This Article is written by BHUWAN SHARMA (DELHI METROPOLITAN EDUCATION, GGSIP UNIVERSITY B.B.A.L.L.B 3RD YEAR)
Table of Contents
Law all over the world revolves around the idea to protect the rights of people and provide them with justice if their rights are violated. The contribution of the present research is to go into the regulating and practical aspects of temporary injunctions and injunctions in general. The concept of a temporary injunction protects the rights of an aggrieved party during an ongoing suit so that the subject matter of the case does not get disturbed or violated, and also follows the principles of natural justice in its course. Injunctions, in general, play a vital role in any suit involving a sensitive subject matter so that the party and the court could meet the ends of justice by preserving the matter in dispute. In the course of this research paper, we are going into the depth of how the court grants an injunction by applying their judicial mind while saving the rights of the opposite party, on what grounds the court can grant the injunction, the power of court if such injunction is breached and what other remedies the law provides for the aggrieved as well the opposite party. The conclusion that can be drawn from the research paper is that, the effectiveness of the court in granting injunction while preservation of the principle of natural justice and applying its judicial mind while granting it and the certain conditions it can be granted in the procedure followed with it.
An injunction can generally be defined as the proper method of restraining a defendant from committing a breach of a negative obligation or from interfering with the plaintiff’s exercise of his rights under the contract. The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically define injunctions but regulates the provision of Temporary injunction under Order 39, whereas the Specific Relief Act provides us with the definition of both Temporary and Perpetual injunction under Section 37 of the Act but only regulates Perpetual injunction from Section 38 to Section 42 of the Act.
Every court is established so that every citizen who has faced injustice, could, with the help of courts, meet the ends of justice. Certain powers have to be possessed and vested in courts so that they could provide complete justice to every party. Injunctions are provided so as to make the aggrieved party’s right whole again and to protect it from being violated by the opposite party.
Oxford Dictionary defines injunction as, “an official order given by a court that demands that something must or must not be done.” Lord Halsbury’s definition is one of the most accepted definitions of injunction where he states that, “An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party in an order to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing.” Both the definitions can be similarly interpreted as an official order from the court to mandate someone to perform an act or restrict someone from doing an act. It is a remedy in form of an order of court addressed to a particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction)., or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).
There is a difference between a Stay and an Injunction. Order of stay is addressed to a court that mandates them to stop the proceedings of a suit previously instituted. Order of Injunction is addressed to a particular person to perform or stop from performing a particular act. Order of stay is said to be operative only when it is communicated to the court to which it is issued while the order of injunction is effective as soon as it is issued by the court. The law of injunction is in our country has its origin in the Equity Jurisprudence inherited from England. The primary purpose of injunction remains the same, i.e., preservation of property in dispute till legal rights of parties is adjudicated before the court.
Types of Injunctions
Indian law recognizes 2 categories of an injunction.
- Temporary or Interim Injunctions.
- Perpetual or Permanent Injunctions
1. Temporary or Interim Injunction
The injunctions issued during the pendency of the suit are classified as temporary injunctions. They are interlocutory orders which continue until a specified time, or until the further order of the court. They may be granted at any stage of a suit. Section 37 of the Specific Relief act provides us with the definition of Temporary Injunction and they are governed and regulated by Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The grant of a temporary injunction is not a matter of right of a party but, is a discretionary power vested to the court of law. Temporary Injunctions are provided to save the rights of the party until the final proceedings which will be decided by consideration of the merits of the case. In Agricultural Produce Market Committee Case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “a temporary injunction can be granted only if the person seeking injunction has a concluded right, capable of being enforced by way of injunction.” They are provided prima facie and not by going to detailed merits of the case.
2. Perpetual or Permanent Injunction
The injunctions issued only by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit are known as Perpetual Injunctions. Section 37 provides us with the definition of Perpetual Injunctions which mandates that the defendant is perpetually ascertained from the enjoyment of rights. Perpetual Injunction is not provided interim the proceedings but are granted at the end of the suit being decided on its merits. Section 38 to 42 of the Specific Relief act regulates the provision of a perpetual injunction.
Temporary Injunction: Meaning and object
Temporary injunction is an interlocutory order that temporarily provides the remedy to the party aggrieved by an act performed or nonperformance of an act of an opposite party or would be aggrieved in a non-reproable manner if the opposite party performs the act, or does not perform a particular act. An application for temporary injunction can be instituted by the plaintiff as well as the defendant requiring that party requesting an injunction is aggrieved by the act of other party.
The injunction can only be issued against a party and not to any stranger or third party or non-party. It cannot be issued against a court or judicial officer and, is normally granted only against the person within the jurisdiction of court concerned. “The provision of instituting a suit against third party can only be exercised if, the third party has acquired title through the owner who is party to the suit, and the title is the disputed question in the present suit.”
Rule 1 of the Order 39 under Code of Civil procedure provides us with certain conditions under which court can, by its discretion, provide temporary injunction.
Code of Civil Procedure also provides Section 94(c) which enables the court to, “grant a 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.”
Rule 1 to 5 of Order 39 of the Code specifically regulates temporary injunction.
Order 39(1) provides for the grounds under which an injunction may be granted. The grounds under rule states, “Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-
- that 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
- that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors,
- that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,
the Court may be Order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other Order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further Orders.”
Order 39(2)provides, a court can grants a prohibitory injunction. Prohibitory Injunction restrains the repetition or continuance of breach or from prohibiting the party to perform an act. The provision states that the applicant can, “at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of 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 provision of mandatory injunction is instituted under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, and as defined by Salmond, it is “an order requiring the opposite party to do some positive act for the purpose of putting an end to wrongful state of things created by him, or otherwise in the fulfilment of his legal obligation.” As the word suggests, it creates an obligation on the party to perform a specific act to maintain the same condition.
Its main object is to restore the original condition and not create a new state of things. It is an exceptional remedy which applied only with the safeguard for the prevention of waste, as well as injustice.
Order 39(2A) provides consequence of breach of injunction or order made under Rule 1 and 2. It states that, “the Court granting the injunction or making the Order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may Order the property of the person guilty of suchdisobedience or breach to be attached, and may also Order such person to be 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 or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.”
In the case of Bindu Khan v. Samee Khan, 1988, the court held that, “the punishment of civil imprisonment in the case of violation or disobedience of the order of an injunction of a court is to be awarded ‘in addition to’ and not ‘in lieu of’ or is the alternative of the punishment of attachment of property.”
Order 39(3) talks about providing notice to the opposite party in case of ad-interim ex parte decree and Order 39(3A)disposes of that application within 30 days from the date of granting of an injunction, where an application to the opposite party is not given.
Order39(4) provides with setting aside, discharging, and varied off of order, in case the court is dissatisfied with the order of injunction. This order is a remedy to the opposite party if the injunction such passed is made fraudulently. It provides grounds on which the injunction can be vacated in the interest of justice. Order 39(5) gives us the provision, where the injunction is granted against a corporation, every officer of that corporation is bind by that injunction.
CPC under Order 21 Rule 32 provides power to court for specific performance of an injunction.
Order 39 also talks about ad-interim ex parteinjunctions under Rule 3 of the same order which provides for an interim order made as soon as possible to protect the rights of a party to the suit. The court under this provision can grant immediate injunction without giving notice to the other party by recording the reasons for which this injunction is provided. This provision of ad-interim injunction puts an obligation on the party in whose favor such order is passed to communicate to the other party along with all the relevant documents to the other side by registered post and to file an affidavit stating that, he complied the requirement.
In the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and ors. vs. Nirmala Devi and ors., Supreme Court held that, “the court should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex parte ad interim injunctions. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendant or respondents and only after hearing concern parties appropriate order should be passes.” This obligation on the party receiving ad-interim injunction is to follow the principle of natural justice so that the opposite party does not be aggrieved.
In the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, the supreme court laid down the factors that should weight in the grant of such order.
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) 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;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time and in such circumstances, it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.”
The supreme court also stated in the case of Shiv Kumar v MCD that, “The requirements for recording the reasons for grant of ex-parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality.”
The main object behind granting an injunction is to safeguard a person’s right before passing the final judgement. The primary purpose is the preservation of property (subject matter) in dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court is adjudicated. The court has to always apply its judicial mind while deciding to grant an interim order so that a delicate balance between injury and prejudice is maintained. The grant of injunction is an interim relief is granted to evolve a workable formula that could be applied according to the demand of the situation.
Under Rule 3 A and in the case of Venkatsubbiah Naidu v/s S. Chellappan and ors, 2000, it was held that, “When court grant ad-interim injunction it should be finally decided within thirty days. However, if that application is not decided within thirty days, then also order of ad-interim injunction remain in force. However, court should pass order in writing as to cause of delay failing which it becomes appealable. Then appellate court can change that order with further direction to take appropriate action against that presiding judge of trial court.”
Court should be careful in granting ad-interim injunction as there can be danger of fake pleading or concealment of material facts and even forged documents being relied on to get relief of ad-interim injunction. So, it is desirable to give effects of ad-interim injunction up to a week and court can impose conditions that in case suit is dismissed, the plaintiff or the defendants will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs or mesne profits. The underlying object of granting temporary injunction is to maintain and preserve status quo of the property (subject matter) of the suit, as it was at the beginning of the institution of suit till the final determination of the rights of parties related to the subject matter.
The code of civil procedure and The Specific Relief Act provides with certain grounds in which the injunction may or may not be granted.
A court of law may grant injunction in the following cases:
- Maintenance of status quo;
- Against sale, transfer or assigning suit property;
- Against recovery of dues
- Against demolition of structure;
- Against appointment of receiver;
- Against making further construction;
- Against prosecution;
- Against attachment of property;
- Against holding of dharna, strikes, etc.
A court of law may not grant injunction in the following cases:
- Injunction causing administrative inconvenience;
- restraining a public project to go on;
- resulting in public mischief;
- obstructing election process;
- against recovery of taxes/dues, i.e., collection of revenue
- practically granting final relief;
- avoiding to perform contractual liabilities;
- against criminal prosecution;
- against transfer/suspension of employees;
- against educational institutions;
- interfering with the legislative process, etc.
When the court is satisfied with case of the applicant and grants the injunction, it also considers the interest of the other side. The party in favor of whom the injunction is passes is made accountable for the consequences of such order. Applicant may also be asked to furnish security for the damage or increase in cost of property after the passing of such injunction, which happened due the grant of injunction.
In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Construction Ltd., 1999, the court held that, “stay order or injunction order, if issued, must be molded to provide for restitution.”
Extent, Applicability and Scope of TemporaryInjunction
Granting of temporary injunction is a discretionary power vested to the court and should be treated delicately to preserve the rights of parties. Every court before passing an interim injunction need to consider certain requirements.
In the landmark case of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Case, Apex court held that, “the Court needs to follow certain guidelines while considering an application for grant of temporary injunction, some of which are briefly stated hereunder:
- The applicant seeking relief of temporary injunction shall have to establish a prima facie case in his favor. For this purpose, the Court will not examine the merits of the case rather only the basic facts on which it is established that the applicant has a prima facie case to contest. Thereafter the applicant also has to establish that the allegations / averments made in the application on which the temporary injunction is sought are plausible.
- The court will also examine the conduct of the applicant and such conduct needs to be examined even at the stage where the application for setting aside an order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed.
- The court has to examine the balance of convenience i.e., the balance of comparative loss caused to the applicant and the respondent in the case of not passing the order.
- The court will first of all will examine what is the extent of loss that would be caused to the applicant if the order is not passed and also whether it is reparable by monetary compensation i.e., by payment of cost. Then it will examine the loss suffered by respondent if the order is passed and thereupon it has to see which loss will be greater and irreparable. The party who would suffer greater loss would be said to be having balance of convenience in his favor and accordingly, the court will pass or refuse to pass the order.
- The court has the power also to ask the party to deposit security for compensation or to give an undertaking for the payment of the compensation, if ordered.”
The 3 major tests that the court has to follow while granting injunctions, according to the abovementioned case, are:
- Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case,
- Whether the balance of convenience lies in the favor of applicant, and
- Whether the applicant would suffer an irreparable injury if the interlocutory injunction is not granted.
- The Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors., 1993, observed that “The phrases `prima facie case’, `balance of convenience’ and ‘irreparable loss’ are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by man’s ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The facts rest eloquent and speak for themselves. It is well-nigh impossible to find from the fact’s prima facie case and balance of convenience.”
Prima facie case
The court has an obligation to protect the rights of parties. When an injunction is granted, the court has to make sure that the application made by the aggrieved party requesting for injunction has a prima facie case. Prima facie is a Latin term which in translation means ‘at first sight’. It has to be made in support of the claim made by the party. The court requires to decide that the applicant has a bona fide cause to raise the application and there is an arguable case which could be decided in favor of the applicant.
In the case of Prakash Singh V/s State of Haryana 2002, it was held that, “Prima facie case does not mean that the plaintiff should have a cent percent case which will in all probability succeed in trial. Prima facie case means that the contentions which the plaintiff is raising, require consideration in merit and are not liable to be rejected summarily.”
At the point of considering application of injunction, the court need not focus on determination of matter in dispute. At this stage, the court’s function is not to decide complicated questions of fact and of law which call for detailed arguments and mature considerations.
In the case of Martin Burn ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, the supreme court observed, “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. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record.”
BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE
To measure the balance of convenience, it is necessary to compare case of the parties, comparative inconvenience with respect to the injunction which is likely to cause inconvenience to opposite party. The court must apply this condition to decide whether the balance of convenience is in favor of applicant or not.
The court need to put its judicial discretion into the thought that, if the injunction is refused, will it cause more inconvenience to the applicant that it would to the opposite party if the injunction is granted. If the court finds the convenience in favor of plaintiff, then only would the court grant injunction, otherwise refuse to grant it.
In the landmark case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., the House of Lords observed that, “The object of the interlocutory injunction isto protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which hecould not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action ifthe uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial; but the plaintiff’sneed for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not beadequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if theuncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favor at the trial. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine where ” the balance of” convenience ” lies.”
In the case of Vishal vs. Kataria, 2010, the court held that,“While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide.”
There are many injuries incapable of being repaired but a court of equity does no consider them all as ‘irreparable’. The court interpret this injury in a sense where there cannot be adequate compensation of damages to suffered party. The existence of prima facie case alone does not entitle the applicant for a temporary injunction. The court must be satisfied that, if the injunction is not provided, and in absence of any other remedy, the party will suffer irreparable injury. Granting the injunction is an equitable relief and it is only exercised it is absolutely necessary to protect rights of the applicant.
The house of lords in the case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. pronounced a brief principle that, “the governing principle is that the court should first consider whether if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant’s continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff’s claim appeared to be at that stage. If, on the other hand, damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in the event of his succeeding at the trial, the court should then consider whether, on the contrary hypothesis that the defendant were to succeed at the trial inestablishing his right to do that which was sought to been joined, he would be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s under-taking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from doing so between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in the measure recoverable under such an undertaking would be an adequate remedy and the plaintiff would be in a financial position to pay them, there would be no reason upon this ground to refuse an interlocutory injunction.”
Discretionary power– The abovementioned rules are common guideline for deciding any application of injunction but are not exhaustive nor absolute. The power of court is discretionary and thus the rules can be interpreted by the court in favor of equitable remedy. This also means that even if all the abovementioned rules are satisfied, the court still has power to deny the relief of injunction.
The court also has its discretionary power in rejecting an injunction where an alternative remedy is available to the party and those remedies are efficacious by initiating appeal, revision, etc.
Inherent power– Rule 1 of Order 39 specifies the circumstances where court can grant temporary injunction but they are not bound by those circumstances only.The court by the inherent power provided to the it under Section 151 of CPC can grant temporary injunction where the case is not covered by the Rule 1 of Order 39.
In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, 16 November, 1961, the court observed that, “here is nothing in O. XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, which provide specifically that a temporary injunction is not to be issued in cases which are not mentioned in those rules. The rules only provide that in circumstances mentioned in them the Court may grant a temporary injunction.”
Further, the provisions of s. 151 of the Code make it clear that the inherent powers are not controlled by the provisions of the Code. Section 151 reads:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of the justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”
Remedies and Appeal
O. 39(4) is the remedy to the aggrieved party form the injunction granted. If the party against whom an injunction is passed, is aggrieved by such injunction, he can exercise his powers under Rule 4 of the Order 39. The rule states that, “Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside.
Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:
Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit support such application a part has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice:
Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused under hardship to that party.”
Although the provision of appeal is not specifically mentioned under Order 39 of the code, Order 43(1)(r) provides that appeal may lie from, “an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2A, rule 4 or rule 10 of order XXXIX.”
While deciding whether to approach Order 39(4) or Order 43(1) of the code, The full bench of the apex court in the case of Zila Parishad, Badaun & Ors. v. Brahma Rishi Sharma has held, “that against an ex parte order granting temporary injunction the aggrieved party has two options; either to approach the same court i.e. (Order 39 Rule 4), who had passed ex parte order for any relief or to file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code.”
Justice J. Thomas in the matter ofVenkatsubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and others, 2000, while dealing with similar situation held the following observations,
- “Hence, any order passed in exercise of the aforesaid powers in Rule 1 would be appealable as indicated in Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. The choice is for the party affected by the order either to move the appellate Court or to approach the same Court which passed the ex parte order for any relief.”
- “Under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1,2,2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code.”
- You conclude Rule 1(r) of Order 43 does not say that an appeal shall lie from a final order under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XXXIX. No adequate reason is shown for interpreting the word ‘final’ before ‘order’ in Rule 1 (r). Courts do not ordinarily make additions in enactments. That is a legislative function.
CPC also provides compensation to person aggrieved by the injunction.Section 95(1)(a) provides where injunction was made on insufficient ground, the opposite party may apply to court for award against the applicant, a reasonable compensation not exceeding fifty thousand rupees.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, it can be concluded that, the injunctions may be granted to an aggrieved party to the suit for protection of his rights. It is an equitable remedy and is upon the discretion of the court to grant it or not. The discretion must be upon applying its judicial mind and legal principles. They are not a matter of rights of the party but it cannot be denied by court arbitrarily.
Remedy for the aggrieved and appeal by the opposite party due wrongful apprehension of ground of injunction is instituted under the Code of Civil procedure to meet the ends of justice. Section 95 of the code, acts an assurance to opposite party being wrongfully convicted or harassed due to grant of injunction and protects its rights to maintain justice.
In the case of Bank of India v. Lakshimani Dass and ors, 2000, the only issue related to jurisprudence of the section was decided. It cleared the long-lasting question of Section 95 acting as a bar against the institution of suit of malicious prosecution. The court summarized by stating that, “Section 95 specifically applies in the realm of civil law only.”
The party seeking relief of temporary injunction not only has to establish prima facie case but also an irreparable damage that would be cause in result of denial of injunction and the balance of convenience lies in the favor of applicant.
The case of M. Gurudas and Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan and Ors provides us with rational behind the provision of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It can be summarized as “While considering an application for injunction, the Court would pass an order thereupon having regard to prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury”.
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- The Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Books and articles referred:
- Civil Procedure, limitation and commercial code (9th edition), by C.K. Takwani.
- Presentation on interlocutory orders, by Ms. Komal Kapoor.
- Pollock and Mulla, The Specific Relief Act, 1963, (15th edition).
- Paper on Specific Relief Act by Sanjana Mittal.
- Paper on Injunctions by S.S. Das, District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Amaravati, S.M. Bhosle, District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Amaravati and Ors.
 The Specific Relief Act, 1963. s.38.
 Halsbury’s Laws of England. Lexus nexus. 5th edition V. 11. Civil Procedure.
 The Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Order 39.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Case,AIR 1997 SC 2674
 C.K. Takwani. Civil Procedure, Limitation and Commercial Courts. EBC, 9th Edition. Pg 363, Para4.
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. s.94
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O. 39 R. 1.
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O. 39 R. 2.
 The Specific Relief Act, 1963. s.39.
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O.39 R(2A).
Bindu Khan v. Samee Khan, AIR 1998 SC 2765
 Ramrameshwari Devi and ors. vs. Nirmala Devi and ors, (2011) 8 SCC 249
 Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das,1994 SCC (4) 225
Shiv Kumar v MCD, 1993 (3) SCC 161
Venkatsubbiah Naidu v/s S. Chellappan and ors AIR 2000 SC 3032
 S.S. Das, S.M. Bhosle. “Temporary Injunction”. Maharashtra Journal Academy, Pg. 6.
C.K. Takwani. Civil Procedure, Limitation and Commercial Courts. EBC, 9th Edition. Pg 376, Para3.
C.K. Takwani. Civil Procedure, Limitation and Commercial Courts. EBC, 9th Edition. Pg 377, Para1.
 Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Construction Ltd, 1999 1 SCC 492
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors, 1995 AIR 2372
 S.S. Das, S.M. Bhosle. “Temporary Injunction”. Maharashtra Journal Academy, Pg. 2.
Dalpat Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 276
 Prakash Singh V/s State of Haryana, 2002, 1 SCC 927
 Martin Burn ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee,1958 AIR 79
 S.S. Das, S.M. Bhosle. “Temporary Injunction”. Maharashtra Journal Academy, Pg. 4.
 American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd, 1975 2 WLR 316.
Vishal vs. Kataria, AIR 2010, SC 622.
 American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd, 1975 2 WLR 316
Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, 1962 AIR 527
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O. 38 R. 4.
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O. 43 R. 1.
Zila Parishad, Badaun & Ors. v. Brahma Rishi Sharma AIR 1970 All 376.
Venkatsubbiah Naidu v/s S. Chellappan and ors, AIR 2000 SC 3032
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. s.95.
 Bank of India v. Lakshimani Dass and ors, 2000 3 SCC 640
 M. Gurudas and Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan and Ors, AIR 2006 SC 3275