Injunctions:

Injunction : Meaning
“Injunction” meaning of ?: ‘Injunction’ means- an order of court to do or not to do something.
Laws relating to injunctions are as under:
(i) Sections 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
(ii) Section 94(c) CPC
(iii) Order 39, rules 1, 2, 3, 4 CPC
(iv) Section 151 CPC
(v) Order 43, rule 1(r) CPC (Misc. Appeal)
Sources of power of court to grant interim injunction: There are two
sources of powers of court to grant interim injunction:
(i) Section 94(c) CPC
(ii) Section 151 CPC
An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain 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 1
injunction)
 Object
It is well-settled principle of law that interim order can always be granted in the aid of
and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his
rights in a suit or any other proceeding. Therefore, a court undoubtedly possesses
the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Temporary
injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings.
●
The primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in
dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are
adjudicated. In other words, 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, likely to be caused to the
plaintiff if the relief is refused; and injury and prejudice likely to be caused to the
defendant if the relief is granted. The court in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion can grant or refuse to grant interim relief.

2
 Con.
The underlying object of granting temporary injunction is to maintain and
preserve status quo at the time of institution of the proceedings and to
prevent 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.
●
The need for such protection, however, has to be judged against the
corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury
resulting from exercising his own legal rights. The court must weigh one
need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies
and may pass an appropriate order in exercise of its discretionary power,

3
 Types of Injunction
Injunctions are of various types; they are:
●
(i) temporary; and (ii) permanent.
●
Perpetual or permanent injunction restrains a party forever from doing the
specified act and can be granted only on merits at the conclusion of the trial
after hearing both the parties to the suit. It is governed by Sections 38 to 42 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
●
Temporary or interim injunction, on the other hand, restrains a party
temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the
disposal of the suit or until the further orders of the court. It is regulated by the
provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be
granted at any stage of the suit.

4
●
Injunctions are
●
(i) preventive, prohibitive or restrictive, i.e. when they prevent, prohibit or
restrain someone from doing something; or
●
(ii) mandatory, i.e. when they compel, command or order some person to
do something.
●
Again, an injunction may be (i) ad interim; or (ii) interim.
●
Ad-interim injunction is granted without finally deciding an application
for injunction and operates till the disposal of the application.
●
Interim injunction is normally granted while finally deciding main
application and operates till the disposal of the suit.

5
 Who may apply for an interim injunction
It is not the plaintiff alone who can apply for an interim
injunction. A defendant may also make an application for
grant of an injunction against the plaintiff.
●

6
 Against whom injunction may be issued

●
An injunction may be issued only against a party and not
against a stranger or a third party or a non-party .
●
It also cannot be issued against a court or judicial officer.
●
Normally, injunction can be granted against persons
within the jurisdiction of the court concerned or persons
having Property within the jurisdiction of the court
concerned .

7
 Important equitable principles which are necessary
to consider while granting or refusing injunction :
●
• “ubi jus ibi remediam”. Whenever there is right there is remedy.
●
• One who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
●
• One who seeks equity must do equity.
●
• Where equities are equal, the law will prevail.
●
• Equity follows the law.
●
• Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.
●
• The power to grant a temporary injunction is at the discretion of the court.
●
• This discretion, however, should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles.
●
• Injunction should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side.
●
• The grant of injunction is in the nature of equitable relief, and the court has undoubtedly power to
impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Such conditions, however, must be reasonable so as
not to make it impossible for the party to comply with the same and thereby virtually denying the relief
which he would otherwise be ordinarily entitled to.

8
 Legal Provisions
●
Section 94(c) and (e) of Code of Civil Procedure contain provisions
under which the Court may in order to prevent the ends of justice from
being defeated, grant a temporary injunction or make such other
interlocutory order as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.
●
Section 95 of Civil Procedure Code further provides that where in any
suit a temporary injunction is granted and it appears to the Court that there
were no sufficient grounds, or the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears
to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable ground for
instituting the same, the Court may on application of the defendant award
reasonable compensation which may be to the extent of the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Court trying the suit.

9
Order 39 TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS :
Rule 1 & 2
●
1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. - Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-
●
(a) that 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 a execution of a decree, or
●
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors,
●
(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 be order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for
the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or
dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the
Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
●

●
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 of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to
restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a
like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
●
(2) The Court may be order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account,
giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.

10
 Uttar Pradesh: Amendment of Order XXXIX.
-
In the First Schedule, in Order XXXIX -
(a) in rule 2, in sub-rule (2) the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :-
"provided that no such injunction shall be granted -
(a) where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of section 38 and section 41 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, or
(b) to stay the operation of an order for, transfer, suspension, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal or
otherwise termination of service of, or taking charge from, any employee including any employee of the Government, or
(c) to say, any disciplinary proceeding pending or intended or, the effect of any adverse entry, against any employee of the
Government, or
(d) to affect the internal management or affairs of, any educational institution including a University, or a society, or
(e) to restrain any election, or
(f) to restrain, any auction intended to be made or, the effect of any auction made, by the Government, or
(g) to stay the proceedings for the recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue unless adequate security is furnished, or
(h) in any matter where a reference can be made to the Chancellor of a University under any enactment for the time being in force ;
and any order for injunction granted in contravention of these provisions shall be void." ;

11
 Specific Relief Act : Section 38 39, and 41
38. Perpetual injunction when granted.—(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 existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter
II.
(3) 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, namely:—
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused,
by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
39. Mandatory injunctions.—When, to prevent the 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 to compel performance of the requisite acts.

12
 Con.
●
41. Injunction when refused.—An injunction cannot be granted—
●
(a) 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 a multiplicity of
●
proceedings;
●
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
●
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
●
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;
●
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
●
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a
●
nuisance;
●
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
●
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding
●
except in case of breach of trust;
●
(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or
●
interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project.
●
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to be the
●
assistance of the court;
●
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

13
 Grounds

Temporary injunction may be granted by a court in the following cases:

(a) where 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
(b) where a defendant threatens, or intends to remove or dispose of his property
with a view to defrauding his creditors; or
(c) where a defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury
to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit; or
(d) where a defendant is about to commit a breach of contract, or other injury of
any kind, or
(e) where a court is of the opinion that the interest of justice so requires.

14
 Principles
The power to grant a temporary injunction is at the discretion of
the court. This discretion, however, should be exercised
reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles. Injunction
should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other
side. The grant of injunction is in the nature of equitable relief,
and the court has undoubtedly power to impose such terms and
conditions as it thinks fit, Such conditions, however, must be
reasonable so as not to make it impossible for the party to
comply with the same and thereby virtually denying the relief
which he would otherwise be ordinarily entitled to.

15
 Con.
Generally, before granting the injunction, the court must be satisfied about the following factors-
(i) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary injunction is not granted?
(i) Whether the balance of (in) convenience is in favour of the plaintiff ?
The above three rules are described as "three pillars" on which foundation of every order of injunction rests. It is also
known as "tripple test" for grant of interim injunction.
All these three elements are of extreme importance. They, therefore, need to be discussed in detail (alongwith other
factors).
( Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719: AIR 1993 SC 176; Dorab Cowasi Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden,
(1990) 2 SCC 117: AIR 1990 SC 867; Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 717 at pp. 731-32: AIR 1990
SC 867 at pp. 876-77 United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, (1981) 2 SCC 766 at pp. 787-88: AIR 1981 SC 1426 at p.
1440, Gangubai v. Sitaram, (1983) 4 SCC 31 at p. 33: AIR 1983 SC 741 at p. 743; Shiv Kumar v. MCD, (1993) 3 SCC
161; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sriman Narayan, (2002) 5 SCC 760; Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco
Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 540; Seema Arshad Zabeer v. Municipla Corpn., Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 181,
194; Kishoresinh v. Maruti Corpn., (2009) 11 SCC 119; Best Sellers Retail v. Aditya Birla, (2012) 6 SCC 791; Neon
Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., (2016) 2 SCC 6721 (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 190.)

16
 (a) Prima facie case :
The first rule is that the applicant must make out a prima facie case in
support of the right claimed by him. The court must be satisfied that
there is a bona fide dispute raised by the applicant, that there is an
arguable case for trial which needs investigation and a decision on
merits and on the facts before the court there is a probability of the
applicant being entitled to the relief claimed by him. The existence of a
prima facie right and infraction of such right is a condition precedent
for grant of temporary injunction.
●
The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the court by leading evidence
or otherwise that he has a prima facie case in his favour.( Dalpat
Kumar v. Prablad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719: AIR 1993 SC 276.)

17
 Con.
●
Explaining the ambit and scope of the connotation "prima facie" case, in Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, AIR
1958 SC 79 the Supreme Court observed:

●
“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. It may be that the
tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute
its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on
the evidence on the record. "
Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is "a prima facie case" in
his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of
his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with
prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question
raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself
is not sufficient to grant injunction.( Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719: AIR 1993 SC 176 )

18
 Cont.
●
But prima facie case, should not be confused with a case proved to the hilt. It is no part of the court's function at that
stage to try to resolve a conflict of evidence nor to decide complicated questions of fact and of law which call for
detailed arguments and mature considerations. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial. ( American Cyanamid
Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., 1975 AC 396: (1975) 2 WLR 316.
●
In other words, the court should not examine the merits of the case closely at that stage because it is not expected to
decide the suit finally. In deciding a prima facie case, the court is to be guided by the plaintiff's case as revealed in the
plaint, affidavits or other materials produced by him.
Prima facie case must precede an order of injunction. Only when prima facie case is established that the court will
consider other factors. If applicant fails to prove prima facie case, he is not entitled to temporary injunction.(Kashi Math
Samsthan & Anr vs Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy (2010) 1 SCC 689, 692: AIR 2011 SC 196 Para 13 See Below )
●
13. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has
to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he
will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails
to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and
injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to
go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of
convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted.

19
 (b) Irreparable injury
●
The existence of the prima facie case alone does not entitle the applicant for a
temporary injunction. ( CCEV Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260 at pp. 266-67:
AIR 1985 SC 330; Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P)
Ltd, (2006) 1 SCC 340; State of Karnataka v. State of A.P., (2000) 9 SCC 572 (654-
35) Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1991) SCC 719 (721): AIR 1993 SC 276 (277),
Best Sellers Retail v. Aditya Birla, (2012) 6 SCC 791)
●
The applicant must further satisfy the court about the second condition by
showing that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction as prayed is not
granted, and that there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect
himself from the consequences of apprehended injury. In other words, the court
must be satisfied that refusal to grant injunction would result in "irreparable
injury" to the party seeking relief and he needs to be protected from the
consequences of apprehended injury.

20
 Cont.
In the leading case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., the House of Lords has rightly pronounced the
principle thus:

"The governing principle is that the court should first consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the
trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of
damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant continuing to do what was sought to be
enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in the measure recoverable at
common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in financial position to pay them, no
interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff's claim appeared to be at that
stage. If, on the other hand, damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in the event of his
succeeding at the trial, the court should then consider whether, on the contrary hypothesis that the defendant
were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to do that which was sought to be enjoined, he would be
adequately compensated under the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by
being prevented from doing so between the time of the appli- cation and the time of the trial. If damages in the
measure recoverable under such an undertaking would be an adequate remedy and the plaintiff would be in a
financial position to pay them, there would be no reason upon this ground to refuse an interlocutory injunction."

21
 Cont.
The expression irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there should be no
possibility of repairing the injury. It only means that the injury must be a material one, i.e.
which cannot be adequately compensated by damages. An injury will be regarded as
irreparable where there exists no specific or fixed pecuniary standards for measuring
damages. ( Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 450;
Cotton Corpn. of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd., (1983) 4 SCC 625. )
The court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the court would result in
"irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available
to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences
of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that
there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury but means only that the Injury
must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of
damages. ( Mahadeo Saularam Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corpn., (1995) 3 SCC 33 )

22
 (c) Balance of (in)convenience.
The third condition for granting interim injunction is that the balance of convenience
must be in favour of the applicant. In other words, the court must be satisfied that the
comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the
applicant by refusing the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to be
caused to the opposite party by granting it.
The court while exercising discretion in granting or refusing injunction should
exercise sound judicial discretion and should attempt to weigh substantial mischief or
injury likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused, and compare it
with that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party if the injunction is granted.
If on weighing conflicting probabilities, the court is of the opinion that the balance of
convenience is in favour of the applicant, it would grant injunction, otherwise refuse to
grant it. (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1991) 1 SCC 719: AIR 1993 SC 276. )

23
 Cont.
●
Again, to quote the remarkable observations of Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid
Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.:

●
"The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by
violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages
recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial,
but the plaintiff's need for such protection must be weighed against the
corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his
having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be
adequately compensated under the plaintiff's undertaking in damages if the
uncertainty were resolved in the defendant's favour at the trial. The court must weigh
one need against another and determine where 'the balance of convenience' lies. "

24
 Cont.
●
Takwani s View -
●
Though English and Indian Courts have used the phrase "balance of convenience",
the authors are of the view that proper expression should be "balance of
inconvenience". It is submitted that once the plaintiff establishes prima facie case, the
court will consider the question of granting or refusing interim injunction.
Inconvenience, in the circumstances, is bound to be caused to one of the parties to the
suit. Hence, it is the duty of the court to consider inconvenience of the plaintiff as
against inconvenience of the defendant. If the court thinks that by refusing interim
injunction, more or greater inconvenience will be caused to the plaintiff, it will grant
injunction. If, on the other hand, it finds that by granting interim injunction, greater
inconvenience will be caused to the defendant, it will refuse the relief. It is by
considering comparative inconvenience that the court will exercise the discretion.
●
Burden of proof that the inconvenience which the plaintiff will suffer by refusal of
injunction is greater than that which the defendant will suffer if it is granted lies on the
plaintiff.
●

25
 (d) Other factors
●
The above principles and guidelines are merely illustrative and neither exhaustive nor absolute rules. It should not be forgotten that
grant of injunction is discretionary and equitable remedy and power to grant injunction must be exercised in accordance with sound
judicial principles.
●
It is an equitable relief and even if all the above conditions are satisfied there may be other circumstances leading to a refusal to grant
such a relief .
The Hon ble Apex Court in landmark judgment in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545: AIR 1993 SC 2372 held
that the Court needs to follow certain guidelines while considering an application for grant of temporary injunction, some of which are
briefly stated hereunder :
a) The applicant shall have to establish a prima facie case in his favour. The Court will not examine the merits of the case rather only the
basic facts on which it is established that the applicant has a prima facie case to contest.
b) The Court will also examine the conduct of the applicant and such conduct needs to be examined even at the stage where the
application for setting aside an order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed.
c) The Court has to examine the balance of convenience i.e. the balance of comparative loss caused to the applicant and the respondent in
the case of not passing the order.
d) The Court will first of all will examine what is the extent of loss that would be caused to the applicant if the order is not passed and also
whether it is reparable by monetary compensation i.e. by payment of cost. Then it will(23) examine the loss suffered by the respondent if
the order is passed and thereupon it has to see which loss will be greater and irreparable.
e) The Court has the power also to ask the party to deposit security for compensation or to give an undertaking for the payment of the
compensation, if ordered.
●
As Lord Diplock stated, "I would reiterate that, in addition to those to which I have referred, there may be many other special factors
to be taken into consideration in particular circumstances of individual cases. "130 Thus a relief of injunction may be refused on the
ground of delay, laches or acquiescence, or where the applicant has not come with clean hands, 152 151 or has suppressed material
facts,153 or where monetary compensation is adequate relief. 26
 Conduct of plaintiff:

It should be free from blame - Temporary injunction being an

equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be
exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame
and he approaches the court with clean hands. (Seema Arshad
Zaheer & ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
& ors. - (2006) 5 Scale 263)

27
 Delay or Acquiescence
Delay or Acquiescence - The delay in approaching the court is a
good ground for refusal of interim relief, but in exceptional
circumstances, where the case of party is based on fundamental
rights guaranteed under the constitution and there is an
apprehension that suit property may be developed in a manner
that it acquires irretrievable situation, the court may grant
relief even at a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that
the applicant has not been negligent in pursuing the case.(Zenit
Mataplast P. Ltd Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors).

28
Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
and others, JT 2000 (7) SC 151,
●
32. Thus, the law on the issue emerges to the effect that interim injunction
should be granted by the Court after considering all the pros and cons of the
case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the
party or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same.
The order can be passed on settled principles taking into account the three basic
grounds i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The
delay in approaching the Court is of course a good ground for refusal of interim
relief, but in exceptional circumstances, where the case of a party is based on
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and there is an
apprehension that suit property may be developed in a manner that it acquires
irretrievable situation, the Court may grant relief even at a belated stage
provided the court is satisfied that the applicant has not been negligent in
pursuing the case.

29
 Suppression of material facts

Suppression of material facts - So as to enable the court to refuse

to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of
material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression
whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary
relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of
determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be
that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the
relief. (Supreme Court of India in Arunima Baruah vs Union Of
India & Ors (2007) 6 SCC 120)

30
 Interest of general public:

●
In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. : AIR 1999 SC 3105,
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that along with the other considerations it is be seen
that whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the interest of
general public which can or cannot be compensated otherwise.
●

●
It is common experience that injunction normally is asked for and granted to
prevent the public authorities or the respondents to proceed with execution of or
implementing scheme of public utility or granted contracts for execution thereof.
Public interest is, therefore, one of the material and relevant considerations in either
exercising or refusing to grant ad interim injunction. Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and
Ors vs. Puna Municipal Corporation and Anr. 1995 (3) SCC 33.
●

31
 Discretion of court
Power to grant injunction is extraordinary in nature and it can be exercised
cautiously and with circumspection. A party is not entitled to this relief as a
matter of right or course. Grant of injunction being equitable remedy, it is in
the discretion of the court and such discretion must be exercised in favour of
the plaintiff only if the court is satisfied that, unless the defendant is
restrained by an order of injunction, irreparable loss or damage will be
caused to the plaintiff. The Court grants such relief ex debito justitiae, i.e. to
meet the ends of justice. ( Shiv Kumar v. MCD, (1993) 3 SCC 161; Dalpat
Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1993) 1 AIR 1993 SC 276, Mahadeo Savlaram
Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corpn., (1995) 3 SCC 33 Gujarat Bottling Co. v.
Coca Cola Co., (1995) s SCC 545: AIR 1993 SC 2372; Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. v. Sriman Narayan, (2002) 5 SCC 760.)

32
 Equitable remedy
Power to grant injunction is equitable in nature. Injunction
cannot be claimed by a party "as of right" nor a court would
grant such relief as a "matter of course". Being equitable
relief, before granting such relief, the court would keep in
mind equitable considerations. The relief can be granted
only if justice, equity and good conscience require.

33
 Injunction which may not be granted
Since the power can be exercised judicially and in the public
interest, no interim injunction causing administrative
inconvenience or resulting in public mischief should be
granted. Thus, ordinarily no injunction should be granted
against recovery of tax or octroi, enforcement of contractual
rights and liabilities, transfer or suspension of employees,
delaying election process, interfering with inquiry or
investigation, etc.

34
 Inherent power to grant injunction
Rule 1 of Order 39, no doubt, enumerates circumstances in which a court
may grant interim injunction. It, however, nowhere provides that no
temporary injunction can be granted by the court unless the case falls
within the said provision. Hence, where the case is not covered by Order 39,
interim injunction can be granted by the court in exercise of inherent
powers under Section 151 of the Code, the court has got inherent power to
protect the rights of the parties pending the suit. { See: Vareed Jacob vs.
Sosamma Geevarghese, (2004) 6 SCC 378 State of Maharashtra vs. Admane
Anita Moti, AIR 1995 SC 350 Shiv Ram Singh vs. Smt. Mangara, 1988 ALJ
1516 (All) Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills vs. Kanhyalal Bhargava, AIR
1966 SC 1899 Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Seth Hira Lal, AIR 1962 SC 527}

35
 Ex parte injunction
Rule 3 of Order 39 requires the applicant to issue a notice to the opposite party before an injunction is granted. Though
the court has the power to grant an ex parte injunction without issuing a notice or granting a hearing to the party, who
will be affected by such order, the said power is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances.
In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 SCC (4) 225, JT 1994 (3) 654 the Supreme Court indicated the
factors which should weigh with a court in the grant of an ex parte injunction:
(i) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff,
(ii) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than grant of it would involve;
(iii) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained of so that the making
of an improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(iv) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such circumstances it will not grant
ex parte injunction;
(v) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application;
(vi) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time;
(vii) general principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the
court."

36
Grant - ex-parte ad interim injunction -
plaintiff be directed to give an undertaking
●
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (dead) through Lrs., AIR
2012 Supreme Court 1727 Para 80 ).
●
80. It is a settled principle of law that no one can take law in his own hands. Even a trespasser
in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse of law. It must be the endeavour
of the Court that if a suit for mandatory injunction is filed, then it is its bounden duty and
obligation to critically examine the pleadings and documents and pass an order of injunction
while taking pragmatic realities including prevalent market rent of similar premises in similar
localities in consideration. The Court's primary concern has to be to do substantial justice.
Even if the Court in an extraordinary case decides to grant ex-parte ad interim injunction in
favour of the plaintiff who does not have a clear title, then at least the plaintiff be directed to
give an undertaking that in case the suit is ultimately dismissed, then he would be required to
pay market rent of the property from the date when an ad interim injunction was obtained by
him. It is the duty and the obligation of the Court to at least dispose off application of grant of
injunction as expeditiously as possible. It is the demand of equity and justice.

37
 Safe and better course is to give short notice
●
The safe and better course is to give short notice on injunction
application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both
the side. In case of grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to
grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, it should be granted for
a specified period, such as, for two weeks. In those cases, the
plaintiff will have no inherent interest in delaying disposal of
injunction application after obtaining an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction. (Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo
Jack De Sequeria (dead) through Lrs., AIR 2012 Supreme
Court 1727).

38
 Recording of reasons
When the court purposes to grant ex parte injunction without issuing notice to the opposite party, proviso to Rule 3 enjoins
the court to record reasons. The requirement of recording reasons is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement.
Dealing with this aspect, in Shiv Kumar v. MCD1 (1993) 3 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court stated, "The requirement for
recording the reasons for grant of ex parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent
with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise
either under a statute or under the common law, must be informed why, instead of following the requirement of Rule 3, the
procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of
an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the court about
the gravity of the situation and the court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order. We are quite conscious of
the fact that there are other statutes which contain similar provisions requiring the court or the authority concerned to
record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are
required to be complied with but non-compliance therewith will not vitiate the order so passed. But same cannot be said in
respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. Parliament has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of
injunctio without notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders have far-reaching effect, as
such a condition has been imposed that court must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance
with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by Parliament shall be a futile
exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purposes, Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code
attracts the principle that, if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or
not all."

39
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal
Corporation Of Delhi 993 SCC (3) 161 Case :
Direction
●
Accordingly we direct that the application for interim injunction should be considered and disposed of in
the following manner:-
●
(i)The Court should first direct the plaintiff to serve a copy of the application with a copy of the plaint
along with relevant documents on the counsel for the Corporation or any competent authority of the
Corporation and the order should be passed only after hearing the parties.
●
(ii)If the circumstances of a case so warrant and where the Court is of the opinion, that the object of
granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, the Court should record reasons for its opinion as
required by proviso to Rule 3 of order 39 of the Code, before passing an order for injunction. The Court
must direct that such order shall operate only for a period of two weeks, during which notice along with
copy of the application, plaint and relevant documents should be served on the competent authority or the
counsel for the Corporation. Affidavit of service of notice should be filed as provided by proviso to Rule 3
of order 39 aforesaid If the Corporation has entered appearance, any such exparte order of injunction
should be extended only after hearing the counsel for the Corporation.
●
(iii)While passing an ex parte order of injunction the Court shall direct the plaintiff to give an undertaking
that he will not make any further construction upon the premises till the application for injunction is
finally heard and disposed of.

40
 Undertaking from the plaintiff
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors Ramrameshwari Devi &
Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors (2011) 8 SCC 249,(2011) 8 SCC 249,
●
40. The courts have to be extremely careful in granting ad-interim ex-parte
injunction. If injunction has been granted on the basis of false pleadings or
forged documents, then the concerned court must impose costs, grant realistic or
actual mesne profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to discourage
the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants from abusing the judicial system. In
substance, we have to remove the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer.
●
41. While granting ad interim ex-parte injunction or stay order the court must
record undertaking from the plaintiff or the petitioner that he will have to pay
mesne profits at the market rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim
application and the suit

41
 Imposition of conditions
Even when the court is satisfied with the case of the applicant,
and is inclined to grant interim relief, it must consider the
interest of the other side. The party at whose instance interim
order is passed, should be made accountable for the
consequences of such order. In appropriate cases, the applicant
may be asked to furnish security for any increase in cost as a
result of delay or damage suffered due to such interim relief.
"Stay order or injunction order, if issued, must be moulded to
provide for restitution. ( Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R.
Construction Ltd, (1999) 1 SCC 492 )

42
 Status quo

"Status quo" means "existing condition" or "existing state of

things" at any given point of time. The relief of status quo is
as good as an injunction. Hence, principles relating to grant of
injunction apply to grant of status quo also.

43
 Mandatory injunction
In appropriate cases, temporary mandatory injunction can be
granted by a court but such relief can be granted only in exceptional
and compelling circumstances where injury complained of is
immediate and is likely serious prejudice to the applicant which
cannot be compensated in terms of money. In other words,
mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage can be granted in
rarest of rare cases.10 Such relief requires higher degree of
satisfaction, much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory
injunction. Again, mandatory induction can be granted only to
restore statue quo and not to establish a new state of things."

44
An interim order - final relief -Should not be
granted except in exceptional Circumstances
It is well settled that by an interim order the final relief should not be granted, vide U.P. Junior Doctors Action
Committee vs. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, AIR 1992 SC 671 (para 8), State of U.P. vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, JT 2004(8)
SC 264 (para 6),
State of U.P. vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, JT 2004(8) SC 264 (para 6).
This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim
stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable
Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim
orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima
facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a
host of other considerations.
[See Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of
Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (1985 (3) SCC 217 at p.224), State of U.P. and Ors. v. Visheshwar (1995 Supp
(3) SCC 590), Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors. (1995 Supp (2) SCC
593), Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Ashok
Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).]

45
 Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra and ors
AIR 2004 SC 1975
Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to
granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where
withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition
itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing
left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his
favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case of a standard
much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience
and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the
applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to
granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases.

46
 Scope of inquiry
While dealing with an application for interim injunction, the
court is bound to consider the merits of the case. But the scope of
inquiry is limited to look at and consider the case generally and
to decide whether a case has been made out by the applicant for
the grant of such relief. It is certainly open to the court to
consider affidavits and other documents and to draw proper
inferences. The court, however, is not expected to hold "mini-
trial" at that stage. ( Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar
Prasad, (2001) 5 SCC 568, Hindustan Peroleum Corpn. Ltd. v.
Sriman Narayan, (2002) 5 SCC 760: AIR 2002 SC 1598; )

47
 Res judicata
The doctrine of res judicata applies to different stages of the
same suit or proceeding. Hence, if interim injunction is once
granted or refused by the court, the said order will operate
till the disposal of the suit or through- out the proceeding. An
application for granting or vacating injunction will lie if there
are changed circumstances. (Arjun Singh v. Mohindra
Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993: (1964) 5 SCR 946)

48
 Temporary injunction: Duration
Temporary injunction granted by the court pendente lite (till
the disposal of the suit) comes to an end when the suit is finally
decided. If the suit is dismissed, injunction is vacated. But even
if the suit is decreed, temporary injunction comes to an end. If
the suit is for permanent injunction, temporary injunction
granted by the court is made perpetual or permanent as a part
of decree passed by the court. (Gangappa v. Boregouda, AIR
1955 Mys 91, C. Kamatchi Ammal v. Kattabomman Transport
Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1987 Mad 173 187)

49
 Interim relief for limited period: Effect

Where a court grants interim injunction or relief for a limited

period, it comes to an end on the expiry of that period.
Normally, in such cases, the plaintiff or his advocate requests
the court for extension or continuation of such relief. But in
absence of specific order, it expires. ( Luis Proto v. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 644 AIR 1991 SC 1812)

50
 Restoration of benefits
Where a court grants interim injunction which results in
injustice to the opposite party, it is not only the right but the
duty of the court at the time of passing a final order to undo
injustice and to restore the status quo ante. ( Prabodh Verma
v. State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 151: AIR 1985 SC 167; Jethabhai
Khatau & Co. v. Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd., (1981) 3
SCC 61 AIR 1981 SC 1201 )

51
 Cont.
In Director of Inspection (Intelligence) v. Vinod Kumar Didwania (2008) 14
SCC 41 against the prohibitory orders, issued by the Income Tax Authorities,
the petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained an ex parte interim order
prohibiting the authorities from enforcing the orders. The petitioner then
removed his goods under the ex parte order and withdrew the petition.
Holding that the process of law was completely abused for the purpose of
gaining an undeserved benefit, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner
could not be allowed to derive an undue advantage from the situation.
Restoration of benefits, in appropriate cases, may include payment of costs,
difference of price, damages, etc.( Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R.
Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492)

52
 Non-compliance with interim order
An order passed by a competent court-interim or final-has to be obeyed without any
reservation. If the party against whom such order is passed feels that it is not according to
law, he can take appropriate steps to get it vacated modified or set aside. He, however,
cannot refuse to obey such order. Refusal to respect interim order would be destructive of
the Rule of Law. Violation of interim order passed by a competent court ought to be viewed
strictly if the Rule of Law is to be maintained. Again, no litigant can defy or decline
adherence to an order of a court merely because he is of the opinion that the order is
incorrect or the court had no power to make such order. Even if the party against whom
such order is made feels that the order is void or non-est, he must approach the superior
court for appropriate relief. If violation of orders passed by courts is not viewed seriously, it
will have widespread deleterious effects on the authority of courts in implementing such
orders." Intentional disobedience of the direction of the court would constitute contempt of
court. If a person has not obeyed the order of the court, the court may also refuse to hear
him on merits. (Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449. )

53
 Appeal

An order granting or refusing to grant injunction is subject to

appeal. Where ex parte relief is granted by the court and
the application is not decided within 30 days, the aggrieved
party may prefer an appeal against such an order, . Or. 43
R. 11r.

54
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And
Ors (2000) 7 SCC 695 AIR 2000 SC 3031
●
It is the acknowledged position of law that no party can be forced to suffer for the inaction of the court or its
omissions to act according to the procedure established by law. Under the normal circumstances the
aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1,2,2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39
of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional court
during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction.
●
In such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the court in following the
mandate of law must have a remedy. So we are of the view that in a case where the mandate of Order 39
Rule 3A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party, shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding
the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order
remaining in force. In such appeal, if preferred, the appellate court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal
and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate court in complying with the provisions of Rule
3A. In appropriate cases the appellate court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such
injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take
steps for making adverse entry in his ACRs. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex-parte
temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed on the
application for temporary injunction, on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule.

55
Police aid for implementing temporary
injunction & duty of court
Police aid for implementing temporary injunction & duty of court: Once the court is satisfied that interim
order passed by it is disobeyed, there could be no justification for the court not to initiate proceedings for
enforcement of its order. Court cannot be merely a silent spectator while the order passed by it is being
violated with impunity and the party is left on the mercy of the so called administration. It is not only an
obligation but a solemn duty of the court to enforce its order by all means and to ensure that the interim order
passed by it is complied with. To achieve the same, court should issue necessary instructions to the police if
facts so warrant. See: (i) Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Nikhil N. Gupta, (2015) 10 SCC
139. (ii) Sree Ram vs. State Of U.P. 2011 (2) ALJ 187(All) (DB) (iii) Smt. Jagannathiya vs. State of U.P.,
2006 (64) ALR 330 (All) (DB) Note: In the case of Smt. Jagannathiya, notedabove, the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court directed the civil court, Kaushambi to issue necessary orders to the Superintendent of
Police, Kaushambi to take all measures to ensure compliance of the interim order passed by it at the earliest.
The following rulings have been relied upon by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jagannathiya
(i) Rameshwarlal vs. Municipal Council, Tonk, (1996) 6 SCC 100 (ii) K.L. Viramani vs. III ADJ, 1992 (20) ALR
1065 (All) (iii) State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221 (iv) Kochira Krishnan vs. Joseph
Desouza, AIR 1986 Kerala 63 (v) Sita Ram vs. Ganesh Das, AIR 1973 All 449 (vi) Samee Khan vs. Bindu
Khan, AIR 1998 SC 2765

56
 Breach of injunction: Rule 2-A
Section 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order 39 provide for the consequences
resulting from a disobedience or breach of an order of injunction
issued by the court. The penalty may be either arrest of the opponent
or attachment of his property or both. However, the detention in civil
prison shall not exceed three months and the attachment of property
shall not remain in force for more than one year." 201 If the
disobedience or breach continues, the property attached I may be sold
and, out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it
thinks fit to the injured party. 202 The transferee court can also
exercise this power and can punish for breach of injunction granted by
the transferor court.

57