COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON TYPES OF INJUNCTION

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
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, as mentioned below:
1. Temporary Injunction
2. Perpetual/Permanent Injunction
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
• 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.
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, 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.”
Prima Facie Case:
Prima Facie literally means, on the face of it. In Martin Burn Ltd. vs. R.N. Banerjee, 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.
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.
3. Balance of Convenience:
In the case of Anwar Elahi, 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.
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.
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. If no damages have been claimed, the court may allow the
plaintiff to make the required amendments to the plaint and claim damages
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.
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.
Case Laws Regarding Permanent Injunction
In the case of Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh 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.
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.

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.
A.SUBRAMANIAN vs. R. PANNERSELVAM
Even A Trespasser In Established Possession Can Obtain Injunction: Supreme Court
Even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction,
the Supreme Court observed while upholding a Madras High Court judgment decreeing an
injunction suit.
The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR
Shah observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction
without seeking a prayer for declaration will not apply when the plaintiff's possession over
the property is 'admitted and established'.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction simplicitor. He sought a permanent
injunction interdicting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the plaintiff over the suit property. The judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit was
upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal. The main contention raised by the defendant
before the Apex court was that the plaintiff could not have sought for a bare permanent
injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration. The suit of the plaintiff could not have
been decreed mere on the fact that the defendants failed to prove their title and possession, it
was contended.
Examining the pleadings, the bench observed that the defendant of the suit, Subramanian had
earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property and the
same was dismissed and that in his cross-examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after
purchase had demolished the construction. Taking note of this, the bench observed:
The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even
trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction.
However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about
title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief.
The High Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that
the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute obviously because of the fact
that in the previous litigation, DW1 failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly
observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without
seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
We do not find any error in the view of the High Court and the suit for injunction filed by the
plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the
plaintiff, the court observed while dismissing the appeal.
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd vs KS Infraspace LLP and another & Haryana
Containers Ltd vs KS Infraspace LLP and another
Plaintiff Seeking Temporary Injunction In Specific Performance Suit Has To Show Strong
Prima Facie Case On Undisputed Facts : SC
The Supreme Court has observed that strong prima facie case on undisputed facts is
necessary for getting the relief of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of
contract. This is because of the fact that specific performance by itself is a discretionary
remedy, explained a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha.
The bench also said that the conduct of parties is also a relevant consideration for interim
injunction, in addition to the factors of prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreperable injury.
Chapter VII, Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
provides for grant of preventive relief. Section 37 provides that temporary injunction in a suit
shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. The grant of relief in a suit for specific
performance is itself a discretionary remedy. A plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in a
suit for specific performance will therefore have to establish a strong primafacie case on
basis of undisputed facts. The conduct of the plaintiff will also be a very relevant
consideration for purposes of injunction. The discretion at this stage has to be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily", observed the bench.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by defendants in a specific performance suit against
the interim order passed by the trial court (and affirmed by High Court) restraining them from
executing sale deed or any other documents creating charge with respect to the property.
The defendants contended that there was no concluded contract for sale, and that the
agreement was only in the negotiation stage. When the talks fell out, the advance amount was
also refunded to the plaintiff, submitted the defendants
The plaintiff sought to sustain the order by arguing that there was a concluded contract
between the parties. The emails and whatsapp messages between parties were referred for
that purpose. It was further submitted that the defendants acted in haste to execute a sale deed
with a third party even during the subsistence of the agreement with the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court observed that the existence of a concluded contract was itself a matter of
dispute.
"The WhatsApp messages which are virtual verbal communications are matters of evidence
with regard to their meaning and its contents to be proved during trial by evidenceinchief
and cross examination. The emails and WhatsApp messages will have to be read and
understood cumulatively to decipher whether there was a concluded contract or not".
That being so, there was no justification for a temporary order in favour of the plaintiff, the
SC observed.
"The prolonged negotiations between the parties reflect that matters were still at the 'embryo
stage' as observed in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Gondal and ors. vs.
Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara and ors., (1997) 5 SCC 468. The plaintiff at this stage
has failed to establish that there was a mutuality between the parties much less that they were
adidem."
The Court also noted that the suit was filed seven months after the defendants had refunded
the advance. The explanation that the plaintiff waited hopefully for a solution outside
litigation as a prudent businessman before finally instituting the suit is too lame an excuse to
merit any consideration, the SC said.
In this backdrop, the SC observed :
"We are therefore of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, and the nature of the materials placed before us at this stage, whether there existed a
concluded contract between the parties or not, is itself a matter for trial to be decided on
basis of the evidence that may be led. If the plaintiff contended a concluded contract and/or
an oral contract by inference, leaving an executed document as a mere formality, the onus
lay on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the parties were adidem having discharged their
obligations as observed in Brij Mohan (supra)".
Based on these findings, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders of injunction.