Interlocutory Injunction

Object
1. 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.
2. Need of this to be weighed against corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against
injury. resulting from him being prevented from exercising his own legal right.

CPC provisions
1. Order 34 R1 and R2 of CPC contain the circumstances in which the injunction has to be granted
Rule 1: Where in any suit it is provided by an affidavit
That any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged,
destroyed, alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree.
The defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose his property to defraud his
creditors
The defendant threatens to cause injury to plaintiff in relation to property in dispute.
The court grants temp injunc. to restrain such acts or to prevent wasting,
damaging,destruction, disposal, alienation, sale, removal of property of the plaintiff until
disposal of the suit.
2. Order 34 R2 of CPC
Rule 2
Restraining the defendant from breaching the contract or other injury of any kind,
whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff at any time after
commencement of the suit either before or after the judgment apply to the court for
temp. injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach o 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.
The court may by 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
The Court grants temp injunction in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing
breach of contract or any other injury.
It deals with grants of injunctions in a particular class of cases not covered in Order 34 Rule1
viz. cases of breach of contract or other injury of any kind.
The pre-requisite for the applicability of the rule is that the suit must be one for injunction
whereas rule 1 covers all the cases of suits.

Judgments
6. In Balco Employees Union v UoI AIR 2002 SC 350
 “ No ex parte relief by way of injunction or stay especially with respect to public project
and schemes or economic policies or schemes should be granted. It is only when court
is satisfied for good and valid reasons, that there will be irreparable and irretrivable
damage can an injunction be issued after leaving all the parties
”
7. In Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd v Coca Cola Co. 1995 5 SCC 545 it was held that the grant of an
interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise
of discretion of the court.Following tests are to be applied-
whether the plaintiff has prima facie case
whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff
whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is
disallowed.

Prima Facie case

1. The first rule is that the applicant must be make out prima facie case in support of the right claimed
by him.
2. The court must be satisfied that there is bona fide dispute raised by the applicant, that here is a
strong case for trial which needs investigation and a decision on merits and on the facts before the
court, that there is probability of the applicant being entitled to relief claimed by him.

Irreparable Injury
1. The plaintiff must satisfy the court that he will suffer an irreparable injury if pray is not granted and
there is no other way by which he can protect himself from the consequences of apprehended injury
2. The word irreparable injury does not mean that there should not be any possibility for repair of
injuries at later stage.
3. It only means that the injury should be material one and cannot be sufficiently and adequately
compensated by damages (Manohar Lal v Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527)

Balance of Convinience
1. Must be in favour of applicant.
2. Court must be satisfied that comparative mischief, hardship and inconvenience 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.
3. Court should exercise sound judicial discretion and should weigh substantial mischief or injury
likely to be caused to the parties if the injunction is refused, and compare it to that which is likely to
be caused to opposite party if injunction is granted.
4. On weighing the conflict of probabilities, if the opinion of the court weighs in favour of the applicant
it would grant the injunction. (Dalpal v Prahlad 1992 1 SCC 719)
5. Grant of injunction is discretionary power.
6. It is an equitable relief and even when all the above conditions are fulfilled there may be
circumstances that injunction should not be granted (Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd v Coca Cola Co.
 1995 5 SCC 545)
7. Since it is relief of equity, hence the court will not aid the person who himself is guilty of doing
wrongful act.
8. The word temporary injunction restrains the defendant from committing a breach of contract
used in rule 2 do not empower the court to grant mandatory injunction against the defendant for
specific performance of the contract. The rule 2 is to maintain and not to alter the status quo,
especially where the temporary injunction is granted ex parte w/ notice to the defendant.
9. It is necessary to prove that there is going to be irreparable injury which cannot be properly
compensated before court can grant interlocutory injunction (Rajasthan State Electricity Board v
Original Mineral Industries AIR 1994 NOC 127 (Raj))

Perpetual Injunctions
Principles

A permanent in junction is only granted when some right has been invaded and when damage has
accrued or must necessarily accrue from the act or omission complained of

1. a material injury to a clear legal right

2. damages must not be sufficient compensation

To prevent breach of obligation

1. The relief of perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of obligation either express
or implied, existing in favour of applicant eithe because of law or under contract.
2. The term 'obligation' contemplated in sec.38 of STA is a lagal obligation and plaintiff in order to be
entitled to perpetual injunction is required to establish the apprehension of breach of obligation
existing in his favour

Provisions under SRA

Chapter 8 of SRA contains section 38-42 dealing with perpetual injunctions

ss(1) of s38 lays down that subject to provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, perpetual
injunction may be granted to plaintiff to prevent breach of obligation existing in his favour whether
expressly or by implication

ss(2) says when any such obligation arises from contract; the court shall be guided by provision of
chapter 2 of the act

When defendant invades or threatens to invade any plaintiff's right to property Court may grant
perpetual injunction in following cases
Where defendant is trustee of property of plaintiff
Where there exists no standard to ascertain the damages caused or to be caused by such
invasion.
When invasion is such that compensation in money would not be an adequate relief.
Where injunction is necessary to prevent the multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
Mandatory Injunctions
1. Section 39 lays down as to when relief of mandatory injunction is to be granted.
2. It says when to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of
crtain acts whic hthe 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.

Principles

1. It requires the court to direct a person to do a particular thing

2. It provides remedy in situtation where due to the conduct of the defendant the status quo has
altered and it is not possible to restore the damage until the defendant undoes his act.
1. What acts are necessary in order to prevent a breach of the obligation
2. Are these acts such as the court is capable of enforcing?
3. Court has to determine what is necessary to prevent the breach of obligation and whether court is
capable of enforcing such requisition
4. It has to be exercised with caution and where the only remedy for the damages is the undoing the
act and restoring the former conditions to further the ends of justice.(C. Kunhammad v
C.H.Ahmad Hji, AIR 2001 Ker 101)

Interlocutory injunctions.pdf