IV Year B.A.

LLB (Div- D) – Semester-VIII (2024)

2nd Internal assesment
Law of Injunctions

----------------------------------------
NAME: KESHAV TOMAR
DIVISION: D
PRN: 20010125533
COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2020-2025
 1. INJUCTION & ITS TYPES:-

Injunctions provide courts with a powerful tool to provide equitable remedy to legal disputes.
They are divided into two types: perpetual, which require specific actions, and temporary,
which prohibit certain actions. Injunctions are valuable in areas such as intellectual property,
contracts, and defamation. Failure to comply with injunctions can result in civil penalties,
contempt of court charges, or asset seizure.
Objective of Injunction
Interim relief, such as injunctions, is critical in legal disputes as it helps to safeguard disputed
subjects until the court determines the legal rights. The primary purpose of such relief is to
preserve the existing state of affairs and prevent any irreversible harm to either party during
the litigation process. Temporary injunctions are specifically designed to maintain the status
quo, preventing any unilateral changes that could harm one party's position. This ensures that
neither party suffers any irreversible harm throughout the litigation process and upholds the
fundamental principle of justice. The objective of injunctions, particularly in the form of
temporary injunctions, is to preserve the status quo, which is highlighted as a significant
goal..
Types of injunctions
The laws concerning injunctions are specifically mentioned in various Relief Acts and are
implemented as per the Civil Procedure Code. The laws governing this provision are included
in Section 151 and Section 94 of the Code. Temporary and perpetual injunctions are the two
most common types of injunctions. The injunctions provided by Indian courts are classified
based on the time-period and the nature of relief sought. The different types of injunctions are
as follows:
1. A preliminary injunction, also known as an ad-interim injunction, is granted to a plaintiff
prior to a trial to preserve the subject matter in its existing condition and prevent any
dissolution of the plaintiff's rights, thereby making it possible for them to receive immediate
relief.
2. A preventive injunction is a ruling that compels an individual to refrain from doing an
action that is preventive, prohibitive, or negative. The injunction is intended to prevent a
threatened injury, preserve the status quo, and stop the continued commission of an ongoing
wrong.
3. A permanent injunction, also known as a perpetual injunction, can be granted by the court
by passing a decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. Once such a decree is
passed, the defendant is permanently prohibited from asserting a right or committing an act
that would be contrary to the plaintiff's rights. A permanent injunction can be granted to the
plaintiff in a suit to prevent a breach of an obligation existing in their favour, whether implicit
or explicit. 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. Chapter II, under section 41, provides
that a person may claim relief in respect of a contract by pleading in their defence, any of the
grounds available to them under any law relating to contracts.
4. A mandatory injunction is an injunction that is preferred to undo an illegal or unauthorized
act that has already been done, i.e., to restore things to their original position as they were.
Mandatory injunction is also governed by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. It is
necessary to compel the performance of certain acts that the Court is capable of enforcing. In
such a case, the Court may, at its discretion, grant an injunction:
(i) To prevent such breach
(ii) To compel the performance of the requisite acts.
5. A temporary injunction is a temporary relief that is used to maintain the status quo. Its goal
is to prevent the dissolution of the plaintiff's rights. The primary reason for using a temporary
injunction is because relief is needed immediately. Sections 94(c) and (e) of the CPC provide
that the Court may give a temporary injunction or make any other interlocutory order that
seems reasonable and convenient to avoid the objectives of justice from being defeated.
Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code also states that if a temporary injunction is granted
and the Court determines that there were insufficient grounds, or if the plaintiff's suit fails
and the Court determines that there was no reasonable or probable ground for instituting the
suit.

2. INTERIM INJUNCTION

In civil litigation, interim measures assume a pivotal role in safeguarding the interests of
parties involved throughout the duration of legal proceedings. These measures, which
encompass injunctions, attachments, and similar remedies, serve the overarching purpose of
forestalling irreparable harm or loss to the parties prior to the conclusive adjudication of the
matter at hand. It is firmly entrenched in legal doctrine that interim relief stands as a
supplementary recourse, complementary to the principal relief attainable upon the final
determination of rights in a suit or any other form of legal action. Consequently, it is
unequivocally established that courts possess the authority to grant interim relief during the
pendency of litigation. Temporary injunctions, by extension, represent injunctions issued
while legal proceedings remain ongoing.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the term "interim" denotes "in the meantime;
meanwhile." Consequently, interim or interlocutory orders emanate from the judiciary during
the interim period of a lawsuit, bridging the gap between the initiation of proceedings and the
definitive adjudication of the parties' rights and obligations concerning the subject matter of
the case. The discretion vested in the court enables it to issue interlocutory orders deemed
equitable and practicable subsequent to the initiation of a plaintiff's suit and prior to its
ultimate resolution.
The CPC regulates injunctions through Sections 94 and 95, and Orders XXXVIII and
XXXIX. These provisions establish the rules and procedures that govern the grant of
injunctive relief. Order XXXIX Rules (1) and (2) outline the procedural steps for issuing ex
parte ad interim and permanent injunctions. Order XXXVIII Rule 5 mandates the satisfaction
of three parameters for seeking relief: the establishment of a prima facie case, the
demonstration of a balance of convenience, and the indication of an imminent prospect of
permanent harm or injury.
In Bans Ropen v. ADJ.1, the essential ingredients for granting interim injunctions were
observed-
i. in the event of withholding the relief of temporary injunction he will suffer an
irreparable injury,
ii. in the event of his success in the suit in establishing his alleged legal right
encroachment where of is complained against, he will not have the proper remedy in
being awarded adequate damages,
iii. the plaintiff must show a clear necessity for affording immediate protection to his
legal right, if any, and
iv. Lastly the Court has to take into consideration the comparative mischief or
inconvenience to the parties.

The significance of interim injunctions is highlighted by examining Rule 3 of Order XXXIX

in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Initially, this rule required courts to notify the opposite
party before granting an injunction, unless doing so would undermine its purpose. The
introduction of a provision allows courts to issue an injunction without prior notification if
delay would defeat its objective. Documenting the reasons for an ex parte injunction is

1
AIR 1993 All 117
crucial, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal principles. This ensures that parties are
aware of the rationale when their rights are restricted, emphasizing the importance of
following procedural rules for issuing interim injunctions.

3. EQUITY AND EX-PARTE INJUNCTION

The foundational principle of equity dictates that a party petitioning for an injunction must
substantiate the integrity of their actions, ensuring they are devoid of any taint of fraud or
illegality. In exercising its discretionary authority, the court is duty-bound to judiciously
evaluate the merits of granting or denying an injunction, guided by principles of justice rather
than arbitrary whim.
Equity considerations come into play particularly in circumstances where strict application of
statutory law could engender unjust outcomes. Acting as a remedial force, equity intervenes
where statutory provisions prove inadequate to ensure the preservation of justice and fairness.
Ex-parte injunctions represent a quintessential example of an equitable remedy within the
legal landscape. In essence, an ex-parte injunction is granted by the court at the request of one
party without prior notice to or presence of the opposing party. This unique characteristic
distinguishes ex-parte injunctions from regular injunctions, which typically involve both
parties being heard before any decision is made.
Equity, as a branch of jurisprudence, operates on the principles of fairness, justice, and
conscience. Ex-parte injunctions are rooted in these equitable principles and are employed in
situations where immediate intervention by the court is deemed necessary to prevent
irreparable harm or preserve the status quo pending a full hearing. This remedy is particularly
utilized in instances of urgency, where delay or notification to the opposing party could
exacerbate the harm suffered by the party seeking relief. Thereby, key principles of equity
include:
 Clean hands: The party seeking relief must themselves be acting fairly and equitably.
 Balance of convenience: The court weighs the harm to the plaintiff if the injunction
isn't granted against the harm to the defendant if it is.
 Irreparable harm: Money damages wouldn't be enough to compensate the plaintiff for
the harm suffered.2

4. Difference between temporary injunction and ex-parte injunction –

2
Reliance Petrochemical Ltd. v. Proprietier of Indian Express Newspaper Bombay (pvt) Ltd., AIR 1989
SC 190
A temporary injunction maintains the status quo and safeguards the plaintiff's rights while a
dispute is ongoing. Sections 94(c) and (e) of the CPC empower the Court to grant such
injunctions to prevent the frustration of justice. The principles governing the grant of
temporary injunctions were delineated in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh3. A prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury must weigh in favor of the plaintiff. The
court must evaluate the potential harm against competing probabilities. These concepts must
be circumscribed by judicial discretion to uphold justice. The court should consider
compensating the party seeking injunctive relief through damages for the subject matter's use
and occupation during dispossession until restitution. The phrases "prima facie case,"
"balance of convenience," and "irreparable injury" are not mere rhetorical flourishes but
rather flexible concepts designed to address the diverse array of circumstances presented by
litigants. However, these concepts must always be circumscribed by the prudent exercise of
judicial discretion to uphold the interests of justice. Furthermore, the court should consider
the feasibility of adequately compensating the party seeking injunctive relief through
damages for the use and occupation of the subject matter during the period of dispossession
until restitution.
In the case Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola4, the Supreme Court established the
following guidelines to be followed while granting temporary injunction:
i. The plaintiff who requests temporary injunction must prove a strong likelihood of
success in their favor. The court will not assess the overall merits of the case at
this point, but will focus on the key facts that show the individual has a strong
enough case to proceed. Additionally, the petitioner must provide credible
evidence to support the allegations made in the request for the temporary legal
action.
ii. Before filing an application to set aside an order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the
CPC, the court will consider the applicant's actions, which should be
examined.consider the actions of the applicant, which should be examined even
prior to submitting an application for the purpose of setting aside an order under
Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC.
iii. When considering an order, the court must weigh the balance of
convenience. This involves assessing the relative loss that would be sustained by
both the applicant and the respondent if the order is not granted. It is imperative to

3
(1992)1SCC719
4
1995 AIR 2372
 take into account the interests of both parties in order to arrive at an equitable
decision.
iv. Initially, the court will evaluate the extent of harm that the applicant would
experience if the order is not granted, and determine if it can be remedied through
financial compensation, such as payment of expenses. The court will also take into
account the respondent's loss if the order is approved, and determine which loss is
more significant and irreversible. The party that would suffer the most significant
loss will have the balance of convenience in their favor, and based on that, the
court will decide whether or not to issue the order. If necessary, the court may
require the party to provide compensation security or guarantee payment of
compensation.
v. If the interim injunction request of the plaintiff is denied, it is important to
consider whether he would face irreparable harm.

Courts can issue temporary injunctions at their discretion but should do so with caution and
adherence to legal principles. Injunctions have a negative impact on the opposite party and
should not be given carelessly. The court can impose fair terms and limits on injunctions, so
they don't make it impossible for the party to comply with them and get the relief they're
entitled to.
The Supreme Court has established definitive guidelines for obtaining injunctions. In the case
of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v Kartick Das 5, the court emphasized that an interim
injunction should only be granted if denying it would result in greater injustice than granting
it. Additionally, the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate good faith and satisfy
certain general principles, including presenting a strong apparent case, showing that the
balance of convenience is in their favour, and proving that they would suffer irreparable loss
without the injunction. Any violation of these principles is taken seriously and met with
strong repercussions by the courts. The Supreme Court indicated the factors which should
weigh with the Court in grant of ex parte injunction:
(i) Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff,
(ii) Whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant
of it would involve.
(iii) The Court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act
complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented.

5
(1994) 4 SCC 225
(iv) The Court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time and in such
circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction.
(v) The Court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good
faith in making the application.
(vi) Even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
(vii) General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss
would also be considered by the Court. The purpose of rule 3, Order XXXIX is to enable the
opposite party to show cause against issuance of such injunction and if injunction issued
without notice, to enable the opposite party to file objections thereto and by this to prevent
the petitioner to retain undue advantage of the situation and abuse of the process of law.

5. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ISSUANCE OF EX-PARTE

ORDER ALONG WITH CONDITIONS OF REFUSAL

The landmark case of Ramrameshwari Devi & Others v. Nirmala Devi & Others 6 served
as a catalyst for the Supreme Court of India to establish comprehensive guidelines pertaining
to the issuance of ex parte orders. These guidelines aim to enhance the adjudication process
in Indian civil courts by providing assistance to trial courts and legal practitioners. The
Supreme Court underscored the significance of preventing parties from deriving undue
advantage through the submission of frivolous or spurious applications that are filed with the
intent to prolong litigation, particularly if such actions are influenced by legal counsel.
The following guidelines were laid down by Justice Dalveer Bhandari, the presiding judge,
for the courts to adopt in preventing such litigation and cautioning them on the grant of
indiscriminate ex parte orders:

i. The Presiding Judge must be diligent and careful while framing the issues for the suit,
ensuring that no issues already decided by other courts are included in violation of the
principle of res judicata.
ii. The trial judge must verify and scrutinize the pleadings and documents filed by the
parties.
iii. The court should order the production and discovery of documents at the earliest, to
focus on the main controversies of the case and arrive at the truth of the matter.

6
(2011) 8 SCC 249
 iv. Courts should impose realistic costs on parties that engage in frivolous litigation. The
present system does not penalize parties who prolong the suit, thus incentivizing
unscrupulous parties to carry out cost-benefit analyses between tiring the other party
into settlement and prolonging the case to the point of making the other party suffer.
v. Courts must be careful when imposing ex parte orders. If an injunction is granted on
the basis of false pleadings or forged documents (which is frequently the case in
India), courts must impose costs on the litigants.
vi. Courts must give short notice to the Defendants and hear both parties before passing
ex parte interim orders. Experience shows that once granted, these orders cause
havoc, and getting them modified is nearly impossible.
vii. In exceptional cases where the court has to grant an ex-parte injunction, it must record
in the order that if the suit is dismissed, the petitioner will have to pay full restitution,
actual or realistic costs, and mesne profits.
viii. If an ex parte order is granted, all efforts should be made to dispose the application for
injunction as soon as possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in court.
Another option available is to limit the life of the ex parte order for a week to prevent
any incentive of prolonging the matter on the plaintiff's part.

The case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs Coomi Sohrab Warden & Ors 7 dealt with the
subject of granting or denying an injunction and the possibility of resulting injustice. The
court has the discretion to grant or deny an interlocutory mandatory injunction as
equitable relief based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of
an interlocutory mandatory injunction is usually to maintain or restore the status quo that
existed before the dispute arose. However, if a party fails or cannot establish their right at
trial, it should not be granted as it may cause irrevocable harm and injustice to the other
party. It is noteworthy that not granting an injunction to a winning party may also cause
irreparable harm or great injustice. The issuance of ex-parte injunction guidelines evolved
by from the Supreme Court’s:
i. The party who seeks the interim mandatory injunction must prove a strong prima
facie case in their favour. It means that they must demonstrate that they are likely to
succeed in the trial on the case's merits.

7
(1990) 2 SCC 117
 ii. The party must show that not granting the injunction would result in irreparable harm
to them. The injury in question must be such that damages are insufficient to
compensate for it.
iii. The balance of convenience must favour the party requesting the injunction. The court
must evaluate whether refusing the injunction would result in greater harm than
granting it.
iv. In considering the need to maintain the status quo, the court must take into account
the last non-contested status preceding the current controversy, not the status quo at
the time of the injunction. This is particularly important in the case of a mandatory
injunction that requires the defendant to take affirmative action.

6. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, injunctions are an important part of judicial procedures because they allow
courts to apply equitable remedies in conflicts. Injunctions, which are classified as temporary
or perpetual, are used to restrict or compel specified conduct. Their relevance extends to a
wide range of legal sectors, including intellectual property, contracts, and defamation, with
the goal of preserving the status quo and preventing irrevocable harm while the case is being
resolved. The Supreme Court's comprehensive instructions emphasise the importance of
preventing abuse of ex parte rulings and ensuring fair adjudication. These rules, which
emphasise vigilance in drafting problems, inspection of pleadings, and imposition of
reasonable costs, seek to reduce frivolous litigation and preserve the integrity of the court
process.