How to prove grounds of injunction

874 votes

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. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca Cola Company 1995(5) SCC 545.

Ingredients

3] It is well settled that for grant of temporary injucntion three factors have to be satisfied which are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In Dalpat Kumar V/s Pralhad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276, Hon'ble Apex Court explained these three factors as follows:-

i] There is a serious disputed question to be tried in the court and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant.
ii] The Court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words irreparable injury or danger would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial and
iii] That the comparative hardship on mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to acted from granting it.

Prima facie case

4] Prima facie case does not mean that the plaintiff should have a cent percent case which will in all probability succeed in trial. Prima facie case means that the contentions which the plaintiff is raising, require consideration in merit and are not liable to be rejected summarily { Prakash Singh V/s State of Haryana 2002 (4) Civil L.J. 71 (P.H.) }

Balance of Convenience :

5] To see balance of convenience, it is necessary to compare case of parties, comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to sue from withholding the injunction will be greater than which is likely to arrive from granting it.

Irreparable loss :

6] There are many injuries incapable of being repaired but a court of equity does not regard them as 'irreparable'. For example cause which outrage the feeling or loss of things of sentimental value. On the other hand there are injuries which in their nature may be repaired but still treated as irreparable. For example a person who is inflicting or threatening them is insolvent or unable to pay damages. Ordinarily injury is irreparable when without fair and reasonable address of Court, it would be denial of justice. Very often an injury is irreparable where it is continuous and repeated or where it is remediable at law only by a multiplicity of suits. Sometime the term irreparable damage refers to the difficulty of measuring the amount of damages inflicted. However, a mere difficulty in proving injury does not establish irreparable injury.

7] A temporary injunction can be granted only if the person seeking injunction has a concluded right, capable of being enforced by way of injunction (Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara – AIR 1997 SC 2674)
Ad-Interim Injunctions:-
8] Ad-interim injunctions only reflects that court either passed order ex-parte or even if the defendant is present, he was not heard fully for want of pleading etc. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das – (1994) 4 SCC 225, it was observed as follows:-
• Where irreparable or extremely serious injury will be caused to the applicant, ex-parte order can be passed;
• The court shall examine the time when the plaintiff got notice of the act complained;
• If the plaintiff has acquiesced to the conduct of the respondent then ex-parte temporary injunction shall not be passed;
• The applicant shall be acting in utmost good faith; and
• Such an order shall be for a temporary period.

Status-quo -
9] Status-quo and injunction are not identical, however, primary purpose of injunction is to preserve the matter in status-quo. Therefore, status-quo should not be granted where there is no prima facie cas ( Nagorao ..vs.. Nagpur Improvement Trust, AIR 2001 Bombay, 402). Generally, when Court orders for status-quo, Court should specify the context in which or condition subject to which, such statusquo direction is issued. Care for Ad-interim Order 10] Due care and cautions should be taken for granting or refusing injunctions. Safer course would be to give short notice to other side and then to pass order after hearing both the sides. In case of need, ad-interim injunction should be for short period with condition to give undertaking to pay realistic costs and to pay mesne profits etc. (Maria Margadia Sequaria v/s Erasmo Takl De Sequaria 2012(5) SCC 370: AIR 2012 SC 1727).
Equity -
11] Injunction is an equitable remedy as well as it is governed by law. Therefore, equitable principles are of very much importance in granting or rejecting injunction. Equitable principle is that, he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In an authority, 2003(2) ALL M.R. 254 Bom. , it was held that, one must come with clean hands to claim the discretionary relief of injunction. In the authority of Harcharanjit Singh Thind..vs.. Diksha Thind 2008 (3) Mah.L.J. 587, it was held that relief of temporary injunction is a discretionary and equitable and so the party who suppressed the material fact from the Court, does not deserve to get any discretionary relief much less an order of temporary injunction. The principle of equity that, he who seeks equity must do equity. This principle is to be borne in mind while deciding the application for temporary injunction. Equitable principle, “Delay defeats equity” is very much important while deciding the adinterim ex-parte injunction. Equitable principle of 'party cannot
take disadvantage of his own wrong' is also very important. Another important principle of equity is that, 'where there is right, there is a remedy'. This very much useful while invoking Sec. 151 of C.P.C. Of inherent power of Court. Where permanent injunction has not been sought for in the suit itself, no interim preventive injunction can be granted.
Discretionary relief
12] Injunction is a discretionary remedy. The court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. But the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable guided by judicial principles . (Ganesh Daivajna Vs prakash 2000(3) Mh. L.J. 347). The exercise of discretion must be in a judicial manner depending on the circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the guidance of courts as regards the exercise of such discretion. (Harcharanjit Vs Deeksha 2008(3)Mh.L.J. 587 Bombay High Court)
Imposition of terms :
13] After perusal of Order 39 and rule thereunder, nowhere it is specifically stated that, while granting temporary injunction, court may impose some conditions. However, the court may impose terms in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Injunctive relief is of discretionary nature and the court passing an order for a temporary injunction, could regulate its exercise of discretion by imposing terms for protecting legitimate right of the parties. Court can take undertaking from either party or take security to comply the undertaking. While exercising discretionary power, the court should also adopt the procedure of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the plaint, he would adequately compensate the defendant for the loss ensued due to the Order of injunction granted in favour of plaintiff. Court can impose suitable conditions while granting ad-interim injunctions (Vascon Engineers Ltd. v/s Sansara Hotels Indra Pvt. Ltd 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 859 )
Time Limit to dispose off -
14] When court grant ad-interim injunction it should be finally decided within thirty days. However, if that application is not decided within thirty days then also order of ad-interim injunction remain in force. However court should passed order in writing as to cause of delay failing which it becomes appealable. Then appellate court can change that order with further direction to take appropriate action against that presiding judge of trial court (Venkatsubbiah Naidu v/s S. Chellappan and ors AIR
2000 SC 3032).
Short Duration
15] Court should be careful in granting ad-interim injunction as there can be danger of fake pleading or concealment of material facts and even forged documents being relied on to get relief of ad-interim injunction. So it is desirable to give effects of ad-interim injunction up to a week and court can impose conditions that in case suit is dismissed, the plaintiff or the defendants will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs or mesne profits (Rameshwari Devi V/s Nirmala Devi and Others 2011 AIR SCW 4000). Similar is the ratio in 6/29 Subhash Kirshna Kanitkar Vs Bhiwandi Nizampura
Municipal Council & Others,2001(1) Bom.CR. 251,

Advocate Siddhant Sharma LawRato