Golden Gate Projects vs Sri Yogesh - Injunction Orders
Civil Case - Injunction Orders - An injunction that order came to be passed originally in an ad-interim fashion and then later on confirmed and the same having attained finality, it is the duty of every Court/authority/person to ensure that the said order is fully complied with in letter and spirit irrespective of the desire and will of the parties concerned, unless a joint petition is filed before the said Court concerned praying for recall or modification of the said order. (Para 10)
Judicial Discipline - In this case, High Court Bench directed that no observation or finding made by a Coordinate Bench in the other case would be looked into by the Trial Court - SC held: This is beyond jurisdiction and totally misplaced. (Para 10)
Case Info
The case is M/S Golden Gate Projects & Anr. v. Sri Yogesh & Ors.
Neutral citation is not mentioned in the order extract. The available identifiers are:
- Civil Appeal No. 451 of 2026
- Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11483 of 2024
- Impugned High Court order dated 23.01.2024 in W.P. No. 26128 of 2023 (GM‑CPC), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Coram
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date
- 22 January 2026 (order reserved and pronounced at New Delhi)
Case Laws Cited
- Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1
- Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Others, (2024) 3 SCC 224
- Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2820
- Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595
- Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer & Others, (2008) 2 SCC 95
- Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & Others, (2018) 7 SCC 646
- Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 419
Statutes / Laws Referred
From the text, the matter arises out of:
- A civil suit and writ proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (GM‑CPC indicates General Miscellaneous – CPC before the Karnataka High Court).No specific statutory provisions (e.g., particular sections) are expressly quoted in the excerpt; the discussion is largely on injunctions, possession, police protection, and powers/limits of coordinate benches and trial courts.
Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that an injunction order passed in favour of the appellants had attained finality and must be fully complied with, including restoration/redelivery of possession and grant of police protection to enforce the order. It found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing that observations of a coordinate bench should not be looked into by the trial court and by effectively diluting the earlier injunction and restoration directions. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, directed that possession be restored to the appellants within three weeks with an affidavit of compliance within four weeks, while clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the trial on merits.