there is no specific provision of law which is sufficient to implement the order of temporary injunction or the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the court, we do not see why the provisions of Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked for the said purpose to render justice or to redress the wrong, because, the courts should not only have the power to pass an order, but also should have the power to implement the said order. Therefore, when a party has obtained an order of temporary injunction from a court under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code and the other party against whom the order of injunction is passed disobeys the same, the aggrieved party can certainly approach the court invoking the power of the court under Section 151 and pray for police aid for the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction. When it is brought to the notice of the court that the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151, can direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the enforcement of the order of the injunction granted by the court in order to render complete justice. It must be remembered, by ordering police help to the party who has obtained an order of temporary injunction, the court merely takes the follow-up steps to implement its earlier order of injunction. In appropriate cases, where the court finds that a party who had secured an order of injunction from the court is not in a position to have its full benefit owing either to obstruction or non-co-operation of the other side, it is always open to the court to direct the police authorities to see that its order is obeyed. Admittedly, ad interim injunction orders were granted in favour of respondents on 09.04.2010 in I.A. No. 119 of 2010. Although a counter affidavit in that IA had been filed by petitioners herein in July, 2010, the said order had not been vacated. 22. I.A. No. 150 of 2011 was filed by respondents in August, 2011 alleging violation of the ad interim injunction orders. Admittedly, no counter-affidavit was filed by petitioners herein in I.A. No. 150 of 2011 in spite of several opportunities being given to them. So, the allegations made by the respondents against petitioners in I.A. No. 150 of 2011 stood uncontroverted. The respondents had even given police complaints which evoked no response from the police. Even though the order of injunction was passed in I.A. No. 119 of 2010 at an interlocutory stage, it was unambiguous and was in force for almost a year and had not been vacated. Therefore, the Court below, after waiting till 03.09.2012 (almost one year after filing of the I.A. No. 150 of 2011), was right in treating that there is no counter on behalf of the petitioners in I.A. No. 150 of 2011, that the allegations made therein were not denied. It rightly allowed it, taking notice of the urgency expressed by the respondents and their submission of interference by the petitioners in violation of the injunction order granted by the Court. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Court below in allowing I.A. No. 150 of 2011.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.151 - Or.39, rule 1 &2 - interim injunction - implementation of orders - Inherent powers can be invoked for granting Police Aid =
When there is no specific provision of law which is
sufficient to implement the order of temporary injunction or the
decree for perpetual injunction granted by the court, we do not see
why the provisions of Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked for
the said purpose to render justice or to redress the wrong, because,
the courts should not only have the power to pass an order, but also
should have the power to implement the said order. Therefore, when
a party has obtained an order of temporary injunction from a court
under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code and the other party against
whom the order of injunction is passed disobeys the same, the
aggrieved party can certainly approach the court invoking the power
of the court under Section 151 and pray for police aid for the
enforcement of the order of temporary injunction. When it is brought
to the notice of the court that the enforcement of the order of
temporary injunction is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the
court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151, can direct
the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the
enforcement of the order of the injunction granted by the court in
order to render complete justice. It must be remembered, by
ordering police help to the party who has obtained an order of
temporary injunction, the court merely takes the follow-up steps to
implement its earlier order of injunction. In appropriate cases, where
the court finds that a party who had secured an order of injunction
from the court is not in a position to have its full benefit owing either
to obstruction or non-co-operation of the other side, it is always open
to the court to direct the police authorities to see that its order is
obeyed. 

 Admittedly, ad interim injunction orders were granted in favour
of respondents on 09.04.2010 in I.A. No. 119 of 2010. Although a
counter affidavit in that IA had been filed by petitioners herein in
July, 2010, the said order had not been vacated.
22. I.A. No. 150 of 2011 was filed by respondents in August, 2011
alleging violation of the ad interim injunction orders. Admittedly, no
counter-affidavit was filed by petitioners herein in I.A. No. 150 of
2011 in spite of several opportunities being given to them. So, the
allegations made by the respondents against petitioners in I.A. No.
150 of 2011 stood uncontroverted. The respondents had even given
police complaints which evoked no response from the police. Even
though the order of injunction was passed in I.A. No. 119 of 2010 at
an interlocutory stage, it was unambiguous and was in force for
almost a year and had not been vacated. Therefore, the Court below,
after waiting till 03.09.2012 (almost one year after filing of the I.A.
No. 150 of 2011), was right in treating that there is no counter on
behalf of the petitioners in I.A. No. 150 of 2011, that the allegations
made therein were not denied. It rightly allowed it, taking notice of
the urgency expressed by the respondents and their submission of
interference by the petitioners in violation of the injunction order
granted by the Court. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the
action of the Court below in allowing I.A. No. 150 of 2011.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more