AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1240 ::1997 AIR SCW 1285 ::(1997) 2 CivLJ 913 ::1997 (1) CivilCourtC 360 ::1997 (3) SCC 443 ::1997 (2) RecCivR 473 ::(1997) 2 Scale 205 ::1997 (1) CurCC 365 ::(1997) 4 Bom CR 312 ::(1997) 1 ICC 769 ::(1997) 2 Mah LJ 1 ::1997 (1) LJR 544 ::1997 (2) RenCR 682 ::1997 (1) RentLR 399 ::(1997) 2 SCR 152 (SC) ::1997 (2) SCR 152 ::1997 (3) SCJ 503 ::(1997) 4 LandLR 98 ::(1997) 2 Supreme 395 ::(1997) 2 Andh LT 1 ::(1997) 2 JT 699 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 1997 (1) Mah. L. R. 63 (BOMBAY))

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. P. Jeevan Reddy, S. C. Sen , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.39 R.2A, S.9A— (Maharashtra) Disobedience of order - Interim order injunction passed in suit - Flouted and disobeyed defendants - However ultimately Civil Court found to have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit - Even the defendants can be punished for violation of said interim orders. 1997 (1) Mah LR 63 (Bom.), Reversed.1980 Mah LJ 404, Overruled. In the instant case the plaintiff asked for temporary injunction. An ad interim injunction was granted. Then the defendants came forward objecting to the grant of injunction and also raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court overruled the objection as to jurisdiction and made the interim injunction absolute. The defendants filed an appeal against the decision on the question of jurisdiction. While that appeal was pending, several other interim orders were passed both by the Civil Court as well as by the High Court. Ultimately, no doubt, High Court has found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but all this took about six years. In such circumstances holding that by virtue of the said decision of the High Court (on the question of jurisdiction), no one can be punished thereafter for disobedience or violation of the interim orders committed prior to the said decision of the High Court, would indeed be subversive of rule of l....