INJUNCTION

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that demands a party must
do or must not do certain acts. A party that does not follow an order of injunction and fails to
comply with it has to

1.      face both criminal and civil penalties and

2.      damages or accept sanctions for that.

Breach of injunction is considered serious criminal offenses in some cases which can result
into arrest and possible prison sentences.

Emergency injunctions that are into effect only for less time and are known as temporary
restraining orders. Courts can also grant preliminary injunctions to take effect immediately
and effectively until a decision is made on a permanent injunction, which can stay in effect
unconditionally or until certain conditions are met.

Every court is established for the purpose of providing justice to people all the courts has all
such powers as may be required to do full and complete justices to the parties before it.

A court undoubtedly has the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit.
Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings.

DEFINITION

An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or is refrained from

doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to a
particular person that either prohibits him from doing ‘or continuing to do a particular act
(prohibitory injunction); or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).

OBJECT

Until legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated by the
grant of the interim relief an individual’s property can be preserved. Basically, the object of
making an order regarding interim relief is to evolve a workable formula to the extent called
for by the demands of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter and
striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, i.e., injury and prejudice, which
the plaintiff had to bear if the relief is refused; and same goes for defendant if the relief is
granted. The court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion can grant or refuse to grant
interim relief.

The main object of granting an individual temporary injunction is to maintain and preserve
status quo at the time of proceedings institution and to avoid any change in it until the final
 determination of the suit. It is in the nature of protective relief granted in favour of a party to
prevent future possible injury.

TYPES OF INJUNCTION

Section 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act govern injunction. Injunctions are of three kinds:

         Temporary
         Permanent
         Mandatory

I. Permanent Injunction:

A permanent Injunction, also known by the name perpetual injunction, prohibits a party
forever from doing the particular act and it can be granted only on merits at the end of the
trial after hearing both parties to the suit.

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act lays down the cases in which perpetual injunction can
be granted.

Under Section 38(1),when breach of an obligation is to be prevented, then the Court can pass
permanent injunction. Such obligation can exist either expressly or impliedly.

While under Section 38(3), perpetual or permanent injunction can be granted when the
defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the
court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases:

I.                   where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;

II.                where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to
be caused, by the invasion:

III.             where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate
relief;

IV.             where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

II. Temporary or interim injunction:

This type of injunction stops a party for a while from doing the specified act and can be
granted only until the suit is not over or until any other further order of the Court. Regulated
by the provision of the Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and can be granted at
any stage of the suit.
A temporary injunction is a provisional relief. The aim of such type of injunction is to protect
the

 subject matter of the suit in the existing condition, without the defendant’s
interference or threat.
 plaintiff from getting disposed off, or his property (subject matter) being destroyed or
harmed, or from any injury to the plaintiff.

The primary reason behind granting temporary injunction is to protect the interests of an
individual or the property of the suit, till the final judgement is passed. Th time period of such
injunction is

1. A specified period of time; or

2. till the court deems fit.

A temporary injunction is granted after answers to the following questions are determined

1)      whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?

2)      whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff?
3)      whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable damage, if the injunction is not
granted?

III.  Mandatory Injunction:

The sole purpose of mandatory injunction is to rectify any wrong done. The acts are restored
from their wrongful state to the right ones. The Court directs the defendant to do a certain
thing.

The concept of mandatory injunction, though not directly but,  is given under Section 39 of
the Act of 1963. the following elements have to be taken into consideration while deciding on
whether to grant mandatory injunction or not:[1]

1. What acts are necessary in order to prevent a breach of the obligation

2. The requisite acts must be such as the court is capable of enforcing.

It is well accepted by the Courts that mandatory injunction is not to be granted in the
following cases:

Where compensation in terms of money would be an adequate relief to the

plaintiff

Where balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant

 Where plaintiff has shown acquiescence in the acts of the defendant

To create a new state of things, but rather to restore status quo.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the following test to be taken before granting
mandatory injunction:[2]

         The plaintiff has must have a very strong case for trial. It should be of a standard
higher than that of a prima facie case;

         The plaintiff has to lay-bare that the grant of mandatory injunction is necessary to
prevent irreparable loss or serious injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of
money; and

         The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.

When a suit for Injunction and Declaration would lie?

In the case of Anathema Sudhakar vs. P Buchi Reddy & amp; Ors, The Hon’ble

Supreme court clearly mentioned the general principles as to when just a suit for permanent
injunction can proceed and when it is necessary to file a suit for

declaration and or possession with injunction as consequential relief which

reproduced as under:

         When a Plaintiff has a lawful or peaceful possession of a property and the defendant
disturbs or threatens such possession, then an injunction suit can be initiated. A
person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a
better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is
not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

         When the Plaintiff’s title is not disputed, but he does not have the possession then his
remedy would be to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary an
injunction. without claiming the relief for possession, a person who is out of his
possession can’t simply seek the remedy of injunction.

         Where even after being in possession, Plaintiff’s title to the property is still in
dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also
thereat of dispossession from the defendant, the Plaintiff will have to sue for
declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the
Plaintiffs is under cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to
 establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration,
possession and injunction.

In view of the above judgment any person can file a suit for declaration and injunction with
regard to any legal character or rights as to any property against any person who is denying or
interested to deny his title or such character. In a suit for seeking declaration with regard to a
right or title in respect of property along with consequential injunction the Plaintiff will have
to pray for a declaration as contemplated under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an
interim injunction during the pendency of the suit under order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code
1908 and a mandatory injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

In the case of Dalpat Kumar Vs Prahlad Singh and Ors[3], the court held that:

In a suit for declaration of rights or character and injunction the Plaintiff will have to
substantiate/prove his rights as claimed thereof. Accordingly the Court may in its discretion
award the rights so prayed along with permanent injunction if deemed fit and necessary in the
facts of the case.

Under section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the declaration made under

section 34 by any court will only be binding on the parties to the suit or any

persons claiming through them respectively as a declaration under section 34

is a right in personam and not a right in Rem. (SNP Shipping Service Pvt

Ltd vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation) AIR 2000 BOM 34.

[1]              . Madho Singh v. Abdul Qaiyum Khan, AIR 1950 All 505

[2]              . AIR 1990 SC 867

[3]     AIR 1993 SC 276 b

pecific Relief Act, 1963 is an act to provide specific Relief in deserving cases. It
extend whole of India except in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The act came into
force on 1st March, 1964.
In Civil Law, legal remedies are for enforcing primary rights or for enforcing
secondary rights. When there is a breach of contract, if the court orders specific
performance in favor of innocent party, this is in nature of enforcement of a primary
rights. If court orders for payment of compensation against damage this is
enforcement of secondary rights of parties. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is to protect
and enforce primary rights of parties.
Following types of Injunctions are granted by the Court.
1. Temporary and Permanent Injunctions ( Sections 36 & 37)
2. Perpetual Injunctions ( Section 38)
3. Mandatory Injunctions ( section 39)
4. Damages in lieu of or in addition to Injection( Section 40)
5. Injunction to perform a negative covenant( section 42)
We shall now discuss all injunctions respectively;
Temporary and Permanent Injunction;
An injunction is an order of competent court which-
1. Which forbids commission of a threatened wrong, or
2. Forbids the commission of a wrong already began, or
3. Commands the restoration of status quo
Clauses 1 and 2 deal with preventive relief, whereas clause 3 refer to mandatory
injunction, which seeks to rectify the defendants’ wrongful conduct.
The Preventive Injunction wills b granted on sole discretion of the court, which will be
based and guided by sound and reasonable judicial principals.
Temporary Injunctions or Interim Injunctions   are those which remain in force
until specified time or till date of next hearing of the case, or until further orders of the
court. Such injunctions can be granted at any stage of the suit and are governed by
Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not by Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Permanent Injunctions on the other hand, are contained in a decree passed by the
court after fully hearing the case. Such an injunction perpetually prohibits the
defendants from asserting a right or committing an act which would contrary to the
rights of plaintiff. It is based on end suit. It remains in force for all time to come.
Perpetual Injunctions may be granted, at the discretion of the court, to prevent the
breach of an obligation existing in the plaintiff’s favor, whether expressly or by
implication.
Whenever the defendant invades or even threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to
property or the enjoyment thereof, the court may grant a Perpetual Injunction to the
plaintiff in the following four cases;
1. Where the defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff.
2. Where there is no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to
be caused, to the plaintiff, by invasion of his rights.
3. Where the invasion of the plaintiff’s right is such that compensation in money
would not afford adequate relief.
4. Where injunction is necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
If the payment of damages will not adequately compensate the plaintiff, the court will
grant an injunction, unless there is special reason against it. The court may refuse
injunction and award damage in the following cases, if the injury is (i) small and (ii)
capable of being estimated in money and being adequately compensated by a sum
of money and grant of injunction would be oppressive. An injunction may also be
refused on the ground of the plaintiff’s acquiescence and delay. Similarly, injunctions
should not be granted where they inflict more injury on the person sought to be
injected than advantage on the applicant as decided in the case of Tituram V.
Cohen.
Perpetual Injunction when refused (section 41)  in following cases perpetual
injunction cannot be granted;
1. To restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the
institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is
necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial cases.
2. To restraint any person from insulting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not
subordinate to that from which injunction is sought.
3. To restraint any person from applying any legislative body.
4. To restraint any person from instituting or persecuting any proceeding in a criminal
matter.
5. To prevent breach of a contract, the performance of which would not specifically
enforced.
6. To prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear
that it will be a nuisance.
7. To prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff acquiesced.
8. When equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode
of proceeding, except in case of breach of trust.
9. When conduct of plaintiff or his agent is such to disentitle him to the assistance of
the court.
10. When the plaintiff has not personal interest in the matter.
The provisions of Section 41 is not exhaustive a refusal of injunction will depend on
the discretion of the court.
Mandatory Injunctions (section 39) at times it so happens that, in order to prevent
the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts
which the court is capable of enforcing. In such case the court may in its discretion ,
grant an injunction (i) to prevent such brech , and also (ii) to compel the performance
of the requisite acts.
This relief is applicable to the breach of any obligation, whether arising out of a
contract or tort. It may be perpetual or temporary, though in rare cases that of
temporary injunction of this nature will be issued.
An injunction is, in its nature, prohibitory. The defendant is first called up to restore
the place to the position in which it was before the act was done, and then he is
restrained , when he has so restored it, from doing anything in respect of it which
would be breach of obligation on his part. The object in every case is to compel the
defendant to restore things to their former condition. This type of injunction will be
granted to prevent more injury and damages to the plaintiff.
Lane V New gate, a lased his land to B for erecting a mills and bound himself to
supply water thereto from canals and reservoirs on his own land. An impeded the
enjoyment of water by B, by keeping works out of repair by the use of locks, and by
removing the stop-gate. B asked for an injunction which was granted. In this case an
affirmative covenants were enforced.
Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction ( section 40)  When a plaintiff
sues for Perpetual Injunction or a Mandatory Injunction , he may also claim
damages, either in addition to , or in substitution for , theinjuction, and the court, if it
thinks fit , award such damages.
An injunction or damage are not alternate remedies but can be granted at the
discretion of the court.
The damages cannot be granted unless the plaintiff has claimed damages in the
plaint or in proceedings he will be allowed to amend the plaint by incorporating
clause for damages.
Injunction to perform a negative covenant (section 42) some time in a given
contract, there may be affirmative agreement to do certain act, coupled with a
Negative Covenant, express or implied, not to do a certain other act. Now the fact
that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative part does
not mean that it cannot grant an injunction in respect of the negative part. It is
necessary in this case that the plaintiff has performed its part mentioned in the
contract.
Lumley V Wagner , A a singer , agreed that she would sigh for 12 months at B’s
theatre and that she would not sing elsewhere in the public during that period. Here
B cannot obtained specific performance of the first part of the contract (i.e. to sing at
his theatre), but he is entitled to an injunction, restraining A from singing at other
public places during that period. In this case though there is one contract but contain
two parts one is positive and other is negative. The two parts are independent
contracts. In this case court cannot debar itself to give injunction in case of negative
covenant.
The Supreme Court has also observed that the jurisdiction to grant an injunction
under the Act is discretionary and must be exercised according to sound principals of
law, and ex debito justito. The plaintiff cannot claim this relief as a matter of right.
Before refusing or granting the injunction, the court must weigh the pros and cons in
each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their proper perspectives, and
then exercise its discretion in the best interest of justice.
Introduction 
The term ‘injunction’ has been the subject of various attempts at a definition.
It has been defined by Joyce as, “An order remedial, the general purpose of
which is to restrain the commission of some wrongful act of the party
informed”.

Burney defined injunction as, “a judicial process, by which one who has
invaded or threatening to invade the rights of another is restrained from
continuing or commencing such wrongful act”.

The most expressive and acceptable definition is the definition of Lord

Halsbury. According to him, “An injunction is a judicial process whereby a
party in an order to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing”.

Injunction acts in personam i.e. it does not run with the property. For
instance, ‘A’ the plaintiff gets an injunction against ‘B’ forbidding him to erect
a wall. ‘B’ sells the property to ‘C’. In such a case, the sale does carry an
injunction with it. An injunction may be issued against individuals, public
bodies or even the State. Disobedience of the order of an injunction is
punishable as contempt of court. There are three characteristics of an
injunction. They are as follows.

 A judicial process.
  The relief obtained is restraint or prevention.
 The act restrained is wrongful.

Comparison of English and Indian Law

The nature of discretion and the rules of guidance for issuing orders of an
injunction are the same in both English and Indian Law. Under English law
damages in substitution for an injunction may be given if:

 The injury to the plaintiff’s legal rights is small;

 The injury is one which is capable of being estimated in money;
 The injury can be adequately compensated by a small payment; and
 The case is one in which grant of an injunction would be oppressive
to the defendant.

In India also some of these rules are incorporated in sections of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963.

Types of an Injunction
There are basically two types of injunction as provided by section 36 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act with the head
‘Preventive relief how granted’ reads as, “Preventive relief is granted at the
discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual”. As per
provisions of section 36 injunctions are either temporary (interlocutory) or
perpetual.

Temporary and perpetual injunctions are defined under Section 37 of the

Specific Relief Act which reads as:

“(1) Temporary injunctions are such as to continue until a specified time, or

until further order of the court and they may be granted at any stage of a
suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the
hearing and upon the merits of the suit, the defendant is thereby perpetually
enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act
which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff”.

Click Here

Temporary Injunctions
The procedure for granting temporary injunctions is not governed by the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 but governed by the rules laid down in Order XXXIX,
Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows.

“A temporary injunction may be granted in the following cases:

 1. For the protection of interest in the property

This category will cover the following cases

(a) That property in dispute is in danger of being wasted or alienated by any

party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or

(b) That the defendant threatens to remove or dispose of his property with a
view to defraud his creditors; and

(c) That the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise

cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.”

The court may by the order grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain such
act or make such order for the purpose of staying and preventing the
damage of wasting, alienation, sale or disposition of the property as the
court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit.

2. Injunction to restrain, repetition or continuance of breach

(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of
contract or other injury, of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the
suit or not, the plaintiff may at any time after the commencement the suit
and either after or before judgement, apply to the court for a temporary
injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract
or an injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury arising out of
same contract.

Discretionary Relief

It is to be noted that grant of an injunction is at the discretion of the court

i.e. it is not the right of an individual to get the injunction. Section 36
expressly lays down that, “Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the
court by an injunction, temporary or perpetual”. Therefore the court will
grant a temporary injunction if the following conditions are satisfied by the
case:
 1. The plaintiff must be able to establish a prima facie case. He is not
required to establish the clear title but a substantial question that
requires to be investigated and that matter should be preserved in
the same status as it is until the injunction is finally disposed of.
2. An irreparable injury may be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction
is refused and that there is no other remedy open to the applicant
by which he could protect himself from the feared injury.
3. The balance of convenience requires that the injunction should be
granted and compensation in money would not serve an adequate
relief.

It is to be noted that it is a settled principle of law that if in a suit where

there is no permanent injunction sought for in the final analysis, ordinarily a
temporary injunction cannot be granted. So, the principles that govern the
grant of a perpetual injunction would govern the grant of a temporary
injunction also.

In Ishwarbhai v Bhanushali Hiralal Mohanlal Nanda case where in a suit for

specific performance, there was no prayer for a decree of perpetual
injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the suit land by way of
sale till the disposal of the suit. But the plaintiff in a suit prayed for a
temporary injunction which was not granted because of the settled principle.

Perpetual Injunction
Section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 lays down that a permanent
injunction can only be granted by a decree at the hearing and upon the
merits of the case. In simple words, for obtaining a permanent injunction, a
regular suit is to be filed in which the right claimed is examined upon merits
and finally, the injunction is granted by means of judgement. A permanent
injunction therefore finally decides the rights of a person whereas a
temporary injunction does not do so. A permanent injunction completely
forbids the defendant to assert a right which would be contrary to the rights
of the plaintiff.
Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifies certain circumstances
under which permanent injunction may be granted. Section 38 with the head
‘Perpetual injunction when granted’ reads as,

“(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this

chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the
breach of an obligation existed in his favour or by implication.

(2) When any such obligation arises from the contract, the court shall be
guided by the provisions and rules contained in chapter II (specific
performance).

(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right
to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant the perpetual injunction
in the following cases, namely-

 Where the defendant is the trustee of the property of the plaintiff.

 Where there exist no standards for ascertaining the actual damage
caused, or likely to be caused by an invasion.
 Where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not
afford adequate relief.
 Where the injunction is necessary to prevent multiplicity of
judicial proceedings.”

Requirements of Applicability
The conditions pre-requisite for the application of this section are-

 There must be an expressed or implied legal right in favour of the

plaintiff;
 Such a right must be violated or there should be a threatened
invasion;
 Such right must be an existing one;
 Should fall within the sphere of restraining provisions (referred to
in section 41 of the specific relief act).
Illustrations

 ‘A’ lets certain land to ‘B’ and ‘B’ contracts not to dig sand and
gravel. ‘A’ may sue for an injunction to refrain ‘B’ from digging in
violation of the contract.
 Where the directors of the company are about to pay a dividend out
of capital. Any of the shareholders may sue for an injunction to
restrain them.

Section 38 expressly states that where an obligation arises from contract, the
court shall be guided by the rules and principles given in connection with the
specific performance of contracts. Thus, a perpetual injunction will be
granted to prevent a breach of contract only in those cases where the
contract is capable of specific performance (section 41(e)).

However, section 42 says that where a contract compromise of a positive

agreement to do something and negative agreement not to do a certain act,
whether expressly or impliedly, the fact that positive part is not capable of
specific performance will not prevent the court from of enforcing the negative
part by means of an injunction.

The crux of this section is that where an agreement contains both affirmative
and negative agreement, the court may enforce the negative agreement if a
positive agreement is incapable of specific performance and may restrain a
party from committing a breach of the negative part.

The court may grant a permanent injunction where the defendant invades or
threaten to invade the plaintiff in the following cases:

1. Where the defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff.

2. Where there exists no measure to ascertain the loss or actual
damage caused. For example, ‘A’ pollutes the air with smoke so as
to interfere with the physical comfort of Band C, who carries on
business in the neighbourhood. ‘B’ and ‘C’ may sue for an injunction
to restrain ‘A’ from polluting the air.
 3. Where the invasion is such that compensation in terms of money is
not an adequate relief. For example, ‘A’ a professor deliver lectures
to his students, being his own literature composition he does not
communicate them to the whole world. These lectures are the
property of the professor and he is entitled to restrain the students
from publishing without his contents.
4. Where it is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial
proceedings.

Mandatory Injunctions

Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the head ‘Mandatory

injunctions’ reads as, “When to prevent breach of an obligation it is
necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is
capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to
prevent the breach complained of, and also compel the performance of
requisite acts.”

Two elements have to be taken into consideration when a mandatory

injunction is granted. The two elements are:

 The court has to determine what acts are necessary to prevent the
breach; and
 The requisite acts must be as such as the court is capable of
enforcing.

Disobedience of Injunction
Rule 2-A of Order 39 and Section 94(c) of the Civil Procedure Code provide
for consequences of disobedience of an injunction. Section 94(c) provides
that, “In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court
may if it is so prescribed grant a temporary injunction and in case of
disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order
that his property is attached and sold.”
Rule 2-A of Order 39 provides that,

“(1) In case of disobedience of any injunction granted under Rule 1 and Rule
2 or breach of any of the terms on which injunction was granted, the court
granting the injunction or making the order, or any court o which the suit or
proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the 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 three months,
unless in the meantime the court directs his release.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than
one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience continues, the
property attached may be sold.”

Conclusion
There are cases in which the nature of agreement does not admit specific
performance, nor damages likely to serve the purpose. In such cases, the
court may restrain the party threatening the breach by way of an injunction.
Further, it should be noted that an interim injunction can only be granted
when a perpetual injunction is prayed for in a suit.

Introduction
An injunction is a prohibitive writ issued by a court of equity, at the
suit of a party complainant, directed to a party defendant in the action, or
to a party made a defendant for that purpose, forbidding the latter to do
some act, or to permit his servants or agents to do some act, which he is
threatening or attempting to commit, or restraining him in the continuance
thereof, such act being unjust and inequitable, injurious to the plaintiff, and
not such as can be adequately redressed by an action fit law. [1]

For example, if it so happens that a person is demolishing a building you

have possible claims on, you may ask the competent court to order such
person to not demolish the building until the trial for the claim of the building
is complete and judgement goes in his favour.

The law of injunction has been provided for by the Specific Relief Act, 1963
(hereinafter, the Act), and is also regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in India.

Types of Injunctions in the Indian Law

Generally speaking, there are two types of injunctions under the act [2], as
mentioned below:

1. Temporary Injunction
2. Perpetual/Permanent Injunction

Both the types of injunctions are discussed below.

Temporary Injunction

Temporary injunctions, as the name suggests, are the injunctions

that are given for a specific period of time or until the court gives
further order regarding the matter in concern. They can be obtained during
any stage of the trial and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),
1908[3]:

 Section 94: The section provides for supplemental proceedings, to

enable the court to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
Section 94(c) states that a court may grant temporary injunction
and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the
civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold. Section
94(e) of the Code enables the court to make interlocutory orders as
may appear to it to be just and convenient.

 Section 95: If it is found by the court that there were no sufficient

grounds to grant the injunction, or the plaintiff is defeated in the
suit, the court may award reasonable compensation to the
defendant on his application claiming such compensation.

 Order XXXIX:
o Rule 1: It enlists the situations when a court may grant
temporary injunction. These are:

1. Any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted,

damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in
execution of a decree, or
2. the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his
property with a view to defrauding his creditors,
3. the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise
cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in
the suit.

 Rule 2: It provides that an interim injunction may be granted for

restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or
other injury of any kind to the plaintiff.
click above

 Rule 3: It states that a court shall direct a notice of application to

the opposite party, before granting the injunction to the plaintiff.
 However, if it seems to the court that the purpose of the injunction
would be defeated by the delay, it may not provide the notice.
 Rule 4: It provides for vacation of already granted temporary
injunction.
 Rule 5: It states that an injunction directed to a corporation is
binding not only on the corporation itself, but also on all members
and officers of the corporation whose personal action the injunction
seeks to restrain.

In the M. Gurudas and Ors. case[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
opined, “while considering an application for injunction, the Court would pass
an order thereupon having regard to  prima facie, balance of convenience
and irreparable injury.”

1. Prima Facie Case: 

Prima Facie  literally means, on the face of it. In Martin Burn Ltd. vs. R.N.
Banerjee[5], while discussing a the meaning of the ‘prima facie’ case, the
court said:

“A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which
can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the
same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been
made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was
possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the
only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence.”

Prima facie case is a must to be eligible to obtain a temporary

injunction. However, it is not sufficient and temporary injunction cannot be
granted if the damage that will be caused if the injunction is not given is not
irreparable.[6]

2. Irreparable Injury:

‘Irreparable injury’ means such injury which cannot be adequately remedied

by damages. The remedy by damages would be inadequate if the
compensation ultimately payable to the plaintiff in case of success in the suit
would not place him in the position in which he was before injunction was
refused.[7]

3. Balance of Convenience:

In the case of Anwar Elahi[8], the court has clearly explained the meaning of
‘balance of convenience’. According to the court:

“Balance of convenience means that comparative mischief or inconvenience

which is likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than
that which is likely to arise from granting it. In applying this principle, the
Court has to weigh the amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be
done to the applicant if the injunction is refused and compare it with that
which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted.”

Permanent Injunction

A permanent injunction can be granted by the court by passing a decree

made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. Once such decree is
passed, the defendant is permanently prohibited from the assertion of a
right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the
rights of the plaintiff.[9]

When can a permanent injunction be granted?

A permanent injunction may be granted:

a. To the plaintiff in a suit to prevent a breach of an obligation existing in his

favour, whether implicit or explicit.[10] However, in a case where such an
obligation arises out of a contract, the court follows the rules as specified by
Chapter II of the Act.[11] Chapter II, under Section 9 provides that a person
may claim relief in respect to a contract, by pleading in his defense, any of
the ground available to him under any law relating to contracts.
b. In a case where the plaintiff invades or threatens to invade the the
plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a
permanent injunction where:

1. The defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;

2. there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused,
or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
3. the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford
adequate relief;
4. the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial
proceedings.[12]

Mandatory Injunction

If the court finds it necessary and within its capability, to compel the
performance of an act, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it may do so
granting a mandatory injunction to the plaintiff, compelling the defendant to
perform the requisite acts.[13]

Damages In Lieu of, or in Addition to Injunction

If the plaintiff claims for any additional damages along with the injunction
sought for, either perpetual or mandatory, or in substitution of the said
injunction, the court may award him such damages, if it thinks fit [14]. If no
damages have been claimed, the court may allow the plaintiff to make the
required amendments to the plaint and claim damages [15].

However, it is highly recommended to claim damages in the plaint before

submitting it, as permission for further amendments rests solely at the
discretion of the court.

The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor

of the plaintiff bars his right to sue for damages for such breach. [16]
Injunction to Perform Negative Agreement
The court can grant an injunction to not do certain acts, which are prohibited
by the contract to do. The court may do so even if it is unable to compel the
performance of the affirmative terms of the contract, i.e. the terms that
requires the defendant to do (perform) certain acts. However, it is subject to
the fact, whether the plaintiff has performed the terms of the contract
binding on him or not. Non performance by the plaintiff dis-entitles him from
obtaining such an injunction.[17]

Case Laws Regarding Permanent Injunction

In the case of  Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh[18] where a permanent
injunction was sought for by a son to prevent his father who happened to be
the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), from selling the HUF property
was set aside. It was not maintainable because the son, also a coparcener,
had got the remedy of challenging the sale and getting it set aside in a suit
subsequent to the completion of the sale.

On the other hand, granting the injunction sought would allow the son to use
the injunction to prevent the father from selling the property even if he is
compelled to do so, due to legal necessities.

Where in the case of Cotton Corporation Of India vs. United Industrial

Bank, an injunction was sought for to restrain the defendants from
presenting a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 or under
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the court dismissed the petition as it was
not competent to grant, as a relief, a temporary injunction restraining a
person from instituting a proceeding in a court not subordinate to it.

The court here was of the view that if a perpetual injunction cannot be
granted for the subject matter of the case under Section 41(b) of the act,
ipso facto temporary injunction cannot be granted.[19]
Grounds for Rejection of an Application for
Injunction
On the following grounds, an injunction cannot be granted:

1. To restraint a person from prosecuting a pending judicial

proceeding, unless it is to prevent multiplicity of the proceeding.
2. To restraint a person from instituting or prosecuting a judicial
proceeding in a court, where the injunction is sought from a court
subordinate to that court.
3. To restrain any person from applying to any legislative body.
4. To restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any
proceeding in a criminal matter.
5. To prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would
not be specifically enforced (Illustration: a contract between a
master and servant, requiring the servant to render personal
services to the master cannot be specifically enforced by the master
or the servant. Hence, an injunction cannot be granted in this
situation)
6. Where it is not reasonably clear that an act it nuisance, to prevent
such an act on the ground of nuisance.
7. To prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced,
as the general rule is that an acquiescence is an implied consent by
remaining silent.
8. Where except in the case of breach of trust, equally efficacious relief
can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding.
9. When the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to
dis-entitle him to the assistance of the court.
10. When the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. [20]

What are your views on this? Feel free to comment below & share the article.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge,

referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more

amazing legal content.

Reference:

[1]
 Black’s Law Dictionary

[2]
 Sections 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[3]
 Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[4]
 M. Gurudas and Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3275

[5]
 1958 AIR 79, 1958 SCR 514

[6]
 M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors (2012) 6
SCC 792

[7]
 Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Satyanarayan
Singh, (1974) 40 Cut LT 336

[8]
 Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995 IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT
752, 1995 (35) DRJ 341

[9]
 Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[10]
 Section 38(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[11]
 Section 38(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[12]
 Section 38(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
[13]
 Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[14]
 Section 40(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[15]
 Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[16]
 Section 40(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[17]
 Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[18]
 AIR 1987 P H 34

[19]
 1983 AIR 1272, 1983 SCR (3) 962

[20]
 Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963