Upgrad LLM

Temporary Injunction

Temporary Injunction






Citation/Case No.

Principle

Decision

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9346 OF 2019

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited

Versus

Ks Infraspace Llp Limited And Another

In a matter concerning grant of injunction, apart from the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, the conduct of the party seeking the equitable relief of injunction is also very essential to be considered as observed in Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi (Smt.) and ors., (2000) 6 SCC 420

The question of irreparable harm to a party complaining of a breach of contract does not arise if other remedies are available to the party complaining of the breach.

Citations used: (a) Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC

(b) Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Gondal and ors. vs. Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara and ors., (1997) 5 SCC 468.

Relevant Paras: 16, 17, 19-23

the grant of

injunction to the plaintiff is unsustainable. Resultantly the orders of

injunction are set aside.

AIR1993SC 276

Dalpat Kumar and Ors.

Vs.

Prahlad Singh and Ors.

It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit 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; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.

Relevant Paras: Para 5 & 6

appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The

order of the High Court is set aside and that of! the trial Court is confirmed.

(Ad-interim application was rejected by the Trial Court)

AIR2012SC437

Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre

It is settled law that while passing an interim order of injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court is required to consider three basic principles, namely,

a) prima facie case,

b) balance of convenience and inconvenience and

c) irreparable loss and injury.

In addition to the above mentioned three basic principles, a court, while granting injunction must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. It is also established law that the Court should not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. Grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequences depending upon the nature thereof and in dealing with such matters the court must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties

Relevant Paras: Para 6,9 & 12

Appeal dismissed

(However, the Court is satisfied with granting the limited order to interim relief which was passed by the Single Judge of HC and was also confirmed by the Division bench of the HC)

(2011)8SCC249

Rameshwari Devi and Ors.

Vs.

Nirmala Devi and Ors.

The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.

A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.

B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.

C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.

E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the Defendants or Respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.

F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.

G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.

H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice.

I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.

J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed.

It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this Court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer. 50. Learned amicus articulated common man's general impression about litigation in following words: Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road. This Court in Swaran Singh (Supra) observed as under: ...Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to Clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 51. In a recent judgment in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this Court has shown great concern about alarming proportion of perjury cases in our country.

Citations : Para 48-51; Relevant Paras which lead to Conclusion: Para 52

Appeal disposed off with directions

(2010)15SCC539

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Suneel Shiva Gaikwad

It is a well settled preposition of law that when an order of injunction is passed, the Court is required to record the reasons. Similarly, when the Court feels that in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, order of injunction is not necessary, it must record the reasons for doing so, taking into consideration all the relevant factors, particularly the nature of the controversy involved. We are convinced that in the present case if injunction against the direction for reinstatement of the respondent is not granted, the writ petition would be rendered infructuous, resulting in irreparable loss to the appellant herein.

Relevant Paras: 3 & 4

order dated 22nd February, 2008 is set aside and it is directed that the ad-interim injunction granted by the High Court on 19th June, 2006 shall continue to be in force till the disposal of the writ petition.

PUNISHMENT:

Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad (Decided on 24.03.2009) AIR 2009 SC 2330, 2010(4) ALT3(SC)

Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction - Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure

Application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code is maintainable only when there is disobedience of any `injunction' granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order was made. Application in the instant case on which the relevant order was passed, was neither under Rule 1 nor under Rule 2 of Order 39 CPC and none of the ingredients required for an application under either Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 existed was found in the application by the bank. The power exercised by a court under order 39 Rule 2A of the Code is punitive in nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The person who complains of disobedience or breach has to clearly make out beyond any doubt that there was an injunction or order directing the person against whom the application is made, to do or desist from doing some specific thing or act and that there was disobedience or breach of such order. While considering an application under order 39 Rule 2A, the court cannot construe the order in regard to which disobedience/breach is alleged, as creating an obligation to do something which is not mentioned in the `order', on surmises suspicions and inferences. The power under Rule 2A should be exercised with great caution and responsibility.

 

Tags :
SDA Online
on 19 October 2020
Published in Civil Law
Views : 548
Other Articles by - SDA
Report Abuse









×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x