LexRAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI versus HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1343 : 2024 INSC 913 Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others (Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024) 22 November 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 43, 39 – Appeals from Orders – Appellate jurisdiction u/Or.43 – Scope: Held: Appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 – Appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander case – On facts, the High Court overstepped its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 of the CPC and substituted its own view for the one taken by the trial court without giving any categorical finding as to why the order of the trial court could be said to suffer from any perversity, capriciousness, arbitrariness, malafides or having been passed in ignorance of the settled principles governing the grant of injunction under Order 39 – High Court ought to have limited itself to adjudicating the correctness of the order of the trial court on the settled principles of law and should not have taken into consideration any other extraneous matters, more particularly when the suit was pending for adjudication on merits before the trial court – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 32, 39, 48] Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39, Rule 1 – Grant of interim injunction restraining pendente lite transfers: 1344 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Held: Doctrine of lis pendens in Section 52 takes care of all pendente lite transfers; but it may not always be good enough to take fullest care of the plaintiffs interest vis-a-vis such a transfer – Rule 1 of Order 39 provides for interim injunction restraining the alienation or sale of the suit property and, if the doctrine of lis pendens in Section 52 was regarded to have provided all the panacea against pendente lite transfers, the Legislature would not have provided in Rule 1 for interim injunction restraining the transfer of suit property – Rule 1 of Order 39 clearly demonstrates that notwithstanding the Rule of lis pendens in Section 52, there can be occasion for the grant of injunction restraining pendente lite transfers in a fit and proper case – On facts, with regard to the nature of dispute between the parties and the materials on record, the property should not change hands any further – Defendants to maintain status quo as regards the suit property as on date and shall not create any further encumbrances over the same in any manner – Any further transfer of the suit property pending the final disposal of the suit shall be subject to lis pendens under Section 52 irrespective of the fact whether such lis pendens has been duly registered by the plaintiffs with the competent authority or not. [Paras 45, 47, 49, 50] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 – Temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders – Grant of temporary injunctions – Principles governing – Explained. [Paras 33, 34] Words and Phrases – “Perverse’ – Meaning, definition – Discussed. [Paras 35, 36, 37] Case Law Cited Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. (1990) Supp. SCC 727 – relied on. Printers (Mysore) v. Pothan Joseph [1960] 3 SCR 713 : (1960) SCC Online SC 62; Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. [2015] 10 SCR 684 : (2016) 2 SCC 672; Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan [2013] 3 SCR 359 : (2013) 9 SCC 221; Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. [2022] 3 SCR 1173 : (2023) 1 SCC 634; Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. [2019] 1 SCR 145 : (2019) 3 SCC 381; Anand Prasad Agarwal v. Tarkeshwar Prasad (2001) 5 SCC 568; Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 472 : (1992) [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1345 Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others 1 SCC 719; Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi and others [2016] 1 SCR 607 : (2016) 3 SCC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.