An injunction is an order of the court gives a direction to a party to the litigation to do or to refrain from doing an act. An injunction looks to the future. The order may restrain the defendant by its owners, directors, employees, or solicitors from doing the prohibited act. Injunctions are granted at the discretion of the Court. The court may grant or refuse this remedy and when remedy by way of damages is a sufficient relief, the injunction will not be granted. In this article, we shall study the principles of ordering temporary injunction.
On the basis of the period for which the injunction is applicable, injunction is classified into two types a) Temporary maintenance and b) Permanent Maintenance. An aggrieved person may seek either temporary or permanent injunctions.
A temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until the further orders of the Court. It is provisional. It is regulated by the provisions of Order 39 (rr 1 and 2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and maybe granted at any stage of the suit. According to Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, “Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific time, or until the further order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).”
Principles of Ordering Temporary Injunction:
The court has got discretionary power to grant a temporary injunction. Discretion should be applied by the court judicially, reasonably, and on sound legal principles.
In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 and Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Lcanco Kondapilli, (2006) 1 SCC 540 cases, the Court held that before granting the temporary injunction the court must satisfy the following aspects
1. Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
2. Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for a temporary injunction is not granted?
3. Whether the balance of (in)convenience is in favour of the plaintiff?
These three principles are considered as “triple test” for grant of interim injunction and can be described as “three pillars” on which every order of injunction rests. Let us discuss these three principles in detail.
In Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2006) 5 Scale 263 case, the Supreme Court has indicated the salient features of prima facie case as under “The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff’s rights by the issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff’s rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant’s rights or likely infringement of the defendant’s rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.”
Prima Facie Case:
The first principle (or condition) is that the applicant (plaintiff or defendant) must make out a prima facie case in support of the right claimed by him. The expression “prima facie” means at the first sight or on the first appearance or on the face of it, or sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted. It implies the probability of the plaintiff obtaining the relief on the materials placed before the Court. Prima facie case must precede an order of injunction. Only when a prima facie case is established that the Court will consider other factors. For the case to be prima facie case following conditions must be satisfied:
1. The Court must be satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute raised by the applicant;
2. there is an arguable case for trial which needs investigation and a decision on merits and on the facts before the Court; and
3. there is a probability of the applicant being entitled to the relief claimed by him.
If the facts are not properly pleaded and they have no relation to the relief sought by the plaintiff, then the only possibility is there that such suit would be liable to be dismissed. In such cases no court can come to conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff.
In Prakash Singh v. State of Haryana 2002 (4) Civil L.J. 71 (P.H.) case, the Court opined that a prima facie case does not mean that the plaintiff should have a cent percent case which will in all probability succeed in the 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.
In Uttara Bank v. Macneill & Kilburn Ltd., 33 DLR case, the Court observed that the burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the court by leading evidence or otherwise that he has a prima facie case in his favour.
In Shiv Shankar Goyal v. Municipal Council, Ajmer, AIR 1997 Raj 176 case, the Court held that every piece of evidence produced by either party has to be taken into consideration deciding the existence of a prima facie case to justify the issuance of a temporary injunction.
In Sanjay Tandon v. Sarabjit Singh, AIR 1997 Del 380 (DB) case, the Court held that while deciding the application under O 39, rr 1 and 2, and to form prima facie view the Court has to see the evidence available on the record.
In Unique Alliance Industries, Goa v. Anupama Agencies, Trichur, AIR 1995 Ker 52 (DB) case, the Court held that the case must be established with sufficient material or proved by affidavit.
In Martin Burn Lt. v. R. N. Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79 case, explaining the ambit and scope of connotation “prima facie” the 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 record.”
In Kashi Nath Samsthan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, AIR 2012 SC 296 case, the Court held that if the applicant fails to prove prima facie case, he is not entitled to a temporary injunction.
Irreparable Injury:
The second important thing the plaintiff has to prove that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction as prayed is not granted, and there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect himself from the consequences of apprehended injury.
In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 case, the Court opined that an injury will be regarded as irreparable where there exists no specific or fixed pecuniary standard for measuring damages.
In American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., (1975) 2 WLR 316 case, Lord Diplock observed: “The object of the interlocutory injunction is 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, but the plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the 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 be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.”
In Multichannel (India) Ltd. Mumbai v. Kavitalaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, AIR 1999 Mad 59 case, the court observed that an injunction will not be granted where the plaintiff has a remedy by way of damage. The injury must be irreparable and it must be continuous. By the term ‘irreparable injury’ is meant injury which is substantial and could never be adequately remedied or atoned for by damages, injury which cannot possibly be repaired.
In Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Satyanarayan Singh, (1974) 40 Cut LT 336 case, the court observed: ‘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 the injunction was refused.
In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995) 3 SCC 33 case, the Court held that where both sides are exposed to irreparable injury pending trial, the court has to strike a just balance.
Balance of in(Convenience):
The principle of balance of convenience is the third mandatory condition to be satisfied before the order of injunction is issued. The plaintiff should establish that the balance of convenience in the event of withholding the relief of temporary injunction will all event, exceed that of the defendant in case he is restrained. The court should issue an injunction where the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and not where the balance is in favour of the opposite party.
In Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Satyanarayan Singh, (1974) 40 Cut LT 336 case the Court observed: ‘Balance of convenience’ means the comparative mischief or inconvenience to the parties. The inconvenience to the plaintiff, if a temporary injunction is refused, would be balanced and compared with that to the defendant if it is granted. If the scale of inconvenience leans to the side of the plaintiff, then the interlocutory injunction alone should be granted.
Thus it is weighing of inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted with inconvenience to the defendant if the injunction is granted.
In Yogesh Agarwal v. Sri. Rajendra Goyel, 2014(3) ARC 427 case, the Court held that the court must be satisfied that the comparative mischief, hardship or the inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing injunction will be greater than that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it.
In Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. V. Kirloskar Proprietory Ltd., AIR 1996 Bom 149 case, the Court opined that the principle of balance of convenience applies when the scales are evenly balanced.
In Bikash Chandra Deb v. Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (1) CHN 582 case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court observed that issue of balance of convenience, it is to be noted that the Court shall lean in favour of the introduction of the concept of balance of convenience, but does not mean and imply that the balance would be on one side and not in favour of the other. There must be a proper balance between the parties and the balance cannot be a one-sided affair.
In Media Transasia India Ltd. V. Indian Airlines Ltd., AIR 2003 Del 27 case, where there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, giving the rights to the plaintiff to circulate their magazine on board of defendant’s airline’s flights. There was no negative covenant forbidding the defendant from other in-flight magazines on its flight. The plaintiff plaint was seeking an injunction order against the defendant to stop the circulation of other magazines on board of defendant’s flights. The Court held that balance of convenience and irreparable injury is not in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the plea of the injunction order.
In Sneh Lata Mathur v. Brij Raj Bahadur, AIR 2003 Del 259 case, where an aged widow lady is prima facie in possession of suit house as established by the documentary evidence and she was dispossessed by practicing deceit, the Court opined that she would suffer irreparable injury if the grant of a mandatory injunction is refused.
Conclusion:
A temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until the further orders of the Court. It is provisional. It is regulated by the provisions of Order 39 (rr 1 and 2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But the granting of injunction comes under discretionary power of the Court. The Court has to understand the facts under the principles of granting of the temporary injunction and when the facts are such that they satisfy these principles, then only temporary injunction can be ordered by the Court.
In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276 case, the Supreme Court explained the scope of aforesaid material circumstances, but observed as under: “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 facts prima facie case and balance of convenience.”