| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 582 2019 SLD 582 2019 YLR 815 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1826 of 2017, decided on 31-12-2018. Dates ofhearing: 11th April and 13th August, 2018.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Sattar Pirzada, Mamoon N. Chaudhry and Ms. Maryam Malik
Respondent(s) by: Ovais Ali Shah and Fayaz Ahmed Memon
Suit No. 1826 of 2017, decided on 31-12-2018. Dates ofhearing: 11th April and 13th August, 2018.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Sattar Pirzada, Mamoon N. Chaudhry and Ms. Maryam Malik
Respondent(s) by: Ovais Ali Shah and Fayaz Ahmed Memon
THE STILLMANS COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERVSS.M. ANEES AND ANOTHER
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction / interim / interlocutory order, grant of--- Principles--- Exercise of discretion by the Court---Non-disclosure or concealment of pending or previous litigation sufficient to disentitle a party from equitable relief of temporary injunction---Irreparable loss / injury---Scope---Relief of injunction was discretionary and an equitable relief which a party could not claim as a matter of right and he who seeks equity must come to the court with clean hands---Before grant of such relief, conscience of the court had to be satisfied that the party seeking such relief had not acted inequitably and concealment of factum of earlier litigation was contumacious and inequitable and such concealment disentitled a party to grant of discretionary relief of injunction---Party seeking temporary injunction was duty bound to bring necessary facts about any previous litigation before the Court and complete disclosure about previous connected, related or relevant proceedings and orders was essential and unless non-disclosure of the same could be satisfactorily explained, a claimant should not, as a matter of general principle, be granted interim relief---Party seeking temporary injunction must also satisfy the court that an interference was necessary to protect it from the species of injury which the court called "irreparable loss" before the legal right could be established---For adjudication of the question of granting or withholding preventive equitable relief, an injury was set to be irreparable either because no legal remedy furnished full compensation for it or if there was no adequate redress for such injury or there existed inherent ineffectiveness of legal remedy for such injury. Popular Food Industries Ltd. v. Maaza International Company LLC and another 2004 CLD 1509; J.N. Nichols (Vimto) PLC v. Mehran Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi PLD 2000 Kar. 192; Pioneer Cement Limited v. Fecto Cement Limited and others PLD 2013 Lah. 110 and Akbar and others v. Abdul Ghafoor and others 2000 SCMR 1000 distinguished. Mst. Saeeda v. Province of Punjab and others 2013 CLC 454; Sajjad Ahmed v. Chairman,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492