Temporary injunction – a right or equitable relief?

State grounds of Temporary

injunction Explain with case laws

Injunction:
An Injunction is an equitable remedy which is “a judicial process that compels a party to refrain
from doing or to do a particular act or thing”(Brooks and Schwartz 2005)
Temporary Injunction: The temporary Injunction is been granted by the Court when the
Defendant is about to the make some injury to the property of the Plaintiff or threatens
the Plaintiff to dispossess the property or creates a thirty party interest in the property,
then in such situation, the Court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain the
Defendant to do such an act or make other order to prevent the dispossession of the
plaintiff or prevent the causing of injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in
dispute or creating any thirty party rights in the property.
What are the basic principles of temporary injunction
Granting the temporary injunction is the exercise of the discretion which should be in
judicial manner. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for guidance of the court to that
effect. Therefore it is well settled that, before granting the Temporary Injunction, the
Judge has to consider whether the Application is falling into below-mentioned categories/
has Plaintiff shown following points:
1. Prima Facie Case
2. Irreparable Injury
3. Balance of Inconvenience
4. Other Factor
5. Is it a Prima Facie case: In every application, the Applicant/Plaintiff must make out a
prima facie case in support of the right claimed by the Plaintiff. The Court should be
pleased that there is a bonafide dispute between the parties wherein the investigation is
needed. The Plaintiff is given the burden to prove and satisfy the court by leading
evidence or witness that he has a prima facie case in his favour. The plaintiff should
come to Court with clean Any material facts are suppressed by the Plaintiff then, in that
case, the Plaintiff is not liable for any relief.
In Martin Burn Ltd vs. R.N.Banerjee 1958 AIR 79 SCR 514,[4] – The Supreme Court held
that 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 led in support of the same were believed. It does not involve the
determination of the conflict of evidence or complex questions of fact and law, which call for
detailed arguments. In Prakash Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) Civil L.J.71 (P.H.)[5] –
The Court has explained that Prima Facie does not mean that a Plaintiff/Applicant should have a
full proof case in his favour which will succeed in all probabilities. It means that the
plaintiff/applicant has a case which cannot be rejected summarily or dismissed out right. It raises
consideration which can be considered on merits.

In Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Satyanarayana Singh[6] – It

was held that it is sufficient to show that the Plaintiff/Applicant has a fair question as to the
existence of his right and it is necessary to maintain status quo till the matter is finally decided.

 Is there any Irreparable Injury: Further, the applicant must satisfy the court that he
will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The Court is satisfied that the
Plaintiff needs to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury. An injury
will be viewed as irreparable wherein there exists no certain monetary standard for
calculating damages.(Morley 2021)

The Supreme Court in Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, 03.11.2003[7], where the
court held thus: ‘At the stage of passing an interlocutory order such as on an application for the
grant of ad interim injunction under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39 of the CPC, the competent Court
shall have to form its opinion on the availability of a prima facie case, the balance of
convenience and the irreparable injury __ the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any
order of injunction.

In Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd. – (2012 ) 6 SCC 792[8] – the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that only prima facie case alone is not sufficient to grant injunction
and the Court held that – “Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is
in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the
plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable.”

 Is there any Balance of Convenience: The Applicant must prove in this application that
there is the balance of convenience must be in favour of the applicant i.e.
the comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to
the Applicant if the injunction is been refused. The balance of convenience comes into
the picture when there is doubt as to the adequate remedies in damages available to either
party or both.

In Bikash Chandra Deb vs Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.: 2005 (1) CHN 582[9], the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court observed that issue of balance of convenience. The Court shall slender in
favour of overview of the concept of balance of convenience, but does not mean and suggest that
the balance would be on one side and not in favour of the other. There must be proper balance
between the parties and the balance cannot be a one-sided affair.(Agarwal 2022)

In Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995 IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995
(35) DRJ 341[10] it was held that ‘Balance of convenience means comparative mischief or
inconvenience. It can be 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 consider 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.’

 Other factors: The Court also considers some other factors before granting injunction.
The relief of injunction may be refused on the ground of delay, laches or acquiescence or
whether the applicant has not come with the clean hands or has suppressed material facts,
or where monetary compensation is adequate relief.

 Ground for granting temporary injunction from court

 When there is a reasonable apprehension and danger of alienation or disposal of property
by any party to the suit or by wrongful waste of the property; or
 When there is an apprehension of alienation or disposal of the property to defraud
creditors; or
 Where Defendant threatens to dispossess the Plaintiff or otherwise causes injury to the
interest of the Plaintiff or otherwise causes injury to the interest of Plaintiff in relation to
the disputed property; or
 When the Defendant is about to commit a breach of contract; or
 Any other injury is likely to be caused or likely to be repeated; or
 Where the Court is of the opinion that for protection of interest of any party to the suit or
in the interest of justice injunction or stay is required and necessary.(Mosk 2008)

Temporary Injunction when cannot be granted

 To restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding at the institution of the suit,
in which injunction is sought, unless restraint is necessary to prevent multiplicity of
proceedings.

 to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not
subordinate to that, from which injunction is sought.

 to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body,

 to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter,

 to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specifically
enforced.
  to prevent on the ground of nuisance, and act of which it is not reasonably clear that it
will be a nuisance.

 to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced,

 when equally efficacious relief can be certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust,

 when conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the
assistance of the Court.

 when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.(Oteh 2023)

Agarwal, K. (2022). "Analyzing Defendant's Right to Seek Temporary Injunction under CPC."
Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human. 5: 1208.

Brooks, R. R. and W. F. Schwartz (2005). "Legal uncertainty, economic efficiency, and the
preliminary injunction doctrine." Stan. L. Rev. 58: 381.

Morley, M. T. (2021). "Erroneous injunctions." Emory LJ 71: 1137.

Mosk, J. R. M. (2008). Injunctions. Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and

Mediation: The Fordham Papers (2007), Brill Nijhoff: 185-192.

Oteh, A. N. (2023). "An Analysis Of The Concept Of Injunction As A Remedy In The Nigerian
Legal System." Central Asia & the Caucasus (14046091) 24(1).