| Case ID |
47d6ab35-a798-4d66-abdf-782a550a0db6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 1592 of 2012 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 11, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court dismissed the applications for interim injunctive relief and the appointment of a receiver. The plaintiff's request for an interim injunction was denied due to the inability to demonstrate imminent danger from the defendant's boiler installation. The plaintiff's claims were based on probabilities and possibilities, which were not sufficient to warrant the requested relief. The court noted the lack of evidence showing that the defendant's actions would likely cause substantial damage to the plaintiff's operations. The decision emphasized the necessity for concrete proof of imminent danger in cases involving quia timet actions. The court also highlighted the reasonable need for the defendant to operate the boiler within the industrial zone. Overall, the decision underscored the importance of balancing the interests of both parties in the context of industrial operations. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around an application for interim injunctive relief filed by Messrs MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD. against SINDH INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LIMITED concerning the installation of a boiler that posed potential risks to the plaintiff's operations. The court examined the jurisdiction to grant relief on a quia timet basis, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of imminent danger. The plaintiff's claims were found to be speculative, lacking the required proof of immediate harm. The decision referenced significant precedents, including Rylands v. Fletcher and London Borough of Islington v. Margaret Elliott, to delineate the standards for granting injunctive relief. Ultimately, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, and the applications were dismissed, allowing the boiler's installation to proceed. This case is crucial for understanding the legal threshold for obtaining interim injunctions in the context of industrial disputes. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
SINDH INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LIMITED,
MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD.
|
| Judges |
MUNIB AKHTAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
M. Umer Lakhani,
Abdul Majeed Khosa
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD.
|
| Respondents |
SINDH INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LIMITED
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 489,
2015 PLD 72
|
| Other Citations |
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330,
London Borough of Islmington v. Margaret Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 56,
Fletcher v. Bealey (1884) 28 CH.D 688, 698,
Attorney General v. Corporation of Manchester [1893] 2 Ch.87,
Graigola Merthyr Company Limited v. Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Swansea [1928] 1 Ch.235,
Amanullah Khan and others v. Khurshid Ahmed PLD 1963 Lah. 566
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,
O.XL,R.1
|