Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-08-11 disposed

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW vs THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS

Bench: 2 — J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan

In Brief

A company sought to enforce a 2015 agreement to sell land by obtaining an ex parte injunction from the trial court. The High Court set aside the injunction, holding that the suit was time-barred, lacked merit, and the trial court had not recorded the mandatory reasons required by Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 is mandatory: courts must record reasons for ex parte injunctions and applicants must comply with procedural requirements. However, since the trial court was scheduled to hear both parties the next day, the Supreme Court allowed it to decide the injunction application afresh on merits without being bound by the High Court's observations.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Injunctions Interim Relief Appellate Jurisdiction Supervisory Jurisdiction Court Procedure

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login