NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Varma v Varma [2009] NSWSC 1086
HEARING DATE(S) : 29 & 30 September, 1 October 2009
JUDGMENT DATE : 2 October 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Rein J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 2 October 2009
DECISION : Interlocutory injunction granted.
CATCHWORDS : EQUITY – equitable remedies – injunctions – application for interlocutory injunction – application of general principles to facts and circumstances – where plaintiff claims entitlement to beneficial ownership of 100% of shares in company, two-thirds of which shares have been transferred to the defendants
LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] 8 HCA 63; 208 CLR 199 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 CASES CITED : Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89 Plunkett v Bull (1915) 19 CLR 544
TEXTS CITED : Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's Equity: doctrines and remedies, (2002) 4th edition Butterworths LexisNexis
Parveen Varma (Plaintiff) Gautam Varma (First Defendant) PARTIES : Arjun Varma (Second Defendant) Taj Food Sales Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) The estate of the late Sah Dev Varma (Fourth Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3886/09
COUNSEL : Mr W Washingston (Plaintiff) Mr E Petersen, Ms J Baxter (First and Second Defendants)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate