The Valley of Fear is a mystery novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, featuring his famous detective character Sherlock Holmes. The novel was originally published in serial form in 1914 and was later released as a book in 1915. It is one of the four novels and fifty-six short stories featuring Sherlock Holmes.
The Valley of Fear is set in the late 19th century and follows the story of Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. John Watson as they investigate a series of murders in a small English village called Birlstone. The murders are connected to a secret society known as the "Scowrers," which is involved in illegal activities such as extortion and murder.
Overall, the Valley of Fear has received positive reviews from critics and readers alike. Many have praised the intricate plot and the engaging characters, particularly Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The novel is seen as a classic example of the detective genre and is often compared to the works of Agatha Christie.
One of the strengths of the Valley of Fear is the way in which Conan Doyle builds the mystery and keeps the reader guessing until the very end. The plot is complex and full of twists and turns, and the characters are well-developed and believable. Holmes and Watson are dynamic and engaging, and their interactions with each other and the other characters in the story add depth and nuance to the novel.
Another strength of the Valley of Fear is the setting. The small English village of Birlstone is vividly depicted, and the descriptions of the surrounding countryside are evocative and immersive. The sense of place in the novel is strong and adds to the overall atmosphere of the story.
Some reviewers have criticized the Valley of Fear for its use of melodrama and its reliance on coincidence, but these criticisms are minor and do not detract from the overall enjoyment of the novel. Overall, the Valley of Fear is a well-written and engaging mystery that is sure to delight fans of the detective genre.
California Code, Code of Civil Procedure
Sankara Reddi ; Iqbal Singh v. Rule -2 Rule 2 is all about Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach 1. The stage of sale can come only after on year of the Order of attachment and if the disobedience continues Mahadeo Dhondu Budhe v. Which Court can pass Orders under the rule 1716 1. Karnataka Same as in Allahabad. Leo Burnett India Private Limited.
Order 39 and Order 8 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC),1908
The Chairman; Gujarat Electricity Board. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. The Courts can grant interim injunction in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, if no specific provision under the Code or Act is available. He must necessarily plead and produce all the necessary evidence in proof of the fraud in execution of the contract of the guarantee, but not the contract either of the original contract or any of the subsequent events that may happen as a ground for fraud The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. What is Power of court to order separate trails? To do so, ascertainment of factual position as it stood on the date of issuance of Order of injunction and subsequent change in factual position is material. These words denote the broad test for determining whether a particular defense, plea or fact is required to be incorporated in written statements. Section 151 of the Code confers power upon the court to grant injunction if the matter is not covered by Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code Manohar Lal Chopra v.
LEGAL DRAFTS CIVIL PLEADINGS/INJUNCTIONS/ Application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2
The two modes of punishment are the alternatives which can be awarded to the contemnor according to the discretion of the Court. That is the whole concept of registration. It is an Order of an equitable nature. The Trial Court must apply its mind to the materials placed before it, and, on being satisfied about the requirements of Order 39, Order 1 and 2 make the Order. Injunction against true owner-No 1705 12. After the amendment, it must contain reason.
Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is somewhat similar to the amended provision of Order 39, Rule 2A have a punitive aspect, as is evident from the contemnor being liable to be Ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the Order State of Bihar v. It is sufficient to satisfy at least two conditions, the first condition as to making out a prima facie case being sine qua non, to entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction Syed Mubasheruddin Ahmed v. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. It must not be made a subject of strict rules L. Act 29 of 1984, S. Act 57 of 1976 amended by Notification dated 03.
o 39 r 1 2 civil procedure code temporary injunction
That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Who may be joined as defendants? Supreme Court says each of us in this land should wake up to his duty and try to live upto it Delhi Development Authority v. Baidyanath Barik; Chief Accounts Officer; Telecom District and Anr. Effective Date of Amendment The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 wef.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Sartaj Hotels Apartments and Villas Pvt. Effective Date of Amendment The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 wef. Bare perusal of Rule 2-A of Order 39 would show that it is attracted only in case of disobedience of an Order of injunction of any other Order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of the terms on which the injunction was granted or Order was made. That is a legislative function Zila Parishad; Budaun v. The remedy by damages would be inadequate if the compensation ultimately payable to the applicant in case of success in the suit would not place him in the position in which he was before.
Food Corporation of India v. Then Court has to consider the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects. Peter; Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd. If the scale of inconvenience leans to the side of the Applicant, then only interlocutory injunction should be granted. The burden of proving its case in such cases lies entirely on the Plaintiff. Kartick Das ; Shiv Kumar Chadha v. In case of disobedience of any injunction granted or order made under rule 1 or rule 2 of any of the items on which the injunction was granted or order made, the court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of such person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding 3 Months, unless the meantime the court direct his release.
That it is apparent from perusal of grounds and documents attached therewith that the applicant has prima facie a very good case in his favour and the case is likely to succeeds. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. Karam Singh Trading as Mankoo Engineering Works v. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. Scope and Object 1692 3.
Amendment in the Order 1692 2. In fact, it is inconceivable how the power so conferred can be reasonably exercised by any Court without affording a reasonable opportunity of correcting and controverting the allegations of such nature to the party who has obtained the ex parte injunction and without determining the correctness of such allegations on a just appraisal of the materials placed before it by both the parties Rameshwar Dass v. The consequences of such omission will be to precluded plaintiff from suing for any relief which is so omitted. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. If there is a common field of activity, possibility of deception is very high and if there is no common filed, of activity, possibility is less but it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that there can be no possibility at all.