DINESH MATHUR versus O.P. ARORA AND ORS.

DINESH MATHUR versus O.P. ARORA AND ORS.

The balance of convenience does not lie in issuing the ad-interim injunction as the appellant cannot be adequately compensated should the respondent ultimately succeed, given the goodwill acquired from long use of the premises; the courts below committed gross error of law in granting injunction.

Parties
Appellant: Dinesh Mathur; Respondent: O.P. Arora and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Delhi High Court Judgment Dated 7.12.95 in C.r.no. 974 of 1995
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ad Interim Injunction, Hotel Business, Perpetual Lease, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Ad Interim Injunction Hotel Business Perpetual Lease Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinesh Mathur

Appellant

O.P. Arora and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Delhi High Court Judgment Dated 7.12.95 in C.r.no. 974 of 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ad-interim injunction should be granted prohibiting running hotel business in premises held under perpetual lease
  2. 2 Whether balance of convenience and irremediable injury require granting injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience does not lie in issuing the ad-interim injunction as the appellant cannot be adequately compensated should the respondent ultimately succeed, given the goodwill acquired from long use of the premises; the courts below committed gross error of law in granting injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Ad-interim injunction stands dismissed
  • Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible