Headline
The Supreme Court of India warns appellate courts against overruling discretionary orders of the trial court.
Summary
In Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others, the Supreme Court of India stresses that appellate courts should not intervene with logical orders of the trial court unless they are arbitrary, inconstant, or legally flawed. The order of the High Court vacating an injunction was set aside, and the decision of the trial court to maintain the injunction was restored.
Key Facts
- Case Name: Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others.
- Judges Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
- The trial court granted an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to control property alienation.
- The High Court vacated the injunction order by quoting existing disputes and alleged misuse of political influence.
- Supreme Court: Reinstated injunction, showcasing lack of reasoning of the High Court.
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court of India reiterated that appellate courts should exercise caution when intervening with interlocutory orders and stick to principles given in Order 43 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Wander Ltd. case. Orders should only be vacated for clear legal mistakes or arbitrariness.
Impact
The decision focuses on the discretion of trial courts in granting injunctions and restricts appellate overreach, ensuring stability in legal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The judgment protects the devotion of the decisions of the trial court and encourages cautious appellate reviews, controlling undue disruption in civil litigations.
Source
